Vol. 79 Wednesday, 

No. 53 March 19, 2014 

Part III 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 170 

Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions; Proposed 

Rule 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15444 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 170 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0184; FRL–9395–8] 

RIN 2070–AJ22 

Pesticides; Agricultural Worker 

Protection Standard Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing updates and 

revisions to the existing worker 

protection regulation for pesticides. The 

proposed changes are in response to 

extensive stakeholder review of the 

regulation and its implementation since 

1992, and reflect current research on 

how to mitigate occupational pesticide 

exposure to agricultural workers and 

pesticide handlers. EPA is proposing to 

strengthen the protections provided to 

agricultural workers and handlers under 

the worker protection standard by 

improving elements of the existing 

regulation, such as training, notification, 

communication materials, use of 

personal protective equipment, and 

decontamination supplies. EPA expects 

the revisions, once final, to prevent 

unreasonable adverse effects from 

exposure to pesticides among 

agricultural workers and pesticide 

handlers; vulnerable groups, such as 

minority and low-income populations, 

child farmworkers, and farmworker 

families; and the general public. EPA 

recognizes the importance and 

independence of family farms and is 

proposing to expand the immediate 

family exemption to the WPS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 17, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0184, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), Mail code: 28221T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. In addition, please mail a 

copy of your comments on the 

information collection provisions to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 

17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm. 

Additional instructions on commenting 

or visiting the docket, along with more 

information about dockets generally, is 

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

dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathy Davis, Field and External Affairs 

Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 308–7002; fax number: (703) 308– 

2962; email address: davis.kathy@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you work in or employ 

persons working in production 

agriculture where pesticides are 

applied. 

The following list of North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

to help readers determine whether this 

document applies to them. Potentially 

affected entities may include: 

• Agricultural Establishments (NAICS 

code 111000), establishments or 

persons, such as farms, orchards, groves, 

greenhouses, and nurseries, primarily 

engaged in growing crops, plants, vines, 

or trees and their seeds. 

• Nursery and Tree Production 

(NAICS code 111421), e.g., 

establishments or persons primarily 

engaged in (1) growing nursery 

products, nursery stock, shrubbery, 

bulbs, fruit stock, sod, and so forth, 

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

growing short rotation woody trees with 

a growth and harvest cycle of 10 years 

or less for pulp or tree stock. 

• Timber Tract Operations (NAICS 

code 113110), e.g., establishments or 

persons primarily engaged in the 

operation of timber tracts for the 

purpose of selling standing timber. 

Forest Nurseries and Gathering of Forest 

Products (NAICS code 113210), e.g., 

establishments or persons primarily 

engaged in (1) growing trees for 

reforestation and/or (2) gathering forest 

products, such as gums, barks, balsam 

needles, rhizomes, fibers, Spanish moss, 

ginseng, and truffles. 

• Farm Labor Contractors and Crew 

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

establishments or persons primarily 

engaged in supplying labor for 

agricultural production or harvesting. 

• Farm Workers (NAICS codes 11511, 

115112, and 115114), e.g., 

establishments or persons primarily 

engaged in providing support activities 

for growing crops; establishments or 

persons primarily engaged in 

performing a soil preparation activity or 

crop production service, such as 

plowing, fertilizing, seed bed 

preparation, planting, cultivating, and 

crop protecting services; and 

establishments or persons primarily 

engaged in performing services on 

crops, subsequent to their harvest, with 

the intent of preparing them for market 

or further processing. 

• Pesticide Manufacturers (NAICS 

code 325320), e.g., establishments 

primarily engaged in the formulation 

and preparation of agricultural and 

household pest control chemicals 

(except fertilizers). 

• Farm Worker Support Organizations 

(NAICS codes 813311, 813312, and 

813319), e.g., establishments or persons 

primarily engaged in promoting causes 

associated with human rights either for 

a broad or specific constituency; 

establishments or persons primarily 

engaged in promoting the preservation 

and protection of the environment and 

wildlife; and establishments primarily 

engaged in social advocacy. 

• Farm Worker Labor Organizations 

(NAICS code 813930), e.g., 

establishments or persons primarily 

engaged in promoting the interests of 

organized labor and union employees. 

• Pesticide Handling in Forestry 

(NAICS code 115310), e.g., 

establishments or persons primarily 

providing support activities for forestry, 

such as forest pest control. 

• Administration of Conservation 

Programs (NAICS code 924120), e.g., 

government establishments primarily 

engaged in the administration, 

regulation, supervision and control of 

land use, including recreational areas; 

conservation and preservation of natural 

resources; erosion control; geological 

survey program administration; weather 

forecasting program administration; and 

the administration and protection of 

publicly and privately owned forest 

lands. Government establishments 

responsible for planning, management, 

regulation and conservation of game, 

fish, and wildlife populations, including 

wildlife management areas and field 

stations; and other administrative 

matters relating to the protection of fish, 

game, and wildlife are included in this 

industry. 

• Pesticide Handling on Farms 

(NAICS code 115112), e.g., 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15445 

establishments or persons primarily 

engaged in performing a soil preparation 

activity or crop production service, such 

as seed bed preparation, planting, 

cultivating, and crop protecting 

services. 

• Crop Advisors (NAICS codes 

115112, 541690, 541712) e.g., 

establishments or persons who 

primarily provide advice and assistance 

to businesses and other organizations on 

scientific and technical issues related to 

pesticide use and pest pressure. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

i. Identify the document by docket ID 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

A. Executive Summary 

1. Purpose of the regulatory action. 

The Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA or the Agency) proposes to revise 

the existing Worker Protection Standard 

(WPS) at 40 CFR part 170 to reduce the 

incidence of occupational pesticide 

exposure and related illness among 

agricultural workers (workers) and 

pesticide handlers (handlers) covered by 

the rule. This regulation, in combination 

with other components of EPA’s 

pesticide regulatory program, is 

intended to prevent unreasonable 

adverse effects of pesticides among 

pesticide applicators, workers, handlers, 

the general public, and vulnerable 

groups, such as minority and lowincome populations. 

2. Summary of the major provisions. 

This proposal revises the existing WPS 

in several areas: Training, notification, 

hazard communication, minimum age, 

and personal protective equipment. The 

key changes are described below. 

For training, the proposal requires 

employers to ensure that workers and 

handlers receive pesticide safety 

training every year. The content of the 

training is expanded to include how to 

reduce take-home exposure to 

pesticides, as well as other topics. 

Employers are required to retain records 

of the training provided to workers and 

handlers for 2 years from the date of 

training. 

For notification, the proposal requires 

employers to post treated areas when 

the product used has a restricted-entry 

interval (REI) greater than 48 hours. It 

also requires that workers performing 

early-entry tasks, i.e., entering a treated 

area when an REI is in effect, receive 

information about the pesticide used in 

the area where they will work, the 

specific task(s) to be performed, and the 

amount of time the worker may remain 

in the treated area. Finally, the proposal 

requires employers to keep a record of 

the information provided to workers 

performing early-entry tasks. 

For hazard communication, the 

proposal eliminates the requirement for 

a central display of pesticide 

application-specific information. The 

proposal requires the employer to 

maintain and make available upon 

request the pesticide applicationspecific information, as well as the 

labeling and safety data sheets for 

pesticides used on the establishment for 

2 years. 

For minimum age, the proposal 

requires that handlers and workers 

performing early-entry tasks be at least 

16 years old. This minimum age does 

not apply to immediate family members 

working on an establishment owned by 

another immediate family member. 

For personal protective equipment 

(PPE), the proposal adopts the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act 

requirements for respirator use by 

handlers, i.e., fit test, medical 

evaluation, and training. In addition, the 

proposal adopts the existing California 

standard for closed systems. 

3. Costs and impacts. Under section 

3(f)(4) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735; October 4, 1993), this action is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because 

it may raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this 

proposed rulemaking to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 (76 FR 3821; January 21, 

2011), and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the public 

docket for this action. 

EPA has prepared an analysis of the 

potential costs and impacts associated 

with this rulemaking. This analysis is 

summarized in greater detail in Unit 

II.G. of this proposal. The following 

chart provides a brief outline of the 

costs and impacts of this proposal: 

Category Description Source 

Monetized Benefits Avoided acute pesticide incidents.$5–14 million/year after adjustment for underreporting of pesticide incidents EA Chapter 6.5. 

Qualitative Benefits ........................................... • Willingness to pay to avoid acute effects of pesticide exposure beyond 

cost of treatment and loss of productivity.

• Reduced latent effect of avoided acute pesticide exposure 

• Reduced chronic effects from lower chronic pesticide exposure to workers, 

handlers, and farmworker families, including a range of illnesses such as 

Non-Hodgkins lymphoma, prostate cancer, Parkinson’s disease, lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, and asthma.

EA Chapter 6. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15446 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Category Description Source 

Monetized Costs ............................................... $62–73 million/year ........................................................................................... EA Chapter 5.2. 

Small Business Impacts ................................... No significant impact on a substantial number of small entities ......................

• The rulemaking will affect over 300,000 small farms, nurseries, and greenhouses and several hundred small commercial entities that are contracted 

to apply pesticides.

• Impact less than 0.1% of the annual value of sales or revenues for the average small entity.

EA Chapter 5.4. 

Impact on Jobs ................................................. The rulemaking will have a negligible effect on jobs and employment ............

• The marginal cost of a typical farmworker is expected to increase $5/year 

• The marginal cost for a more skilled pesticide handler is expected to increase by $60 per year, but this is less than 0.3 percent of the cost of a 

part-time employee.

EA Chapter 5.3. 

B. What action is the Agency taking? 

The WPS is a regulation intended to 

reduce the risks of injury or illness 

resulting from agricultural workers’ and 

handlers’ use and contact with 

pesticides on farms, forests, nurseries 

and greenhouses. The rule does not 

cover persons working directly with 

livestock. The existing regulation has 

provisions for employers to provide 

workers and handlers with pesticide 

safety training, posting and notification 

of treated areas, entry restrictions, and 

PPE for workers who enter treated areas 

after pesticide application to perform 

crop-related tasks, as well as for 

handlers who mix, load, and apply 

pesticides. The rule was promulgated in 

1992 and implementation was delayed 

until 1995. 

The changes in this proposed revision 

of the WPS are intended to address 

shortcomings in the current regulations, 

such as: 

• Absence of a minimum age for 

handlers of pesticides and agricultural 

workers engaged in early-entry 

activities, 

• Inadequate hazard communication 

provisions, 

• Insufficient training of agricultural 

workers before they face potential 

pesticide exposure, 

• Unclear requirements regarding the 

decontamination supplies the WPS 

requires employers to provide, and 

• Insufficient recordkeeping to verify 

compliance with regulations. 

EPA believes that the proposed 

changes offer targeted improvements 

that would reduce risk through 

protective requirements and improve 

operational efficiencies. EPA expects 

the proposed changes to: 

• Improve effectiveness of worker and 

handler training, 

• Improve protections to workers 

during restricted-entry intervals (REIs), 

• Improve protections for workers 

during and after pesticide applications, 

• Expand the information provided to 

workers, thus improving hazard 

communication protections, 

• Expand the content of pesticide 

safety information displayed, thus 

improving the display’s effectiveness, 

• Improve the protections for crop 

advisor employees, 

• Increase the amounts of 

decontamination water available, thus 

improving the effectiveness of the 

decontamination process, 

• Improve the emergency response 

when workers experience pesticide 

exposures, 

• Improve the organization of the 

WPS, thus improving employers’ ability 

to understand and comply with the 

provisions, 

• Clarify the coverage of the WPS to 

those employed and receiving a salary 

or wage to ensure protection for 

occupational pesticide workers, 

• Protect children by establishing a 

minimum age for handlers and for 

workers who enter a treated area during 

an REI while maintaining an exemption 

to the minimum age requirement for 

children working on the establishment 

of an immediately family member, and 

• Improve flexibility for small farmers 

and members of their immediate family 

by expanding the definition of 

immediate family members to be more 

inclusive and retaining the exemptions 

from almost all WPS requirements for 

owners and their immediate family 

members. 

C. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

This action is issued under the 

authority of sections 2 through 35 of the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

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

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

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

D. Related Rulemaking 

EPA is also considering a proposed 

rule to amend 40 CFR part 171, titled 

‘‘Certification of Pesticide Applicators.’’ 

Since parts 170 and 171, along with 

other components of the pesticide 

program, work together to reduce and 

prevent unreasonable adverse effects to 

pesticides, EPA may use any comments 

received on the proposed amendments 

to part 171 when formulating a final 

rule to amend the current WPS at part 

170. 

E. Benefits of the Proposal 

The proposed changes to the current 

WPS requirements are expected to lead 

to an overall reduction in incidents of 

unsafe pesticide exposure and to 

improve the occupational health of the 

nation’s agricultural workers and 

pesticide handlers. This section 

provides an overview of the qualitative 

benefits of the proposal and the 

estimated benefits that would accrue 

from avoiding acute pesticide exposure 

in the population protected by the WPS. 

It also provides an estimate of the 

number of chronic illnesses with a 

plausible association with pesticide 

exposure that would have to be 

prevented by the proposed changes in 

order for the total estimated benefits to 

meet the estimated cost of the proposal. 

A sizeable portion of the agricultural 

workforce may be exposed 

occupationally to pesticides and 

pesticide residues. These exposures can 

pose significant long- and short-term 

health risks. It is difficult to quantify a 

specific level of risk and project the risk 

reduction that would result from this 

proposal because workers and handlers 

are potentially exposed to a wide range 

of pesticides with varying toxicities and 

risks. However, there is strong evidence 

that workers and handlers may be 

exposed to pesticides at levels that can 

cause adverse effects and that both the 

exposures and the risks can be 

substantially reduced. EPA believes the 

provisions in the proposed rule would 

reduce pesticide exposures and the 

associated risks. 

The estimated quantified benefits 

from reducing acute worker and handler 

exposure to pesticides total about $11.4 

million annually (Ref. 1). This 

conservative estimate includes only the 

avoided costs in medical care and lost 

productivity to workers and handlers 

and assumes that just 25% of acute 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15447 

pesticide incidents are reported. It does 

not include quantification of the 

reduction in chronic effects of pesticide 

exposure to workers and handlers, 

reduced effects of exposure including 

developmental impacts, to children and 

pregnant workers and handlers or 

willingness to pay to avoid symptoms of 

pesticide exposure. Because the chronic 

effects of pesticide exposures are 

seldom attributable to a specific cause, 

and thus are unlikely to be recorded in 

pesticide poisoning databases, EPA is 

not able to quantify the benefits 

expected to accrue from proposed WPS 

changes that would reduce chronic 

exposure to pesticides. However, 

associations between pesticide exposure 

and certain cancer and non-cancer 

chronic health effects are well 

documented in the peer-reviewed 

literature, and reducing these chronic 

health effects is an important FIFRA 

goal. 

Even if the lack of quantitative data 

impairs the reliability of estimates of the 

total number of chronic illnesses 

avoided, it is reasonable to expect that 

the proposed changes to the WPS will 

reduce the incidence of chronic disease 

resulting from pesticide exposure. 

Therefore, EPA conducted a ‘‘break 

even’’ analysis to consider the 

plausibility of the proposed changes to 

the WPS reducing the incidence of 

chronic disease enough to cause the net 

benefits of the proposed rule to exceed 

its anticipated costs. Under this 

analysis, EPA looked at the costs 

associated with non-Hodgkin’s 

lymphoma, prostate cancer, Parkinson’s 

disease, lung cancer, bronchitis, and 

asthma and their frequency among 

agricultural workers, and found that 

reducing the incidence of lung cancer 

by 0.08% and the incidence of the other 

chronic diseases by 0.8% per year 

(about 53 total cases per year among the 

population of workers and handlers 

protected under the WPS) would 

produce quantified benefits sufficient to 

bridge the gap between the quantified 

benefits from reducing acute incidents 

and the $62.1 million to $72.9 million 

cost of the proposed rule. Overall, the 

weight of evidence suggests that the 

proposed requirements would result in 

long-term health benefits to agricultural 

workers and pesticide handlers in 

excess of the less than 1% reduction in 

just six diseases that corresponds with 

the break-even point for the proposed 

rule, not only by reducing their daily 

risk of pesticide exposures, but also by 

improving quality of life throughout 

their lives, resulting in a lower cost of 

health care and a healthier society. 

The proposed changes to the current 

WPS requirements, specifically 

improved training on reducing pesticide 

residues brought from the treated area to 

the home on workers and handlers’ 

clothing and bodies and establishing a 

minimum age for handlers and early 

entry workers, other than those covered 

by the immediate family exemption, 

mitigate the potential for children to be 

exposed to pesticides directly and 

indirectly. The unquantified benefit to 

adolescent workers and handlers, as 

well as children of workers and 

handlers is great; reducing exposure to 

pesticides could translate into fewer 

sick days, fewer days missed of school, 

improved capacity to learn, and better 

long-term health. Parents and caregivers 

reap benefits by having healthier 

families, fewer missed workdays, and 

better quality of life. 

By proposing several interrelated 

exposure-reduction measures, the 

revised rule is expected to mitigate 

approximately 56% of reported acute 

WPS-related pesticide incidents. EPA 

believes the proposed rule would 

substantially mitigate for these workers 

and handlers the potential for adverse 

health effects (acute and chronic) from 

occupational exposures to such 

pesticides and their residues. These 

measures include requirements 

intended to reduce exposure by: 

• Ensuring that workers and handlers 

are informed about the hazards of 

pesticides—the proposed rule changes 

the content and frequency of required 

pesticide safety training, as well as 

proposing changes to ensure that the 

pesticide safety training is more 

effective. 

• Reducing exposure to pesticides— 

among other things, the proposed rule 

changes and clarifies the requirements 

for personal protective equipment. It 

also makes changes to the timing of 

applications when people are nearby. 

These and other provisions should 

directly reduce exposure in the 

agricultural workforce. 

• Mitigating the effects from 

exposures that occur—some accidental 

exposures are inevitable. EPA expects 

the proposed rule to mitigate the 

severity of health impacts by updating 

and clarifying what is required to 

respond to exposures. 

Further detail on the benefits of this 

proposal is provided in the document 

titled ‘‘Economic Analysis of Proposed 

Revisions to the Worker Protection 

Standard’’ which is available in the 

docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 1). The 

following briefly highlights the 

anticipated benefits: 

1. Reduce incidents of exposure and 

illness through: 

a. Expanded and more frequent 

training for workers and handlers. 

EPA’s current requirement for training 

workers and handlers fails to address or 

to highlight the importance of some selfprotective practices, such as reducing 

pesticide exposure to workers, handlers, 

and their families by avoiding bringing 

pesticide residues home on clothing, 

shoes, or skin. The existing regulation 

requires employers to provide training 

every 5 years. The proposed rule, if 

finalized, would expand the content of 

the training, increase the frequency of 

training to every year, and set higher 

standards for trainers. Providing 

workers and handlers with information 

on reducing pesticide exposure in a 

manner they understand, e.g., in a 

language they speak and at an 

appropriate education level, and at 

intervals more likely to result in 

retention of the information, would 

benefit workers and handlers. Thus, 

EPA believes the proposed rule would 

reduce overall pesticide exposure 

among workers, handlers, and their 

families. 

b. Improved posting of pesticidetreated areas. The current WPS allows 

growers to provide either an oral or 

posted warning to workers about which 

areas have been treated with a pesticide 

and are under an REI unless the 

pesticide label requires both an oral and 

posted warning. Many of the 

occupational pesticide illnesses 

reported to state health agencies have 

occurred when workers entered a 

treated area before the REI expired. The 

proposed regulation would require 

posting of all treated areas with an REI 

of greater than 48 hours, providing a 

visual reminder to workers not to enter 

the specific pesticide-treated area 

without proper protection. 

c. Additional information before 

entering a pesticide-treated area under 

an REI. As mentioned above, many 

incidents of pesticide exposure among 

workers result from entering an area 

while an REI is in effect. The proposed 

rule would require that worker training 

include information about the limited 

circumstances in which workers may 

enter a treated area under an REI, the 

hazards workers may face, and that the 

employer must provide the proper PPE. 

Employers would also have to inform 

workers entering a treated area under an 

REI about the conditions under which 

they enter the treated area and the 

maximum time they are permitted to 

stay in the treated area. Providing 

workers with general information about 

working in a treated area under an REI 

as well as with specific information 

about the circumstances of each 

instance should make them aware of the 

elevated risks and the steps necessary to 

protect themselves. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15448 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

d. Access to more information about 

chemical hazards in the workplace. The 

current WPS requires the employer to 

maintain records of what pesticides 

have been used or have had an REI in 

effect on the establishment in the last 30 

days. The employer must provide the 

name of the pesticide, EPA registration 

number, and other general information 

at a central location on the 

establishment. The proposed rule would 

require employers to maintain a copy of 

pesticide labeling, the application 

records, and the Safety Data Sheet (SDS, 

formerly known as Material Safety Data 

Sheet, or MSDS), as well as the 

information currently required under 

the WPS, for 2 years after the product 

was applied on the establishment. The 

employer would be required to provide 

this information upon request and to 

ensure that health care providers 

treating a worker or handler who was 

exposed on the establishment receive a 

copy of this information. The more 

specific information required, longer 

retention period, and provision to 

provide additional information to health 

care providers should assist the health 

care provider in determining the 

specific types of pesticides to which a 

worker or handler may have been 

exposed and in more effectively treating 

the injured person. 

e. Strengthened requirements for 

handlers during applications. The risk 

of illness resulting from exposure to 

pesticides through drift is largely borne 

by agricultural workers. A recent study 

estimates that 37% to 68% of acute 

pesticide-related illnesses in 

agricultural workers are caused by spray 

drift (Ref. 2). The proposed rule would 

require handlers to immediately stop an 

application if, during the application, 

anyone other than a properly equipped 

handler enters the entry-restricted area 

or the area treated with pesticides. This, 

together with the proposal to create 

entry-restricted areas around the treated 

area for farms, forests and nurseries, is 

expected to result in reduced incidents 

of worker exposure through 

unintentional contact during 

application or through drift. 

2. Strengthen protection for children 

through: 

a. Implementing a minimum age of 16 

for handlers and early-entry workers. 

The current WPS does not have a 

minimum age for handlers or early-entry 

workers. These tasks involve contact 

with concentrated forms of pesticides, 

applying pesticides, or entering 

pesticide-treated areas before the REI 

has expired. Children may be more 

susceptible to the effects of pesticide 

exposure because their systems are 

developing, and research shows that 

adolescents have not fully developed 

informed decisionmaking skills. The 

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 

establishes a minimum age of 16 for 

youth engaged in occupations deemed 

hazardous by the Secretary of Labor (29 

U.S.C. 213(c)(2)). This includes persons 

handling toxicity category I and II 

pesticides in agriculture 29 CFR 

570.71(a)(9). The FLSA prohibits youth 

under the age of 16 engaged in 

nonagricultural employment from any 

work involving pesticides. 

Implementing a requirement for 

handlers and early-entry workers to be 

at least 16 years old would ensure that 

all persons handling pesticides, 

regardless of the toxicity level, are 

protected, thereby reducing their overall 

risk of pesticide exposure and illness. 

Persons under the age of 16 working on 

the establishment owned by an 

immediate family member would be 

exempt from the proposed minimum 

age requirements. 

b. Improving training for workers and 

handlers on reducing take-home 

pesticide exposure. The current WPS 

training does not provide specific 

information on how workers and 

handlers can minimize the possibility 

for transferring pesticide residues from 

their clothing, bodies, and shoes to their 

homes, vehicles, and family members. 

Although studies documenting the 

effects of take-home pesticide exposure 

are not conclusive, EPA has a 

reasonable concern about the potential 

for unreasonable adverse effects caused 

by exposure to workers, handlers, and 

their families. The proposed modest 

addition to training would educate 

workers and handlers on how to protect 

themselves and their families from takehome pesticide exposure. 

3. Reduce some burdens on growers 

by: 

a. Eliminating duplicative respirator 

requirements. Agricultural worker and 

handler employers may also be subject 

to regulations issued by other federal 

agencies, such as the Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA). The current WPS standard for 

proper use and maintenance of a 

respirator differs from the standard 

established by OSHA. The proposed 

rule harmonizes the requirements for 

agricultural employers that may be 

required to provide a respirator for their 

employees using pesticides under the 

WPS with those issued by OSHA for 

respirator use in agriculture beyond 

pesticide use in order to reduce the 

burden on employers to comply with 

two separate standards. 

b. Providing a national mechanism to 

verify worker and handler training. 

Under the current WPS employers may 

be uncertain about what measures they 

must take to verify whether a worker or 

handler has already received the 

required pesticide safety training on 

another establishment. EPA administers 

a voluntary training verification system, 

but it is not used nation-wide or 

consistently. As a result, many 

employers provide pesticide safety 

training to all new employees. The 

proposed revisions include a provision 

for the employer to provide the worker 

or handler with a copy of the record of 

the training, including worker or 

handler name, employer, trainer name, 

and date of training. Workers and 

handlers can provide this record to their 

next employer as proof of valid training 

and for the new employer to maintain 

a copy in his or her records. EPA 

believes a reliable training verification 

system will reduce overall burden on 

agricultural and handler employers. 

c. Streamlining notification 

requirements between handler 

employers and agricultural 

establishment employers. Under the 

current WPS, handler employers are 

required to notify the owner of the 

agricultural establishment about the 

start and end time of applications, as 

well as changes to the application start 

time and end time or application 

duration, before the application begins. 

The proposed changes would require 

handlers or their employers to provide 

changes to pesticide application plans 

to the agricultural employer within 2 

hours of the end of the application 

rather than before the application. 

Changes to the estimated application 

end time of less than one hour would 

not require notification. 

d. Improving clarity of the regulation. 

The Agency proposes to revise and 

reorganize the WPS to enhance the 

ability of employers to understand their 

responsibilities under the regulation, 

which could lead to increased 

compliance with the rule. The proposed 

rule, if finalized, would reorganize the 

rule into four sections: (1) General 

requirements, (2) responsibilities of 

agricultural employers, (3) 

responsibilities of handler employers, 

and (4) exceptions. Employers’ greater 

understanding and compliance with the 

WPS would ensure that workers and 

handlers are provided with the 

information and equipment they need to 

protect themselves. In turn, this should 

contribute to reduced incidents of 

unreasonable adverse effects from 

pesticide exposure. 

F. Request for Comments 

The Agency invites the public to 

provide its views and suggestions for 

changes on all of the proposals in this 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15449 

document. Specifically, the Agency 

requests the public to consider and 

provide input on the following when 

providing comments: 

• The need for, value of, and any 

alternatives to the requirements 

described in this document. 

• The studies and scientific articles 

used as the basis of this proposed rule. 

• The clarity of the proposed 

revisions. 

• The ability to effectively enforce the 

proposed regulation. 

• The economic analysis of the 

proposed rule, including its underlying 

assumptions, economic data, high- and 

low-cost options and alternatives, and 

benefits. 

Additionally, in other parts of this 

proposed rule, EPA is specifically 

requesting comments on certain issues. 

EPA welcomes comments on these 

topics of particular interest to the 

Agency. 

Commenters are encouraged to 

present any data or information that 

should be considered by EPA during the 

development of the final rule. Describe 

any assumptions and provide any 

technical information and data used in 

preparing your comments. Explain 

evaluations or estimates in sufficient 

detail to allow for them to be 

reproduced for validation. Commenters 

are reminded that the submission of 

data derived from human research 

should include information concerning 

the ethical conduct of such research, in 

compliance with the requirements at 40 

CFR 26.1303. 

G. Reasons for The Proposed Action 

The WPS is more than 20 years old 

and EPA believes it can be improved. 

Since the late 1990s, EPA has engaged 

a wide range of stakeholders to evaluate 

the effectiveness of the WPS and to 

determine if improvements are 

necessary. EPA met with groups 

including, but not limited to, 

farmworker organizations, health care 

providers, state regulators, pesticide 

manufacturers, farmers, organizations 

representing agricultural commodity 

producers, and crop advisors. Through 

public meetings and federal advisory 

committees, and as individuals and 

small groups, a broad spectrum of 

stakeholders provided 

recommendations to EPA. Many of the 

proposed changes address their 

recommendations and concerns. 

EPA has also reviewed available 

information about occupational 

pesticide exposure in agriculture. The 

Agency’s review of these reports 

indicates that many incidents might 

have been avoided if workers and 

handlers had better training, were better 

notified of treated areas, and used PPE 

properly when required. For example, 

workers became ill after entering a 

treated area before the REI expired or 

without wearing the proper equipment, 

and through drift from a nearby 

pesticide application. EPA believes 

these types of incidents could be 

significantly reduced by enhancing the 

training for workers and handlers and 

strengthening provisions of the 

regulation designed to keep workers and 

handlers out of pesticide-treated areas 

unless they have the proper information 

and PPE. 

The great majority of agricultural 

workers and handlers are 

disadvantaged. The National 

Agricultural Worker Survey (NAWS) 

data indicate the median family income 

range was $12,500–$14,999, many do 

not speak English and are not literate in 

their native language, and workers face 

challenges accessing health care and 

housing (Ref. 3). Workers and handlers 

experience risks from occupational 

pesticide exposure that are greater than 

those faced by the general population 

because workers and handlers work 

with and around pesticides on a daily 

basis, and language and literacy barriers 

make effective hazard communication a 

challenge. EPA is paying special 

attention to the disproportionate burden 

or risk carried by this disadvantaged 

community. The proposed rule as a 

whole addresses many worker safety 

concerns; throughout this document the 

environmental justice concerns relative 

to specific changes will be highlighted. 

In conjunction with various nonregulatory programs, the WPS 

requirements are intended, among other 

things, to reduce the risks of illness or 

injury to workers and handlers resulting 

from occupational exposure to 

pesticides on agricultural 

establishments. Broadly speaking, the 

WPS provisions are meant to (1) inform 

workers and handlers about the hazards 

and risks from pesticides they use or to 

which they come into contact in the 

workplace, (2) protect workers and 

handlers from occupational exposure to 

pesticides and the potential adverse 

effects of pesticides, and (3) mitigate the 

potential adverse effects of unavoidable 

pesticide exposure, including accidents. 

Within these categories, EPA evaluated 

the costs and benefits of alternative 

requirements and is proposing a set of 

requirements that, in combination, is 

expected to achieve substantial benefits 

at minimum cost. 

The overall costs of the proposal 

range from $62.1 to $72.9 million 

annually. These costs would be borne 

almost entirely by agricultural 

establishments, those who employ 

workers and handlers and use 

pesticides. Although the cost per 

establishment will vary by the number 

and type of employees, EPA estimates 

that the annual cost to large 

establishments would be $340 to $400 

per year. Small establishments would 

incur a lower cost of $130 to $150 per 

year, which amounts to less than 0.1 

percent of their annual revenue. 

Presented differently, the additional 

cost of employing a worker is estimated 

at less than $5 per year and the 

additional cost of employing a handler 

is estimated at about $60 per year. EPA 

does not believe the cost of the 

regulation will have a negative impact 

on employment. 

The proposal, if finalized, would 

reduce the disproportionate risks 

associated with occupational pesticide 

exposure that currently fall on workers, 

handlers, and their families. 

Agricultural and handler employers are 

the group responsible for, and that 

benefit from, pesticide application on 

their establishments. Therefore, EPA 

believes it is appropriate for these 

employers to bear the cost of the 

protections for their employees, rather 

than to impose the costs on workers and 

handlers themselves. Through the WPS 

and these proposals, EPA seeks to have 

those responsible for making pesticide 

use decisions and applying pesticides 

internalize the effects of their decisions. 

This would minimize the externalities, 

i.e., undesirable or unintended 

consequences of decisions that result in 

negative consequences for other parties, 

to workers and handlers. 

The benefits of the proposed rule 

primarily accrue to workers, handlers 

and, indirectly, to their families. EPA 

estimates the quantitative value of 

avoided acute incidents as a result of 

the proposed rule to be between $1.2 

million to $2.8 million annually (Ref. 1). 

However, EPA recognizes that this 

estimate is biased downward by an 

unknown degree. First, pesticide 

incidents, like many illnesses and 

accidents, are underreported because 

sufferers may not seek medical care, 

cases may not be correctly diagnosed, 

and correctly diagnosed cases may not 

be filed with the central reporting 

database. Also, many symptoms of 

pesticide poisoning, such as a fatigue, 

nausea, rash, dizziness, and diarrhea, 

may be confused with other illnesses 

and may not be reported by the workers 

as related to their occupational 

exposure. Studies estimate that 

underreporting of pesticide exposure by 

workers and handlers ranges from 20 to 

90 percent. Adjusting the estimate based 

on a reasonable assumption that only 

25% of acute incidents are reported 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15450 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

brings the estimated benefits from 

reducing acute pesticide incidents to 

$11.4 million annually (Ref. 1). 

Second, EPA’s approach to estimating 

the quantitative benefits of the proposal 

only measures avoided medical costs 

and lost wages, not the willingness to 

pay to avoid possible symptoms due to 

pesticide exposure, which could be 

substantially higher. It also does not 

take into account the disenfranchised 

nature of this population and the 

relative impact that lost work time 

would have on their incomes and family 

health. An increase in protections across 

the entire worker population would be 

more beneficial and likely to effect 

positive change than requiring 

individuals to value and pay for their 

own increase in safety. Workers and 

handlers may not be able to pay for the 

improvements to their own safety, 

necessitating intervention by the 

government to ensure these populations 

are adequately protected. 

Well-documented associations 

between pesticide exposure and certain 

cancer and non-cancer chronic health 

effects exist in peer-reviewed literature; 

however, the wide range of employment 

histories and pesticide exposures 

characteristic of the agricultural 

workforce generally prevents reliable 

estimates of the full impact of chronic 

pesticide exposure. In order to account 

for the reduction in chronic diseases 

expected as a result of the proposed 

WPS changes, OPP used a ‘‘break-even’’ 

analysis. Based on a literature review, 

EPA evaluated the costs associated with 

six chronic illnesses that have welldocumented association with 

agricultural pesticide exposure: nonHodgkin’s lymphoma, prostate cancer, 

Parkinson’s disease, lung cancer, 

bronchitis, and asthma. Owing to the 

high costs associated with these chronic 

illnesses, improvements to the WPS that 

could reduce the frequency of these 

illnesses among workers and handlers 

by less than 1% (53 total cases per year) 

would result in sufficient benefits to 

bridge the gap between the estimated 

costs of the revisions and the 

anticipated benefits associated with 

reducing acute pesticide exposures. For 

the reasons identified below, it is 

reasonable to expect that the proposed 

changes to the WPS will reduce chronic 

pesticide exposures enough to reduce 

the frequency of chronic illnesses by at 

least 0.08% for lung cancer and at least 

0.8% for the other illnesses considered. 

EPA believes the qualitative benefits 

of the proposed rule are substantial. The 

proposals for more frequent, expanded 

training, better identification of treated 

areas, strengthened requirements for 

PPE, and clarifying the responses and 

information required in the event of an 

emergency exposure all provide workers 

and handlers with more information 

and a better ability to protect themselves 

from risks associated with pesticide 

exposure. The proposals complement 

each other and the resulting benefits are 

derived from implementation of the 

whole package. Overall, the weight of 

evidence suggests that the proposed 

requirements will result in both shortand long-term health benefits to 

agricultural workers and pesticide 

handlers. 

In addition, many of the proposed 

changes to current WPS requirements 

would specifically mitigate risks to 

children. The proposal would 

implement a minimum age of 16 for 

most handlers and early-entry workers; 

the minimum age would not apply to 

handlers and early-entry workers on an 

establishment owned by an immediate 

family member. EPA believes that these 

two tasks present a higher risk of 

exposure than do the general tasks 

assigned to a worker. Since children’s 

bodies are still developing, they may be 

more susceptible to these elevated risks 

and therefore would benefit from 

strengthened protections. In addition, 

the proposal seeks through additional 

training to reduce the potential for 

workers to transport pesticide residues 

home to their families. Although studies 

are inconclusive about the effects of 

pesticides transferred from the treated 

area to the home, EPA believes that 

providing additional general 

information to workers and handlers 

about steps that may mitigate any 

potential risk would be prudent. Thus, 

the proposed changes are expected to 

reduce children’s exposure to 

pesticides. 

In the almost two decades since the 

1992 WPS was implemented, EPA has 

learned from the Pesticide Program 

Dialogue Committee, National 

Assessment of the Pesticide Worker 

Safety Program process, meetings with 

state regulators, and other stakeholder 

interaction, that the 1992 rule needs 

improvements. EPA believes that the 

data available to the Agency supports 

this conclusion. The proposed rule 

reflects the Agency’s commitment to 

pay particular attention to the health of 

children and environmental justice 

concerns. The proposal also aligns with 

the President’s January 18, 2011 

Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821), 

requesting that agencies review existing 

regulations to improve the efficacy of 

their protection, to balance costs and 

benefits, and to maximize their 

efficiency. 

In proposing this revision, the Agency 

is mindful of the effects on small 

business, family farms, and other 

affected parties. The Agency has 

attempted to keep the costs to the 

regulated community as low as 

practicable, so that they are reasonably 

balanced against the anticipated risk 

reduction benefits of the measures 

proposed below. 

H. Summary of Proposed Changes 

EPA proposes to revise the WPS by: 

• Amending the existing pesticide 

safety training content, retraining 

interval (frequency), and qualifications 

of trainers, 

• Ensuring workers receive safety 

information before entering any 

pesticide treated area by amending the 

existing ‘‘grace period’’ and expanding 

the training required during the ‘‘grace 

period,’’ 

• Establishing a minimum age of 16 

for handlers and for workers who enter 

an area under an REI, 

• Establishing requirements for 

specific training and notification for 

workers who enter an area under an REI, 

• Restricting persons’ entry into areas 

adjacent to a treated area during an 

application, 

• Enhancing the requirement for 

employers to post warning signs around 

treated areas, 

• Modifying the content of the 

warning sign, 

• Adding information employers 

must keep under the requirement to 

maintain application-specific 

information, 

• Requiring recordkeeping for 

pesticide safety training and worker 

entry into areas under an REI, 

• Ensuring the immediate family 

exemption includes an exemption from 

the proposed minimum age 

requirements for handlers and earlyentry workers, 

• Expanding the definition of 

‘‘immediate family’’ to allow more 

family-owned operations to qualify for 

the exemptions to the WPS 

requirements, 

• Revising definitions to improve 

clarity and to refine terms, and 

• Restructuring the regulation to 

make it easier to read and understand. 

III. Statutory Authority and Framework 

This unit discusses the legal 

framework within which EPA regulates 

the safety of those who work with and 

around pesticides in agriculture. 

A. FIFRA 

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide 

and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) of 1947 

established a framework for the 

regulation of pesticide products. Major 

amendments in 1972 by the Federal 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15451 

Environmental Pesticide Control Act (7 

U.S.C. 136 et. seq.) broadened federal 

pesticide regulatory authority to make it 

‘‘unlawful for any person to use any 

registered product in a manner 

inconsistent with its labeling’’ (7 U.S.C. 

136i (a)(2)(G)). The 1972 amendments 

provided civil and criminal penalties for 

violations of the Act (7 U.S.C. 136l) and 

authorized the Administrator to provide 

regulations to carry out the Act (7 U.S.C. 

136w (a)). The new and revised 

provisions directed EPA to protect 

humans and the environment from 

unreasonable adverse effects of 

pesticides. 

The legislative history of the 1972 

amendments to FIFRA reflects the clear 

intent of Congress that farmers and 

agricultural workers were among those 

intended to be afforded protection 

under FIFRA. In discussing the 1972 

amendments, the Senate Committee on 

Agriculture noted its intent of FIFRA to 

protect farmworkers and others from 

contacting pesticides or their residues. 

(Ref. 4) 

EPA has implemented many 

protections for workers through use 

instructions on pesticide labeling, 

which have been legally binding on 

pesticide users since the 1972 

amendments. See FIFRA section 

12(a)(2)(G), which makes it unlawful ‘‘to 

use any registered pesticide in a manner 

inconsistent with its labeling’’. In order 

to expand these protective measures 

without making individual product 

labeling inordinately complex, the 

Agency decided to consolidate common 

requirements in a single, uniform 

standard that could be incorporated into 

agricultural pesticide labels by 

reference, the Worker Protection 

Standard (WPS). In 1992, the Agency 

issued the WPS, which, where 

mandated on a pesticide label, provides 

a uniform system of protections to 

workers and handlers on farms, forests, 

nurseries, and greenhouses from 

occupational exposure to the pesticide 

product. The WPS establishes uniform 

requirements for practices that 

minimize exposure, regardless of the 

risks of specific pesticides, and the 

individual pesticide product labeling 

provides the specific requirements 

appropriate to each pesticide product. 

The WPS sets basic requirements for 

notification of a treated area, limited 

entry into a treated area, supplies 

related to decontamination and 

maintenance of PPE, and access to 

information about pesticides used on 

the agricultural establishment. It also 

requires that workers and handlers 

receive basic safety training to inform 

them about ways to minimize their 

exposure and risk. 

B. EPA Regulation of Pesticides 

In order to protect human health and 

the environment from unreasonable 

adverse effects that might be caused by 

pesticides, the Agency has developed 

and implemented a rigorous process for 

registering and re-evaluating pesticides. 

The registration process begins when a 

manufacturer submits an application to 

register a pesticide. The application 

must contain required test data, 

including information on the pesticide’s 

chemistry, environmental fate, toxicity 

to humans and wildlife, and potential 

for human exposure. The Agency also 

requires a copy of the proposed labeling, 

including directions for use, and 

appropriate warnings. 

Once an application for registration of 

a new pesticide product is received, 

EPA conducts an evaluation, which 

includes a detailed review of scientific 

data to determine the potential impact 

on human health and the environment. 

The Agency considers the risk 

assessments and results of any peer 

review and evaluates potential risk 

management measures that could 

mitigate risks above the Agency’s level 

of concern. Risk management measures 

could include, among other things, 

extending the restricted-entry interval 

(REI), the period during which people 

are prohibited from entering the treated 

area, to allow the pesticide residues to 

reach an acceptable level before worker 

reentry is permitted. They could also 

require certain engineering controls, 

such as use of closed mixing systems to 

reduce potential exposure to those who 

mix and load pesticides, or specific PPE, 

such as respirators, to protect users 

against risks associated with inhalation 

of the product. 

In the decision-making process, EPA 

evaluates the application to determine 

whether the proposed use(s) meets the 

Agency’s standards for registration. 

FIFRA is a risk-benefit statute. In 

evaluating the impact of a pesticide on 

occupational health and safety, EPA 

weighs the risks associated with use of 

the pesticide (occupational, 

environmental) and the benefits 

associated with use of the pesticide 

(economic, public health, 

environmental). FIFRA does not require 

EPA to balance the risks and benefits for 

each audience. For example, a product 

may pose risks to workers, but risks may 

nevertheless be reasonable in 

comparison to the economic benefit of 

continued use of the product to society 

at large. 

If the application does not contain 

enough evidence to prove that the 

pesticide meets all of these standards, 

EPA communicates to the applicant the 

need for more or better refined data, 

labeling modifications, or additional use 

restrictions. Once the applicant has 

demonstrated that a proposed product 

meets the statutory standards, and, if the 

pesticide is intended to be used on food, 

a tolerance or exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance under the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

can be established, EPA will approve 

the registration, subject to any risk 

mitigation measures necessary to 

achieve that approval. EPA devotes 

significant resources to the regulation of 

pesticides to ensure that each pesticide 

product meets the FIFRA requirement 

that pesticides not cause unreasonable 

adverse effects to the public and the 

environment. 

When EPA approves a pesticide, the 

label reflects the risk mitigation 

measures required by the Agency. Since 

users must comply with the directions 

for use and use restrictions on a 

product’s labeling, EPA uses the 

labeling to establish and convey 

mandatory requirements for how the 

pesticide must be used to protect people 

and the environment from pesticide 

exposure. As discussed in Unit III.A., 

above, the labeling for agricultural 

pesticides requires compliance with the 

WPS, in order that workers, handlers, 

and their employers have a single, 

uniform set of specific requirements for 

the protection of workers and handlers 

that complement the product-specific 

labeling requirements. 

C. EPA’s Pesticide Reregistration and 

Registration Review Programs 

FIFRA requires EPA to review 

periodically the registration of 

pesticides currently registered in the 

U.S. The 1988 FIFRA amendments 

required EPA to establish a pesticide 

reregistration program. Reregistration 

was a one-time comprehensive review 

of the human health and environmental 

effects of pesticides first registered 

before November 1, 1984 to make 

decisions about these pesticides’ future 

use. The Food Quality Protection Act of 

1996 required that EPA establish, 

through rule making, an ongoing 

‘‘registration review’’ process of all 

pesticides at least every 15 years. The 

final rule establishing the registration 

review program was signed and 

published in August 2006. The purpose 

of both re-evaluation programs is to 

review all pesticides registered in the 

U.S. to ensure that they continue to 

meet current safety standards based on 

up-to-date scientific approaches and 

data. 

Pesticides reviewed under the 

reregistration program that met current 

scientific and safety standards were 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15452 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

declared ‘‘eligible’’ for reregistration. 

The results of EPA’s reviews are 

summarized in Reregistration Eligibility 

Decision (RED) documents. The last 

RED was completed in 2008. Often 

before a pesticide could be determined 

‘‘eligible,’’ certain risk reduction 

measures had to be put in place. For a 

number of pesticides, measures 

intended to reduce exposure to handlers 

and workers were needed and are 

reflected on pesticide labeling. To 

address occupational risk concerns, 

REDs include mitigation measures such 

as voluntary cancellation; limiting the 

amount, frequency or timing of 

applications; other application 

restrictions; classification of a product 

or specific use as a ‘‘Restricted Use 

Pesticide’’ (RUP); PPE; specific REIs; 

user safety requirements; and improved 

use directions. 

Rigorous education and enforcement 

are needed to ensure that these 

mitigation measures are appropriately 

implemented in the field. The 

framework provided by the WPS is 

critical for ensuring that the 

improvements brought about by 

reregistration, including worker risk 

mitigation measures, are realized. The 

rule changes being proposed in this 

notice are designed to enhance the 

effectiveness of the existing structure. 

In summary, EPA’s pesticide 

reregistration and registration reviews 

assess the specific risks associated with 

particular chemicals and ensure that the 

public and environment do not suffer 

unreasonable adverse effects from the 

risks. EPA implements the risk 

reduction and mitigation measures that 

result from the pesticide reregistration 

and registration review programs 

through individual pesticide product 

labeling. 

D. Existing Worker Protection Standard 

The WPS currently covers pesticide 

use at establishments engaged in the 

production of agricultural commodities: 

Farms, forests, nurseries, and 

greenhouses. The WPS does not cover 

persons working directly with livestock. 

WPS regulations are directed toward the 

working conditions of two types of 

employees: Workers and handlers. 

• Workers perform tasks related to the 

cultivation and harvesting of 

agricultural products on agricultural 

establishments. Typical tasks include 

thinning, pruning, and harvesting 

commodities. 

• Handlers mix, load, and apply 

pesticides, and do other activities linked 

to pesticide application on agricultural 

establishments. 

The WPS defines general protections 

that cover all workers or handlers 

employed on an establishment that uses 

a pesticide that references the WPS on 

the label and complements the specific 

risk mitigation measures implemented 

through individual pesticide product 

labeling. The existing WPS requires 

agricultural employers to provide 

certain protections to their employees. 

Agricultural employers are required to 

notify workers of areas treated with 

pesticides so workers may avoid 

inadvertent exposures. Employers also 

must provide to all workers that may 

enter a treated area pesticide safety 

training that covers common routes of 

exposure, how to protect oneself from 

pesticide exposure, information on 

decontamination, and what to do in an 

emergency. Handlers receive more 

detailed training on using PPE, 

conducting pesticide application, and 

following safety principles. A central 

location on the establishment must have 

a pesticide safety poster and 

information on recent pesticide 

applications. Handlers and workers 

must be informed of specific 

requirements on the pesticide label 

related to the WPS. 

The labeling of agricultural pesticides 

generally specifies REIs (a time during 

which entry into a treated area is strictly 

limited) for areas treated with 

pesticides. The existing WPS regulation 

provides detailed requirements 

regarding identifying areas under an REI 

and notifying workers about them, 

excluding workers and others from the 

treated areas, and the limited 

circumstances under which early entry 

may occur. The WPS provides detailed 

information concerning the types of PPE 

necessary for handlers and early-entry 

workers, if not specified on the label, 

and instruction that employers must 

provide to workers entering under an 

REI exception. The existing WPS also 

prohibits applicators from applying a 

pesticide in a way that will expose 

workers or other persons and excludes 

workers from areas while pesticides are 

being applied. These general 

requirements serve as a counterpart to 

the product-specific risk reduction 

measures implemented through the 

pesticide label. 

The WPS also mitigates the risks 

associated with pesticide exposure by 

requiring agricultural employers to 

provide workers and handlers with 

water, soap, and towels for routine 

washing after working in or around 

areas where pesticides have been 

applied. There are also provisions for 

decontamination in the event of an 

emergency. The employer must provide 

transportation to a medical care facility 

for a worker or handler who may have 

been poisoned or injured, and provide 

information to the worker, handler, or 

medical personnel about the pesticide to 

which the person may have exposed. 

A detailed history of the development 

of the 1992 WPS and the process 

leading to the proposed rule appears in 

Unit V. 

IV. Overview of EPA’s Protection of 

Pesticide Workers 

A. Demographics of Agricultural 

Workers and Handlers 

The task of protecting workers and 

handlers from occupational exposure to 

pesticides presents a challenge, given 

the complexity of the science issues 

involving pesticide use, variability of 

pesticide use patterns, and the diversity 

of the labor population being served and 

the tasks they perform. 

According to information published 

by the Department of Labor’s (DOL) 

NAWS in 2001–2002, 75% of 

agricultural workers in the United States 

were born in Mexico and 2% in Central 

America (Ref. 3 p. 3). A majority (81%) 

of this group speaks Spanish as a native 

language, but a growing percentage 

speaks languages such as Creole, 

Mixteco, and indigenous languages (Ref. 

3 p. 17). Approximately 44% could not 

speak English at all, and 53% could not 

read any English (Ref. 3 p. 21). Many 

have received minimal formal 

education; the foreign born workers, on 

average, completed no more than a sixth 

grade education (Ref. 3 p. 18). 

Approximately 43% of the survey 

respondents were classified as migrant, 

having traveled at least 75 miles in the 

previous year to find a job in agriculture 

(Ref. 3 p. 7). Over 20% of respondents 

lived in housing provided by their 

employer and 58% rented housing from 

someone other than their employer (Ref. 

3 p. 43). In general, agricultural workers 

surveyed by NAWS do not use health 

care facilities. Estimates of agricultural 

workers lacking health insurance range 

from 77% to 85% and estimates from 

the late 1990s indicate only 20% of 

those surveyed had visited a health care 

facility in the preceding 2 years (Ref. 5 

pp. 12–13). U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) research, based on 

NAWS data, also reports that workers 

have difficulty entering the health care 

system to receive treatment. Cost was a 

significant barrier for two-thirds of 

farmworkers, while about a third listed 

language barriers as an impediment to 

receiving care. The problem is more 

severe among undocumented workers 

because they fear seeking treatment will 

lead to deportation or other adverse 

legal action (Ref. 6). 

USDA issued a report indicating that 

the factors mentioned above contribute 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15453 

to the disadvantaged status of hired 

workers in agriculture (Ref. 6). 

Unemployment rates, counting both 

crop and livestock workers (livestock 

workers are outside the scope of the 

WPS), are twice that of all salary and 

wage workers. The NAWS found crop 

workers’ average annual income was 

between $10,000 and $12,499, with total 

family income averaging between 

$15,000 and $17,499 (Ref. 3 p. 47). 

B. Incident Data Sources and General 

Information 

Incident monitoring programs have 

provided the Agency with a better 

understanding of common types of 

pesticide exposures and their outcomes. 

In 2007, EPA released a report detailing 

the coverage of all pesticide exposure 

incident reporting databases considered 

by the Agency (Ref. 7). EPA consults 

two major databases for information on 

occupational pesticide exposure 

incidents. 

The first database, the Sentinel Event 

Notification System for Occupational 

Risk (SENSOR), is maintained by the 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC)/National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH). SENSOR covers all 

occupational injuries and has a specific 

component for pesticides (SENSORPesticides). EPA uses SENSORPesticides to monitor trends in 

occupational health related to acute 

exposures to pesticides, to identify 

emerging pesticide problems, and to 

build and maintain state surveillance 

capacity. SENSOR-Pesticides is a statebased surveillance system with eleven 

state participants. The program collects 

most poisoning incident cases from: 

• Department of Labor workers’ 

compensation claims when reported by 

physicians, 

• State Departments of Agriculture, 

and 

• Poison control centers. 

A state SENSOR-Pesticides contact 

specialist follows up with workers and 

obtains medical records to verify 

symptoms, circumstances surrounding 

the exposure, severity, and outcome. 

Using a standardized protocol and case 

definitions derived from poison center 

reporting, SENSOR-Pesticides 

coordinators enter the incident 

interview description provided by the 

worker, medical report, and physician 

into the SENSOR data system. EPA 

believes that SENSOR-Pesticides 

provides the most comprehensive 

information on occupational pesticide 

exposure, but coverage is not 

nationwide and a majority of the data 

comes from California and Washington 

State. 

The American Association of Poison 

Control Centers maintains the National 

Poison Data System (NPDS), formerly 

the Toxic Effects Surveillance System 

(TESS). NPDS is a computerized 

information system with geographically 

specific and near real-time reporting. 

While the main mission of Poison 

Control Centers (PCC) is helping callers 

respond to emergencies, not collecting 

specific information about incidents, 

NPDS data help identify emerging 

problems in chemical product safety. 

Hotlines at 61 PCCs nationwide are 

open 24 hours every day of the year. 

There are many bilingual PCCs in 

predominantly Spanish speaking areas. 

Hotlines are staffed by toxicology 

specialists to provide poisoning 

information and clinical care 

recommendations to callers with a focus 

on triage to give patients appropriate 

care. Using computer assisted data 

entry, standardized protocols, and strict 

data entry criteria, local callers report 

incidents that are retained locally and 

updated in summary form to the 

national database. Since 2000, nearly all 

calls in the system are submitted in a 

computer-assisted interview format by 

the 61 certified PCCs, adhering to 

clinical criteria designed to provide a 

consistent approach to evaluating and 

managing pesticide and drug related 

adverse incidents. Information calls are 

tallied separately and not counted as 

incidents. The NPDS system covers 

nearly the entire United States and its 

territories, but the system is clinically 

oriented and not designed to collect 

detailed occupational incident data. 

Three studies showing undercounting 

of poison control data indicate the 

magnitude of the problem. The studies 

each focus on a specific region and 

compare cases reported to poison 

control with those poisonings for which 

there are hospital records. In all three 

cases, the studies indicate a substantial 

underreporting of poisoning incidents to 

poison control, especially related to 

pesticides (Ref. 8) (Ref. 9) (Ref. 10). 

Underreporting of pesticide incidents is 

a challenge for all available data sources 

for a number of reasons, as discussed 

below. 

Symptoms of acute pesticide 

poisoning are often vague and mimic 

other causes, leading to incorrect 

diagnoses, and chronic effects are 

difficult to identify and track. The 

demographics of the worker population 

also contribute to underreporting of 

incidents. Many incident reports lack 

useful information, such as the exact 

product that was the source of the 

exposure, the amount of pesticide 

involved, or the circumstances of the 

exposure. There may not be enough 

information to determine if the adverse 

effects noted were in fact the result of 

pesticide exposure and not another 

contributing factor. A more complete 

discussion of the underreporting and its 

effect on pesticide incident reporting is 

located in the Economic Analysis for 

this proposal (Ref. 1). 

The data available do provide a 

snapshot of the illnesses faced by 

workers and handlers in the field and 

the likely avenues of exposure. Review 

of these data sources shows that workers 

and handlers continue to face avoidable 

occupational pesticide exposure. The 

most common types of incidents are 

related to pesticide drift and 

unpermitted entry into an area under an 

REI (Ref. 11). Often handler exposure 

occurs when handlers are using PPE and 

do not wear the PPE properly or the PPE 

malfunctions. Generally, reports on the 

data note that many of the incidents 

could be prevented with strengthened 

training for handlers and workers and 

improved notification when an 

application is occurring or a treated area 

is under an REI (Ref. 11). 

C. Other Worker Protection Programs 

EPA’s Pesticide Worker Safety 

Program is comprised of three major 

components: protections for agricultural 

labor through the WPS (40 CFR part 

170), described in Unit III.D.; 

certification of RUP applicators; and the 

National Strategies for Health Care 

Providers: Pesticides Initiative (Health 

Care Providers Initiative). EPA uses its 

field programs and cooperative 

agreements to distribute information on 

the risks associated with pesticides, 

developing technology, and selfprotection to avoid pesticide exposure. 

All three field programs solicit feedback 

from the regulated and affected 

communities to EPA about the effect of 

the pesticide labeling and mitigation 

measures. To implement these 

programs, the Office of Pesticide 

Programs works with an extensive 

network of partners, including state and 

tribal pesticide regulatory agencies; 

USDA’s National Institute of Food and 

Agriculture (NIFA) (formerly the 

Cooperative State Research, Education, 

and Extension Service (CSREES)); 

university cooperative extension 

services; farmworker groups; and the 

regulated community. EPA funds 

collaborative field projects and activities 

through grants with governmental and 

non-governmental organizations with 

the goal of improving the health of 

workers, handlers, applicators, the 

public, and the environment. 

Under the Certification of Pesticide 

Applicators rule, 40 CFR 171, EPA 

establishes standards for the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15454 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

competency of applicators who use 

RUPs. The rule requires applicators to 

demonstrate competency to become 

certified to apply RUPs. Part 171 also 

has a section outlining the requirements 

for states, federal agencies, and tribes to 

administer a program to certify 

applicators in their jurisdictions. All 

states and several tribes, territories, and 

federal agencies administer their own 

applicator certification programs. EPA 

provides funding through an 

interagency agreement with USDA to 

support the training of applicators using 

RUPs through the cooperative extension 

services in each state. 

The third prong of the Pesticide 

Worker Safety Program is the Health 

Care Providers Initiative, aimed at 

improving the training of health care 

providers in the recognition, diagnosis, 

and treatment of occupational pesticide 

poisonings. EPA collaborated in the 

development of a manual for health care 

providers called ‘‘Recognition and 

Management of Pesticide Poisonings’’ 

(Ref. 12). This resource outlines the 

health effects associated with different 

classes of pesticides and suggests 

treatments based on the suspected 

exposure. 

Under this initiative, EPA also works 

closely with the Migrant Clinicians 

Network, an organization of health care 

providers serving the migrant 

community, on a project to improve 

pesticide education and awareness and 

to train health care providers to 

recognize and treat pesticide-related 

conditions. This project also includes 

the development of relevant resources 

and tools that health care providers can 

use to deal effectively with pesticiderelated health conditions, and the 

distribution of these products through 

training sessions, the Internet, and 

continuing education opportunities. 

D. EPA–OSHA Relationship 

The Occupational Safety and Health 

Act, 29 U.S.C. 651 et. seq., grants the 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) authority to 

promulgate regulations to mitigate 

significant risks that may occur in the 

occupational setting. Under its statutory 

authority, OSHA promulgated a Hazard 

Communication Standard (HCS) (29 

CFR 1910.1200) to protect employees 

from general chemical hazards in the 

workplace. OSHA also establishes 

industry, chemical, and process-specific 

standards to address workplace hazards 

that warrant additional regulatory 

measures to ensure employees’ 

occupational safety and health. 

Except as limited by section 4(b)(1) of 

the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 

which prohibits OSHA from regulating 

working conditions or hazards where 

other federal agencies exercise statutory 

authority to prescribe or to enforce 

standards for occupational safety and 

health, OSHA’s HCS covers all 

industries in which an employee may be 

exposed to a chemical hazard in the 

workplace. OSHA based the HCS on 

employees’ right to know about 

chemical hazards in the workplace in 

order to make informed decisions about 

their work practices, to better protect 

themselves, and to reduce their chances 

of illness or injury from a workplace 

accident. OSHA determined that 

employees are at a significant risk of 

experiencing adverse health effects in 

the absence of knowledge of workplace 

hazards. Among other things, the HCS 

requires employers to provide the 

following protections in the workplace: 

• Develop, implement, and maintain 

a written hazard communication 

program; 

• Maintain a written list of all 

hazardous chemical products and 

substances known to be present; 

• Ensure labeling of all chemical 

containers; 

• Provide employees with effective 

information and training on chemical 

hazards; and 

• Maintain a copy of the safety data 

sheet (SDS, formerly known as Material 

Safety Data sheet, or MSDS) containing 

the chemical and physical hazard 

information for each hazardous 

chemical, and ensure that SDSs are 

readily accessible to employees when 

they are at the workplace. 

To address the statutory limitation in 

section 4(b)(1) and to ensure workplace 

protections of agricultural workers and 

handlers, OSHA and EPA formed a 

working group to discuss the 

jurisdictional overlap between OSHA’s 

authority over workplace safety and 

health and EPA’s mandate to protect 

those who work with and around 

pesticides from the risks associated with 

exposure. OSHA and EPA sought to 

coordinate regulations related to 

workplace safety and health and to 

ensure that they were within the scope 

of each agency’s statutes. EPA and 

OSHA agreed that OSHA’s Field 

Sanitation Standard addresses general 

sanitary standards, while EPA’s WPS 

decontamination requirements are 

specific to pesticide hazards. EPA stated 

that the intended reach of the WPS was 

limited to occupational safety for 

pesticides and that OSHA was not 

preempted from regulating any nonpesticide chemical or other workplace 

hazards in agriculture. OSHA 

established a policy not to cite 

employers covered under the WPS for 

pesticide-related HCS standards. The 

policy also defers to EPA’s regulatory 

authorities for pesticide labeling and 

use, certification of pesticide 

applicators, and protection of handlers 

and workers on establishments covered 

by the WPS (Ref. 13). 

V. Sources of Information for 

Improvement of Worker Protection 

A. History of the WPS Regulation 

In 1974, EPA promulgated the first 

version of the WPS (39 FR 16888; May 

10, 1974). The regulation provided 

health protections for workers exposed 

to pesticides from hand labor activities 

during and after applications. The 1974 

regulations contained four basic 

elements: 

• A prohibition against spraying 

workers, 

• Specific reentry intervals for 12 

pesticides and a general reentry interval 

for all other agricultural pesticides, 

prohibiting entry until sprays had dried 

or dusts had settled; 

• A requirement for protective 

clothing for any worker who had to 

reenter treated areas before the specific 

reentry interval had expired; and 

• A requirement for ‘‘appropriate and 

timely’’ warnings. 

A 1983 review of the WPS concluded 

that the 1974 regulation did not 

adequately protect workers (49 FR 

32605; August 15, 1984). New 

information was becoming available 

about the use of pesticides and the 

impact on occupational safety and 

health. OSHA had promulgated 

occupational health standards for 

workers in non-agricultural industries 

that provided greater protections than 

those contained in the WPS. The OSHA 

Standards included requirements for 

notifying workers of workplace 

chemicals to which they are exposed, 

personal protective equipment to 

mitigate risks of exposure, hygiene 

facilities, medical surveillance, worker 

training programs, and recordkeeping. 

EPA considered the addition of similar 

protections to the WPS. 

In addition to the shortcomings of the 

protections in the 1974 rule, there were 

legal issues with respect to the 

enforcement of the protections. EPA 

realized that the four existing 

requirements of the WPS were not 

typically included on the pesticide 

labeling. Without a reference to the 

regulation on the labeling, the 

requirements were not legally 

enforceable. Moreover, the regulation 

itself did not clearly assign 

responsibility for compliance with the 

requirements; for example, workers 

were prohibited from entering treated 

areas, but nobody was charged with 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15455 

communicating the prohibition to the 

workers or ensuring that they did not 

enter. 

The Agency also wanted to expand 

the scope of the regulation to cover sites 

that had been exempted but were 

similar to farms, i.e., forests, nurseries, 

and greenhouses, and to add another 

group of people facing occupational 

pesticide exposure in agriculture— 

handlers who mix, load, or apply 

pesticides. Handlers’ occupational 

exposure profile is distinct from that of 

workers protected by the initial WPS. 

When mixing, handlers may face 

exposure while pouring the 

concentrated pesticide or stirring the 

diluted mix. Loaders and applicators 

handle many gallons of the diluted 

pesticide and may experience exposure 

while transferring the pesticide mixture 

into the application equipment or 

making the application. The Agency 

believed that expanding the WPS to 

include the additional sites and adding 

specific protections for handlers was 

necessary. 

In 1984, the Agency published an 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (49 FR 32605; August 15, 

1984), announcing its intention to revise 

the 1974 rule for the reasons outlined 

above and soliciting public comment. 

EPA also initiated a process of 

regulatory negotiation with parties 

interested in or affected by the WPS. 

Stakeholders with competing interests 

worked to resolve issues through 

collaboration and compromise. EPA 

convened a Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA) workgroup, 

‘‘The Advisory Committee on WPS for 

Agricultural Pesticides,’’ that had 

members representing a spectrum of 

stakeholder perspectives from 25 

entities. Certain labor representatives 

discontinued their participation early in 

the process. As a result, the full 

committee did not participate in 

decision making; therefore, a consensus 

on proposed changes to the regulation 

could not be reached. 

The public comments helped the 

Agency refine the areas for proposed 

change. In 1988, EPA published a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

(53 FR 25970; July 8, 1988) that 

proposed significant changes to the then 

existing WPS, including the following: 

• Expansion of the scope of 

establishments covered; 

• Revision of reentry intervals to 

correlate with risks posed by each 

pesticide; 

• Revision to the PPE requirements; 

• Improvement to worker notification 

provisions; and 

• Strengthening compliance with the 

regulation by designating specific 

responsibilities of agricultural 

employers. 

Following the publication of the 

NPRM, EPA held public meetings across 

the country, primarily in major 

agricultural areas, to explain the 

proposed rule and to respond to 

questions. EPA received 380 written 

comments from the public on the 

proposed rule. 

After review and careful analysis of 

the public comments, the Agency 

promulgated the final rule, revising the 

WPS and adding Subpart K (Labeling 

Requirements for Pesticides and 

Devices) to 40 CFR part 156 in August 

1992 (57 FR 38101; August 21, 1992). 

Shortly after publication of the final 

rule, agricultural groups raised concerns 

related to the availability of materials 

necessary to implement the rule and 

insufficient numbers of qualified 

trainers. Based on these concerns, 

Congress enacted legislation delaying 

implementation of the final rule. In 

response to the concerns raised, EPA 

worked with stakeholders to develop 

training materials that were tested with 

focus groups to ensure that they were 

appropriate for the language and literacy 

level of the target training audiences. In 

response to identified training needs, 

EPA has developed training materials in 

many languages, including Spanish, 

Chinese (Mandarin), Tagalog, Haitian 

Creole, Hmong, Ilocano, Khmer, 

Laotian, Polish, Portuguese, and 

Vietnamese. EPA’s revisions to the WPS 

were fully implemented in 1995. The 

expanded regulation provided 

protections for agricultural workers 

from pesticide exposure on farms and in 

forests, nurseries, and greenhouses; 

included agricultural handlers; and held 

agricultural employers and pesticide 

applicators responsible for complying 

with specific portions of the regulation. 

Since promulgating the WPS in 1992, 

EPA has made several minor 

amendments. In 1995, EPA published a 

series of Federal Register notices: (1) 

Reducing the grace period for 

agricultural employers to provide 

pesticide safety training to workers from 

15 days to 5 days (60 FR 21943; May 3, 

1995), (2) establishing a 5-year 

retraining interval for workers and 

handlers (60 FR 21943; May 3, 1995), (3) 

exempting certain persons performing 

crop advisor tasks from WPS provisions 

except for pesticide safety training, (60 

FR 21948; May 1995), and (4) creating 

exceptions to the WPS to allow workers 

to enter pesticide-treated areas during 

an REI under specified conditions to 

perform irrigation tasks (60 FR 21960; 

May 3, 1995) and tasks that involve 

limited contact with pesticide-treated 

surfaces (60 FR 21955; May 3, 1995). 

In 1996, EPA amended the regulation 

to: (1) Reduce the number of days 

employers must provide to workers 

decontamination supplies (soap, water, 

paper towels) after application of 

pesticides that are low risk and have 

REIs of four hours or less (61 FR 33207; 

June 26, 1996), (2) allow substitution of 

the language commonly spoken and 

read by workers for the Spanish portion 

of the warning sign (61 FR 33202; June 

26, 1996), and (3) allow the use of 

smaller signs in nurseries and 

greenhouses (61 FR 33202; June 26, 

1996). 

Lastly, in 2004, EPA published a 

notice in the Federal Register revising 

the WPS glove requirements. This 

notice allowed all early-entry workers 

and handlers to wear disposable glove 

liners under chemical-resistant gloves 

and eliminated the requirement for 

aerial applicators to wear chemicalresistant gloves when entering and 

exiting aircraft that have been used to 

apply pesticides unless required by the 

labeling (69 FR 53341; September 1, 

2004). 

During the course of the states’ 

implementation of the 1992 WPS 

regulation, regulatory partners, the 

regulated community, and other 

stakeholders raised numerous policy 

and enforcement questions. EPA 

addressed most of these questions 

through reference to the official rule text 

or the Agency’s responses to public 

comments on the proposed rule. Some 

questions, however, raised interpretive 

issues that required the Agency to 

develop and issue interim guidance. 

EPA coordinated the development of 

guidance through an interpretive 

guidance workgroup (IGW) using a 

collaborative process that included all 

relevant and affected EPA offices, and 

state regulatory partners from the 

Florida Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services and the New Mexico 

Department of Agriculture. The State 

FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation 

Group nominated the state participants 

on the IGW. 

The IGW addressed the questions 

raised by stakeholders. The final IGW 

guidance clarified definitions for terms 

used in the rule, the scope of the WPS 

exceptions, and the intended scope and/ 

or limits of provisions. The final IGW 

guidance has been compiled into a 

document available to the public (Ref. 

14). 

Although the IGW document 

provided answers to many of the issues 

raised by stakeholders to EPA, it is only 

guidance. Therefore, the IGW document 

is not legally binding on EPA, workers, 

handlers, agricultural establishments, 

and others. EPA proposes to codify 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15456 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

certain of the elements in the IGW 

guidance document, as discussed in 

Units VII through XVIII. 

At the same time EPA published the 

1992 WPS, the Agency also published 

an NPRM on a Hazard Communication/ 

Right-to-Know program for agricultural 

workers (57 FR 38167; August 21, 1992). 

This NPRM responded to comments 

received in response to the 1992 

proposed rule noting that protections for 

agricultural workers could not be 

considered complete until workers were 

provided with specific hazard 

information. Many comments called for 

EPA to adopt requirements parallel to 

those imposed by OSHA rules. In the 

1992 proposed rule, EPA proposed 

options for providing written 

information about the specific hazards 

posed by pesticides in the workplace, 

for alleviating confusion about possible 

conflict and duplication between EPA 

and OSHA regulation of occupational 

safety and health in pesticides, and for 

supporting states in developing their 

own hazard communication programs. 

EPA never promulgated a rule finalizing 

a Hazard Communication/Right-toKnow program for agricultural workers 

because Agency resources were diverted 

to develop training and compliance 

assistance materials to implement the 

WPS as mandated by Congress. The 

Agency also wanted to solicit more 

stakeholder feedback about states’ 

experiences implementing different 

approaches to hazard communication 

before moving forward with a final 

regulation. 

B. Stakeholder Engagement 

Over the last 20 years, the Agency has 

repeatedly engaged the public and 

particularly affected stakeholders in the 

assessment of the 1992 WPS and its 

implementation. This stakeholder 

engagement process has provided EPA 

with a deep appreciation of the complex 

challenges facing federal, state and 

tribal authorities, agricultural 

employers, and workers and handlers in 

the ongoing effort to ensure pesticide 

use is safe. 

Immediately following full 

implementation of the 1992 WPS, EPA 

began the Pesticide Dialogue Process. 

From 1996 to 2000, EPA held public 

meetings across the country for open 

dialogue on rule implementation, 

challenges in compliance, and 

perceived effectiveness. The meetings 

were open to the general public. 

The Agency initiated the National 

Assessment of EPA’s Pesticide Worker 

Safety Program (National Assessment) 

in 2000. Through this process, EPA 

convened stakeholder meetings in 

Texas, California, and Florida. 

Participants included representatives 

from farmworker organizations, 

cooperative extension services, 

commodity organizations, state 

regulatory agencies, federal agencies, 

pesticide manufacturers and 

distributors, and individual workers, 

handlers, and growers. Stakeholders 

provided information about the 

strengths and weaknesses of the WPS’s 

protections and implementation. EPA 

established three workgroups: general 

training (Ref. 15), train-the-trainer (Ref. 

16), and hazard communication. Each of 

the workgroups met apart from the 

public meetings to assess specific 

aspects of the WPS and to recommend 

improvements. EPA held a final meeting 

in Washington, DC at which the 

workgroups presented their findings to 

EPA. 

The assessment concluded in 2005 

with the presentation of the ‘‘Report on 

the National Assessment of EPA’s 

Pesticide Worker Safety Program’’ (Ref. 

17). The opinions and suggestions made 

during the course of the assessment 

centered on a few broad improvement 

areas: the expansion and upgrade of 

applicator competency and worker 

safety and promotion of safer work 

practices, improved training of and 

communication with all pesticide 

workers, increased enforcement efforts 

and improved training of inspectors, 

training of health care providers and 

monitoring of pesticide incidents, and 

finally, program operation, efficiency, 

and funding (Ref. 17 p. 1). While EPA 

addressed some of the recommendations 

through grants, program guidance, and 

other outreach, others required 

regulatory change (Ref. 17 p. 26). 

During the initial stages of the framing 

of this proposal, EPA’s Federal Advisory 

Committee, the Pesticide Program 

Dialogue Committee (PPDC), formed a 

workgroup in 2006 to provide feedback 

to EPA on different areas for change. 

The workgroup had over 70 members 

representing a wide range of 

stakeholders. EPA shared with the 

workgroup suggestions for regulatory 

change identified through the National 

Assessment and solicited comments. 

The workgroup convened for a series of 

meetings and conference calls to get 

more information on specific parts of 

the regulation and provided its thoughts 

to the Agency. The workgroup never 

reached consensus; it focused on 

evaluating possible changes under 

consideration by EPA providing 

feedback from each member’s or 

organization’s perspective. Comments 

from the PPDC workgroup members 

have been compiled into a single 

document and posted in the docket. 

EPA convened a Small Business 

Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel on 

potential revisions to the WPS in 2008. 

The SBAR Panel was convened under 

section 609(b) of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act as amended by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement and 

Fairness Act (SBREFA). As part of the 

SBAR Panel’s activities, EPA consulted 

with a group of Small Entity 

Representatives (SERs) from small 

businesses and organizations that could 

be affected by the potential revisions. 

EPA provided the SERs with 

information on the WPS and potential 

revisions and requested feedback on the 

proposals under consideration. EPA 

asked the SERs to offer alternate 

solutions to the potential proposals 

presented to provide flexibility or to 

decrease economic impact for small 

entities while still accomplishing the 

goal of improved safety. 

The SERs provided feedback on the 

following areas: Requiring all treated 

areas to be posted, requiring pesticide 

safety training more frequently than 

every 5 years, eliminating the grace 

period between hiring a worker and 

providing pesticide safety training, and 

requiring showers on establishments 

that employ handlers. EPA compiled the 

responses from the SERs in an 

Appendix to the final Panel Report and 

posted the full report and appendix in 

the docket (Ref. 18). EPA considered the 

input from the SERs as part of the 

evaluation of available options for this 

rulemaking, and where appropriate, 

feedback from the SERs is discussed in 

various descriptions of proposed 

changes in this preamble. 

In addition to formal stakeholder 

outreach, EPA met with numerous 

individual stakeholders when requested 

to discuss concerns and suggestions in 

detail. Stakeholders included 

farmworker organizations (Farmworker 

Justice, Migrant Clinicians Network, and 

El Comite ́ de Apoyo a los Trabajadores 

Agrı ́colas [Farmworker Support 

Committee]); the National Association 

of State Departments of Agriculture 

(NASDA); the Association of American 

Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO); 

Crop Life America (CLA); and others. 

C. GAO Audits 

In 1992, prior to the promulgation of 

the amended WPS, the General 

Accounting Office (now the Government 

Accountability Office; GAO) published 

‘‘Hired Farmworkers: Health and WellBeing at Risk’’ (Ref. 19). The report 

discussed a number of services, such as 

social security, housing, field sanitation, 

job training and employment programs, 

children’s education, and other issues 

that the government would need to 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15457 

address to provide better conditions for 

farmworkers. 

The 1992 report noted that at that 

time, EPA lacked an understanding of 

the health risks for many older 

pesticides, placing workers at risk from 

potentially unsafe exposure. The report 

also noted that the 1974 rule 

requirement to limit worker entry into 

treated areas was difficult for workers to 

follow. It prohibited reentry until 

‘‘sprays have dried or dusts have 

settled,’’ language that involved 

subjective judgments. The 1992 

amendments to the WPS partially 

addressed these issues by requiring 

interim protective intervals for worker 

entry into treated areas based on the 

acute toxicity of the product. Since that 

time, EPA’s reregistration program, 

through which EPA reviewed and 

assessed older pesticides to ensure they 

continue to meet the FIFRA regulatory 

standard, has been completed. See Unit 

III.C. Through that process, chemicalspecific protective reentry intervals 

have replaced the interim intervals. 

In 2000, GAO issued another report, 

‘‘Pesticides: Improvements Needed to 

Ensure the Safety of Farmworkers and 

Their Children,’’ (Ref. 20). In this report, 

GAO focused more specifically on the 

potential risks to children of entering a 

pesticide-treated area. It noted that 

children under 12 years old may have 

a higher risk of adverse effects related to 

pesticide exposure and should be 

protected adequately. It also cited EPA 

data on WPS enforcement, noting the 

lack of consistency and involvement by 

EPA in monitoring the inspections and 

the need to have target numbers of 

inspections. The report recommended 

that EPA ‘‘mitigate the potential adverse 

effects of pesticide exposure on children 

below the age of 12 who work in 

agriculture or are otherwise present in 

pesticide-treated fields’’ (Ref. 20 p. 24). 

It also suggested that EPA improve 

oversight of state-level WPS 

enforcement and set standard guidance 

for inspections. 

D. Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; 

February 16, 1994) established federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. It directs federal agencies, to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their 

missions by identifying and addressing 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

of their programs, policies, and 

activities on minority and low-income 

populations in the United States. The 

Executive Order establishes four areas 

for action: 

• Promote enforcement of all health 

and environmental statutes in areas 

with minority populations and lowincome populations; 

• Ensure greater public participation; 

• Improve research and data 

collection relating to the health and 

environment of minority populations 

and low-income populations; and 

• Identify differential patterns of 

consumption of natural resources 

among minority populations and lowincome populations. In addition, the 

environmental justice strategy shall 

include, where appropriate, a timetable 

for undertaking identified revisions and 

consideration of economic and social 

implications of the revisions. 

EPA’s goal is to promote 

environmental justice for all 

communities and persons across the 

United States, regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income. Ensuring 

environmental justice means not only 

protecting health and the environment 

for everyone, but also ensuring that all 

people are treated fairly and are given 

the opportunity to participate fully in 

the development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies. Consistent 

with the Executive Order, the Agency’s 

environmental justice policies promote 

environmental protection by focusing 

EPA’s attention and efforts on 

addressing environmental risks among 

minority populations. 

As discussed above in Unit IV.A., 

most workers and handlers intended to 

be protected by the WPS face significant 

disadvantages. Most agricultural 

workers and handlers belong to 

minority groups. Agricultural workers 

tend to have low literacy in any 

language and very limited skills in 

English. Very often workers do not have 

permanent housing and generally reside 

close to agricultural areas where 

pesticides are applied. Many workers 

and handlers are not residents or legal 

aliens in the United States. The low 

literacy rates, range of non-English 

languages spoken by workers and 

handlers, economic situation, 

geographic isolation, difficulty 

accessing health care, and immigration 

status of workers and handlers pose 

challenges for communicating risk 

management information and ensuring 

that these groups are adequately 

protected. 

Occupational tasks performed by 

workers and handlers create a 

significant risk of pesticide exposure, 

which is increased by the 

communication barriers discussed 

above. In addition to potential exposure 

through work duties, studies show that 

workers and handlers face a greater risk 

of exposure to pesticide drift from 

neighboring areas than does the general 

population (Ref. 21). Pesticide exposure 

can also come through residues 

transferred by workers and handlers on 

their clothing and body from the treated 

areas to their cars and homes, and from 

the proximity of the housing to 

agricultural areas treated with pesticides 

(Ref. 21) (Ref. 22) (Ref. 23) (Ref. 24). 

Finally, pesticide exposure may occur 

from the consumption of treated foods 

in the treated area or washing hands in 

pesticide contaminated water (Ref. 25) 

(Ref. 26) (Ref. 27 p. 25). 

Throughout the development of this 

proposed rule, the Agency has 

continued to use research on the 

demographic characteristics, work 

habits, and culture of the worker and 

handler populations to revise the WPS 

to ensure it provides effective 

protection. Information for the 

assessment and development of the rule 

was gathered through field research and 

interaction with workers, handlers, 

worker and handler representatives, and 

stakeholders. EPA extensively engaged 

farmworker representatives, and when 

possible, worked directly with workers 

and handlers, to solicit their feedback 

on the current regulation and ideas for 

improvement. 

With this stakeholder input, the 

Agency identified areas where the 

existing WPS does not provide an 

appropriate level of protection and 

evaluated the potential impact of 

various options for strengthening the 

WPS for the worker and handler 

populations. That analysis identified 

areas for improvement to the rule, such 

as expanding training to provide 

information on how to minimize worker 

and handler exposure and that of their 

families from pesticide residues carried 

from the treated area to the home. The 

Agency’s efforts to address 

environmental justice through this 

rulemaking were reviewed repeatedly 

during the development of the rule and 

its supporting documents. EPA believes 

that the proposed changes would 

improve the health of workers and 

handlers by, for example, increasing the 

frequency of training, enhancing 

training content to include ways to 

minimize pesticide exposure to children 

and in the home, adding posting of 

treated areas near worker and handler 

housing to prevent accidental entry, and 

establishing a minimum age for 

pesticide handlers and early-entry 

workers. 

E. Children’s Protection 

An Executive Order issued in 1997 

(62 FR 19885; April 23, 1997) and 

modified in 2003 (68 FR 19931; April 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15458 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

23, 2003) requires federal agencies to 

identify and assess environmental 

health risks that may disproportionately 

affect children. In response to this 

mandate, EPA established the 

Children’s Health Protection Advisory 

Committee (CHPAC) to advise and make 

recommendations to EPA on issues 

related to children’s environmental 

health. The CHPAC recommended that 

EPA ‘‘re-evaluate the worker protection 

standard in order to determine whether 

it adequately protects children’s health’’ 

(Ref. 28). In a Federal Register Notice 

issued on February 3, 1999, EPA 

committed to conducting an assessment 

of the implementation and enforcement 

of the WPS (64 FR 5277; February 3, 

1999). 

Children face risks from exposure to 

agricultural pesticides mainly through 

work in pesticide-treated areas. A 2003 

study by Calvert, et al. identified 531 

children under 18 years old with acute 

occupational pesticide-related illnesses 

over a ten-year period (Ref. 29). The 

same study raised concerns for chronic 

impacts: ‘‘because [the] acute illnesses 

affect young people at a time before they 

have reached full developmental 

maturation, there is also concern about 

unique and persistent chronic effects’’ 

(Ref. 29). 

Although no conclusive data exist, 

studies have been conducted to evaluate 

whether children of agricultural workers 

and handlers may face elevated 

potential for exposure from pesticide 

residues brought to the home by their 

parents (Ref. 30) (Ref. 31). Studies have 

also been conducted to evaluate 

whether this exposure scenario may 

have contributed to negative health or 

developmental effects (Ref. 32). Higher 

concentrations of pesticide residues 

combined with the susceptibility of 

children to the effects of pesticide 

exposure may increase the likelihood 

that children will be adversely 

impacted. EPA recognizes the need for 

more conclusive data on exposure to 

children from pesticide residues 

brought into the home by agricultural 

workers. However, given EPA’s 

commitment to protecting children and 

to the principles of environmental 

justice, EPA believes the cost of adding 

a few minutes to pesticide safety 

training is reasonable when compared to 

the benefit of reducing the potential 

risk. 

The FLSA’s child labor provisions, 

which are administered by the 

Department of Labor, permit children to 

work at younger ages in agricultural 

employment than in non-agricultural 

employment. Persons 12 and 13 years 

old may work in agriculture outside of 

school hours in nonhazardous jobs if 

they are either working on the same 

farm as a parent or person standing in 

the place of a parent, or working with 

parental permission. 29 U.S.C. 

213(c)(1)(B). Children under 16 years 

old are prohibited from doing hazardous 

tasks, including handling or applying 

pesticides that are classified as toxicity 

category I or II but can apply pesticides 

that are classified with a lower acute 

toxicity. (29 CFR 570.71(a)(9)) 

In summary, children working in 

agriculture and children of agricultural 

workers and handlers may be at a higher 

risk of pesticide exposure and illness; 

EPA believes these potential risks 

warrant careful consideration in light of 

the provisions of the Executive Order on 

children’s health (EO 13296). EPA 

believes that the proposed changes 

could protect children from many of the 

risks they may face. 

F. Regulatory Review 

In 2005, EPA reviewed the WPS 

pursuant to section 610 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

610). The purpose of the review was to 

determine whether the rule should be 

continued without change, amended, or 

rescinded to minimize economic 

impacts on small entities while still 

complying with the provisions of 

FIFRA. EPA solicited comment on the 

continued need for the WPS; the 

complexity of the WPS; the extent to 

which it overlaps, duplicates, or 

conflicts with other federal, state, or 

local government rules; and the degree 

to which technology, economic 

conditions or other relevant factors have 

changed since the WPS was 

promulgated. See EPA Docket ID 

number OPP–2003–0115 at 

www.regulations.gov. The Agency 

received no comment on the action and 

concluded that the rule needs no 

revisions to minimize impacts on small 

entities while still complying with 

FIFRA. 

While EPA found that no changes 

were necessary to minimize the impacts 

on small entities, EPA believes that the 

WPS should be updated for the reasons 

discussed in the previous sections. 

Through the assessment process, EPA 

reviewed the 1992 WPS to determine 

whether the requirements were 

effective, sufficiently protective, and 

unduly burdensome on employers. As 

discussed in Unit V.B., EPA engaged in 

a substantial stakeholder engagement 

process, apart from the 2005 review 

mentioned in the previous paragraph, to 

review the effectiveness of the current 

regulatory requirements, to identify gaps 

in protection, and to determine flexible 

approaches to compliance for the 

regulated community. EPA engaged 

with small business representatives to 

explore flexible options for compliance. 

EPA believes the proposed changes 

reflect the current understanding of the 

risks faced by workers and handlers, 

thereby substantially improving the 

protections afforded to workers and 

handlers under the WPS and decreasing 

the overall burden associated with 

compliance for employers. 

VI. Overview of Proposed Revisions to 

Part 170 

Earlier Units of this preamble describe 

the various ways that workers, handlers, 

and their families can be exposed to 

pesticides. The stakeholder engagement 

described in Unit V.B. resulted in many 

recommendations for EPA to revise the 

regulation. Through the SBAR panel, 

SERs raised the need for EPA to be 

mindful of the burden the WPS imposes 

on small business and to reduce it 

wherever possible (Ref. 18). 

As discussed earlier in this document, 

EPA has imposed requirements on the 

use of pesticides with the intent of 

averting unreasonable adverse effects to 

human health and the environment. 

These requirements include the WPS 

and pesticide-specific use restrictions 

found on product labeling. In spite of 

these protections, worker and handler 

illnesses resulting from pesticide 

exposure are documented, and the 

Agency believes they are underreported. 

Peer-reviewed studies, based on 

pesticide illness reporting and 

surveillance initiatives show evidence 

of illnesses to workers and handlers. For 

example, one study finds that acute 

pesticide poisoning incidents in the 

agriculture industry ‘‘continues to be an 

important problem’’ (Ref. 11). This 

study examined pesticide poisoning 

incidents among agricultural workers 

from 1998–2005, and analyzed 3,271 

cases. Illness rates varied by category, 

but across agricultural worker 

categories, risks of poisoning were an 

order of magnitude higher than for 

almost all non-agricultural workers, 

which include farmers, processing/

packing plant workers, and other 

miscellaneous agricultural workers. A 

study conducted by Das, et al., 

identified 486 pesticide illness cases 

among California farmworkers for 1998– 

1999, based on a surveillance program 

with mandatory reporting by 

physicians. The study found that about 

half of all acute pesticide-related illness 

cases in the California surveillance 

system affected agricultural workers 

(Ref. 33). Over a quarter of the 

poisonings were to those mixing, 

loading or applying pesticides. The 

most common symptoms were 

dermatological (about 44%), 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15459 

neurological (about 39%), and 

gastrointestinal (about 38%), and the 

most common route of exposure was 

skin contact, followed by inhalation and 

eye contact. 

A 2008 report indicates that from 

1998 to 2005 the major causes of 

occupational pesticide exposure were 

off-target drift, early reentry into a 

treated area, and pesticide use in 

conflict with the labeling (Ref. 11). 

Studies have been conducted to 

evaluate whether worker and handler 

families are exposed to pesticides 

because workers and handlers bring 

pesticide residues home on their body, 

shoes, and clothing (Ref. 23) (Ref. 24) 

(Ref. 34). These studies recommend that 

workers and handlers receive more 

specific information on how to protect 

their families and avoid exposure in the 

workplace (Ref. 23) (Ref. 24) (Ref. 34). 

EPA believes the proposed changes 

address the specific avenues of 

occupational exposure and recognize 

the specific needs of the worker and 

handler population. Units VII. to XX. 

describe the proposed changes and 

alternative options considered by EPA. 

The presentation is generally structured 

to provide, where appropriate: 

• A concise statement of the proposed 

change; 

• The current WPS requirements; 

• Stakeholder feedback and research 

supporting the proposed change; 

• A detailed description of the 

proposed change and the rationale for 

the change; 

• An estimated cost; 

• A description of significant 

alternatives considered by EPA and the 

reasons for not proposing them; and 

• Specific questions on which the 

Agency seeks feedback. 

For purposes of discussion, EPA 

groups the proposed changes and 

considered alternatives as follows: 

• Unit VII: Changes to the training for 

workers and handlers, including new 

recordkeeping requirements, multiple 

changes to the content of the training, 

and trainer qualifications. 

• Unit VIII: Changes to the worker 

and handler notifications including 

posted and oral notifications and 

revisions to the warning sign content. 

• Unit IX: Hazard communication 

materials. 

• Unit X: Information that handlers 

and agricultural employers must 

exchange. 

• Unit XI: Handler restrictions 

including minimum age requirements 

for handlers. 

• Unit XII: Expansion of entryrestricted areas, minimum age 

requirements for workers entering a 

treated area under an REI, and 

clarification of the REI exceptions. 

• Unit XIII: Pesticide safety 

information display, including location 

and content required. 

• Unit XIV: Decontamination 

requirements for handlers and early 

entry workers. 

• Unit XV: Emergency assistance. 

• Unit XVI: Personal protective 

equipment, including the use of closed 

systems. 

• Unit XVII: Monitoring handler 

exposure to cholinesterase-inhibiting 

pesticides. 

• Unit XVIII: Exemptions for 

immediate family and crop advisors and 

exception to requirement for workers to 

be fully trained before entering a 

pesticide-treated area. 

• Unit XIX: General revisions to the 

WPS. 

• Unit XX: Implementation. 

VII. Training for Workers and Handlers 

The current WPS allows employers to 

utilize a ‘‘grace period’’ to provide 

workers with basic training before 

entering the treated area and before the 

6th day that workers begin working in 

an area covered by the WPS to provide 

the full pesticide safety training 

discussed below. This provision is 

considered an exception to the training 

requirements; therefore, the current 

‘‘grace period’’ and proposed 

amendments are discussed in Unit 

XVIII.C. 

A. Shorten Retraining Interval for 

Workers and Handlers 

1. Overview. The WPS currently 

requires employers to ensure that 

workers and handlers are trained once 

every five years. EPA proposes to 

establish an annual retraining interval 

for workers and handlers in order to 

improve the ability of workers and 

handlers to protect themselves and their 

families from pesticide exposure. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS 

requires agricultural and handler 

employers to ensure that handlers and 

workers receive pesticide safety training 

once every five years (40 CFR 170.130(a) 

and 170.230(a)). This retraining time 

period was initially implemented to 

minimize burden on employers when 

pesticide safety training was first 

introduced, due to the limited number 

of trainers available at the time. Worker 

and handler trainings, as discussed in 

Unit VII.E., provide information on 

protecting oneself and family from 

pesticide exposure, recognizing and 

avoiding dangers in the workplace, and 

steps to take in the event of pesticide 

exposure. 

3. Summary of the issues. Many 

stakeholders have commented that a 5- 

year retraining interval is too long for 

workers and handlers to retain the 

safety information (Ref. 17) (Ref. 28) 

(Ref. 35) (Ref. 15) (Ref. 36) (Ref. 37). 

Through the National Assessment, 

letters to the Agency, and feedback from 

PPDC on proposed options, various 

stakeholders have recommended 

shortening the current interval in order 

to improve workers’ and handlers’ 

understanding and recall of the material 

covered. The General Training Issues 

Workgroup, with representatives from 

across the agricultural community, 

recommended shortening the retraining 

interval for workers and for the Agency 

to base the standard on retraining 

intervals for other similar professions 

(Ref. 16). 

Research has indicated the 

importance of repetition in an 

individual’s retention of information 

(Ref. 38). Stakeholders, particularly 

pesticide safety educators, have noted 

that ‘‘repeating basic safety messages 

increases adoption of improved safety 

practices.’’ (Ref. 39) Providing training 

more frequently than the current 

requirement of every five years may be 

especially beneficial for workers and 

handlers with limited knowledge of 

English or another widely used 

language, e.g., Spanish, or who have 

recently started working in an 

agricultural job, who may need 

additional review to fully understand 

the material. Worker advocacy groups 

and educators have repeatedly noted 

that more frequent training is important 

for the worker community. 

Additionally, a 2007 report for the 

EPA by JBS International titled ‘‘Hazard 

Communications for Agricultural 

Workers’’ reported that workers who 

were interviewed wanted more frequent 

training on pesticide safety (Ref. 40). 

Workers requested training to occur at 

least once a year. 

The DOL’s NAWS provides 

information on the nature of worker 

employment and turn-over rate. The 

most recent report available notes that 

‘‘[i]n 2001–2002, crop workers, 

including foreign-born newcomers, had 

been employed with their current farm 

employer an average of four and a half 

years. Thirty-five percent had been 

working for their current employer for 

one year or less, and 12 percent had 

been employed at their current farm job 

for ten or more years (Ref. 3). 

Agricultural employers that provided 

information to EPA during the SBAR 

panel process on the WPS stated that 

they already provide annual pesticide 

training, since verification of previous 

training can be difficult to achieve and 

the employers want to ensure they 

comply with the WPS to avoid liability. 

EPA has heard similar statements in 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15460 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

discussions with farmers in other 

venues, but recognizes that all 

employers may not provide annual 

training. The Panel recommendations 

recognized the value of retraining, and 

specifically its ability to emphasize and 

remind the worker of important safety 

principles (Ref. 18). State and federal 

enforcement agents have also noted the 

difficulty in determining if a worker or 

handler has been trained, when relying 

on his recall of the training material 

over a long time period, e.g., 5 years. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

The Agency proposes to establish an 

annual retraining interval for workers 

and handlers. Accordingly, this would 

reduce the maximum time between 

trainings for workers and handlers from 

5 years to 1 year. 

EPA believes that more frequent 

repetition of the protective principles 

outlined in the pesticide safety training 

is particularly important given the 

demographics of the worker population. 

As data cited earlier show, workers 

generally have low literacy and limited 

understanding of English. Therefore, it 

is important for workers and handlers to 

receive the information in a manner 

they understand and with sufficient 

frequency to ensure they retain the 

information. 

Research shows that adults remember 

only about 10% of what they hear and 

50% of information that they see and 

hear (Ref. 41). EPA expects the more 

frequent review of pesticide safety 

information, in combination with the 

proposal for expanded display of 

pesticide safety information at 

decontamination sites [see Unit XIII.A.], 

would improve retention of safety 

principles and hygiene practices critical 

to self-protection, reinforce the 

importance of protecting families from 

pesticide exposure, encourage handlers’ 

adherence to label requirements, and 

remind workers and handlers of the 

obligations of their employers under the 

rule. 

This proposed rule reflects previously 

established training requirements for 

similar occupational hazards. Federal 

agencies already require annual training 

when hazardous substances may be 

encountered in the workplace in many 

other industries. OSHA regulations 

require employers to provide annual 

training to protect employees from 

chemical hazards in the workplace 

including lead (29 CFR 1962.62(l)(1)), 

asbestos (1926.1101(k)(9)), and 

cadmium (29 CFR 1926.1127(m)(4)). 

Under the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA), EPA requires 

personnel at hazardous waste treatment, 

storage, and disposal facilities to have 

annual training as well (40 CFR parts 

264 and 265). The risks from pesticide 

exposure through agricultural work are 

similar to the threats posed by 

hazardous chemicals in other industries, 

and the Agency believes training 

requirements to protect agricultural 

workers and handlers should be 

comparable to those required by OSHA. 

In addition, agricultural and handler 

employers may already be required to 

keep records of annual training required 

by other regulations, such as those listed 

above. EPA believes that agricultural 

and handler employers would track an 

annual requirement for WPS training 

along with required OSHA trainings and 

employment records, such as those 

required by the Department of Labor. 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning shorter retraining intervals 

for workers and handlers appears in 

§§ 170.101(a) and 170.201(a), 

respectively, of the proposed rule. 

5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates 

the cost of the requiring employers to 

provide pesticide safety to training 

workers annually would be $8.7 million 

per year. Training its workers would 

cost each agricultural establishment 

about $22 per year. EPA estimates the 

cost to employers to provide pesticide 

safety training to handlers annually 

would be $3.5 million per year. The 

average cost of training handlers would 

be about $17 per year for agricultural 

establishments and $66 per year for 

commercial pesticide handling 

establishments. For a complete 

discussion of the costs of the proposals 

and alternatives, see the ‘‘Economic 

Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the 

Worker Protection Standard,’’ Chapter 3 

Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

While EPA can estimate the costs of 

this proposed change, quantifying the 

benefits is more difficult. Nonetheless, 

based on the information and expert 

views described in this section, it is 

reasonable to expect that more frequent 

training would lead to better retention 

of information by workers and handlers, 

ultimately resulting in fewer incidents 

of pesticide exposure and illness in 

workers and handlers, reduced takehome exposure, and better protection of 

children. The Agency concludes that the 

estimated costs are reasonable when 

compared to the anticipated benefits 

resulting from the additional training. 

6. Alternative options considered but 

not proposed. The Agency considered 

three alternative approaches to the 

retraining interval for workers and 

handlers. The first alternative was 

recommended by the SBAR panel, based 

on a comment from one of the SERs. 

This option would require annual 

retraining and offer small 

establishments, those with fewer than 

10 employees, the option to provide 

training less frequently for workers (Ref. 

18). A small establishment requesting 

flexibility would be required to 

maintain documentation to show that 

(1) no additional workers were hired 

within the retraining interval, (2) no 

new or different pesticide applications 

were made from the previous year, and 

(3) they provided training for the 

specific workers on the establishment 

previously. If the establishment added 

any new employees, it would not be 

eligible to provide less frequent training. 

The estimated cost for this option would 

be about $7.5 million annually, or $60 

for large agricultural establishments and 

$12 for small agricultural 

establishments. The Agency agrees that 

this option could reduce the burden on 

small entities of providing annual 

training, but it would also reduce the 

benefit workers would receive from 

annual retraining. Moreover, EPA notes 

that implementation of such an 

exception would increase recordkeeping 

burdens on all small establishments that 

would offset, to some degree, the 

savings for some establishments from 

not having to provide training. The 

additional recordkeeping costs were not 

quantified. Under this exception, those 

small entities that added a new 

employee or applied a different 

pesticide during the year would actually 

have higher costs, even though the 

overall burden on small entities might 

be somewhat smaller. Based on the 

marginal cost reduction, increased 

recordkeeping burden, and potential 

risk to workers who would not receive 

training annually, the Agency thinks 

that requiring all establishments to 

provide annual training is more 

appropriate. 

EPA also considered a 2-year 

retraining interval for all 

establishments. EPA estimates that 

biennial training for workers would cost 

about $3.2 million per year, or about $8 

per agricultural establishment per year. 

Biennial training for handlers would 

cost about $1.6 million per year, or $8 

per agricultural establishment and $27 

per commercial pesticide handling 

establishment per year. While biennial 

training would provide more protection 

to workers and handlers than the 

current 5-year retraining interval, EPA 

believes the longer timeframe would not 

improve retention to the extent expected 

from annual training. Employers are 

already required to provide and track 

OSHA trainings and to maintain 

employment records, such as those 

required by the Department of Labor, on 

an annual basis; requiring pesticide 

safety training every 2 years could 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15461 

increase the burden on agricultural and 

handler employers to track the WPS 

training on a different schedule. 

Representatives on the SBAR panel 

indicated that many employers already 

provide training on an annual basis as 

part of their hiring process (Ref. 42 p. 2). 

EPA believes that even with a biennial 

training requirement, many employers 

would continue to provide training 

annually. Therefore, the burden on 

employers would not be significantly 

reduced by a biennial training 

requirement. EPA believes the costs of 

more frequent annual training are 

reasonable when compared to the 

anticipated benefits, particularly when 

combined with the stakeholder reports 

that annual training is already provided 

in many cases. 

Finally, EPA considered requiring a 

written test to gauge the workers’ or 

handlers’ knowledge about the topics 

covered in training to ensure that they 

have the information needed for selfprotection. The Agency, however, was 

dissuaded from this alternative due to 

concerns for the ability of workers and 

handlers to successfully complete an 

exam, even when they have been 

adequately trained, on account of 

literacy and language challenges among 

workers and handlers. Some 

stakeholders have indicated that 

noncertified applicators, who have 

similar demographic profiles to workers 

and handlers, may find it difficult to 

pass a written examination due to 

literacy and language barriers; the 

Agency believes workers and handlers 

may have similar difficulty (Ref. 36) 

(Ref. 37). Concerns exist for the 

perceived burden on employers for 

providing the time for needed training 

and exam-taking, and for the potential 

reduction in workforce when workers or 

handlers cannot pass the exam, despite 

being aware of the training content (Ref. 

36) (Ref. 37). While testing might be a 

useful approach in some situations, the 

Agency believes that in this context a 

testing requirement is less likely than 

annual retraining to produce the desired 

improvements in workers’ and handlers’ 

understanding of pesticide safety. 

Therefore, EPA is not proposing testing 

as an alternative to annual training. 

7. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Should EPA consider different 

pesticide safety training timing? If so, 

what timeframe and why? 

• Do you have information 

concerning the relationship between the 

frequency of training of workers and 

handlers and the frequency of incidents 

of pesticide exposure or illness? If so, 

please provide. 

• Are there other ways EPA could 

ensure that workers and handlers retain 

the information presented in pesticide 

safety training so the retraining interval 

can be longer than one year? 

• Are there other burdens or benefits 

associated with a 2-year retraining 

interval that EPA has not considered? 

• What would be the impact of a 1- 

or 2-year retraining interval on states 

and tribes? 

• Should EPA consider retaining the 

current 5 year retraining interval for 

workers and handlers and adding a 

requirement for annual refresher 

training? Please provide information on 

the relative benefits to and burdens on 

employers, workers, and handlers. EPA 

currently envisions that, if adopted, the 

annual refresher training for workers 

would include the topics proposed at 

170.309(e), the grace period training (see 

Unit XVIII for a full discussion of the 

proposed points for training workers 

under the grace period). The annual 

refresher training for handlers would 

include a review of information 

necessary for handlers to protect 

themselves, their families, workers, and 

the environment from pesticide 

exposure. EPA anticipates that the 

refresher training would be slightly 

shorter in duration than the proposed 

full pesticide safety training, but seeks 

comment on the duration of such 

refresher training. Retaining the current 

5 year retraining interval and adding a 

requirement for annual refresher 

training would necessitate additional 

recordkeeping by the employer. The 

employer would maintain training 

records for workers and handlers as 

discussed in Unit VII.B. below, as well 

as records containing the same 

information for the refresher training. 

B. Establish Recordkeeping 

Requirements To Verify Training for 

Workers and Handlers 

1. Overview. The existing WPS does 

not establish any mandatory mechanism 

for verifying that a worker or handler 

has received pesticide safety training. 

To improve compliance with the WPS 

training requirements and to address the 

absence of documentation of worker and 

handler training, the Agency proposes 

to eliminate the voluntary training 

verification card system and to require 

employers to maintain records of WPS 

worker and handler training for two 

years. In addition, the employer would 

be responsible for providing a copy of 

the record to each worker or handler 

upon completion of the training. EPA 

believes a requirement for employers to 

maintain the training roster, an official 

record, of employees’ training would 

address current enforcement difficulties 

in verifying whether a worker or 

handler has received training. The 

requirement to provide workers and 

handlers with a copy of the training 

record would allow a subsequent 

employer to verify that the worker or 

handler had received training and to 

copy the training verification record for 

the subsequent employer’s own files. 

2. Existing WPS requirements. 

Presently, the WPS does not require 

agricultural employers to document that 

they provided the training required 

under the WPS for workers or handlers. 

The WPS also does not require trainers 

or employers to record who they 

trained, what training they provided, or 

when they provided pesticide safety 

training. However, a voluntary program 

was established that allowed states, 

tribes, and agricultural employers to use 

verification cards to identify workers 

and handlers trained in accordance with 

the WPS. Participating states, territories, 

and tribes have opted to distribute cards 

printed by EPA or to generate agencyspecific cards. States, territories, and 

tribes allow distribution of the cards by 

trainers qualified under the WPS or 

under stricter requirements. A few 

entities require trainers of workers or 

handlers to submit the names of those 

trained to the state regulatory agency; 

however, EPA does not maintain such a 

list. Under the current voluntary 

training verification card program, an 

agricultural or handler employer who 

hires workers and handlers with valid 

training verification cards does not need 

to provide training until the expiration 

date listed on the card. At least 20 

states, territories, or tribes continue to 

use the voluntary training card system 

(Ref. 43). 

3. Summary of the issues. Since 1998, 

EPA has received considerable feedback 

from stakeholders, including state 

regulatory partners, regarding the 

difficulty of enforcing the training 

provisions of the WPS rule, primarily 

due to a lack of recordkeeping (Ref. 17) 

(Ref. 18). Inspectors have noted that 

they cannot consult a record to 

determine if the workers and handlers 

on the establishment have been trained. 

Their primary method for evaluating 

compliance with training requirements 

is to interview workers and handlers 

regarding the content of training 

received or whether any training has 

occurred. Stakeholders, including state 

inspectors and farmworker 

organizations, have indicated that 

interview results may be compromised 

as workers and handlers may not recall 

the training they received, may not 

connect the questions with the training 

information, and may not be able to 

communicate with the inspector in a 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15462 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

language that both are comfortable 

speaking. Some workers and handlers 

may feel intimidated and provide 

inaccurate responses due to a lack of 

anonymity. Some states and territories, 

including AZ, CA, HI, NV, NH, NJ, PA, 

and PR, have addressed the issue 

through requiring a form of 

recordkeeping for worker and/or 

handler training, such as training 

records maintained by the employer, 

training records submitted to the state, 

or making mandatory the voluntary 

training verification card system. 

California has implemented a 

requirement for employers to maintain 

records of handler training for 2 years (3 

CCR 6724(e)). 

Some stakeholders voiced strong 

support for improved recordkeeping as 

discussed in reports from the National 

Assessment of EPA’s Pesticide Worker 

Safety Program (Ref. 44). The General 

Training Issues Workgroup, convened as 

part of the National Assessment, 

recommended that all trainers be 

required to maintain records of trained 

workers for the duration of the 

retraining interval, and suggested that 

EPA offer a variety of methods for 

employers to demonstrate compliance 

(Ref. 15). Farmworker organizations as 

well as other stakeholders have 

repeatedly emphasized the need to 

improve enforcement and compliance 

verification capabilities in order to 

assure greater protection for workers 

(Ref. 17) (Ref. 35). 

States, territories, and tribes have 

noted that the voluntary training 

verification card system is undermined 

by fraudulent cards. They cite instances 

of workers, handlers, and labor 

contractors illegally exchanging cards 

and altering the expiration date. 

Without an expiration year printed on 

each card and annual reprinting of 

current verification cards, it is difficult 

to assess the validity of the card. 

Without any requirement for creating 

and maintaining records of training, it is 

virtually impossible to verify who has 

been trained. States have informed the 

Agency that workers perceive the card 

as a credential that potential employers 

may use to determine their 

employability. As a result, state agencies 

have reported that falsified cards are 

common because workers and handlers 

want to show that they are employable. 

The Agency believes, based on 

information gathered since the 

implementation of the training 

verification card system, that the current 

system of voluntary training verification 

cards has proven to be an unreliable 

method of tracking and identifying 

trained workers (Ref. 37) (Ref. 45) (Ref. 

46). 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

The Agency proposes to require 

agricultural and handler employers to 

keep records of all workers and handlers 

who receive pesticide safety training for 

2 years on the agricultural 

establishment. Required information for 

the record of worker and handler 

training would include the trained 

worker’s or handler’s name, signature, 

date of birth, the date of training, the 

trainer’s name, proof of trainer’s 

qualification to train, the employer’s 

name, employer’s phone number or 

phone number of the establishment, and 

which EPA-approved training materials 

were used. EPA also proposes to require 

employers to provide a copy of the 

training record to each worker and 

handler upon completion of the 

training. 

EPA believes these new 

recordkeeping requirements would 

address some of the difficulties in 

effectively enforcing the existing rule 

raised by regulatory and farmworker 

advocacy stakeholders. This proposal 

would allow inspectors to verify 

training through records retained by the 

employer and maintained by the 

workers and handlers themselves rather 

than solely through interviews with 

workers and handlers. The Agency’s 

proposal is flexible in that it would 

allow paper or electronic recordkeeping, 

so an employer could scan the training 

records with employees’ signatures and 

maintain electronic files. 

The recorded date of birth would be 

used to verify that the minimum age for 

handlers and early-entry workers has 

been met. [See Units XI.B. and XII.A.] 

Retaining the trainer’s proof of 

qualification to train would allow the 

inspector to determine if the trainer met 

the criteria to be a trainer. [See Unit 

VII.D] 

EPA recognizes the importance of 

maintaining some mechanism for 

workers and handlers to change 

employers without repeating pesticide 

safety training each time they enter an 

establishment. EPA believes that the 

proposed option would meet the need 

for employers to verify that workers and 

handlers have received appropriate 

training by providing an official record 

rather than the voluntary training 

verification card. The proposal to 

require employers to maintain specific 

records of worker and handler training 

and to provide a copy of the training 

record to each trained worker and 

handler would make the voluntary 

training verification card program 

obsolete, redundant, and unnecessary. 

An employer could consider a worker or 

handler trained if either the employee or 

prior employer presents a copy of the 

training record. EPA believes requiring 

employers to provide a record of the 

training to workers and handlers would 

allow workers and handlers to show 

future employers they have received 

WPS training. In addition, future 

employers could maintain a copy of the 

workers’ or handlers’ record in their 

files to comply with the requirement to 

ensure the employees have received the 

appropriate training. 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning the recordkeeping 

requirements to verify training for 

workers and handlers appears in 

§§ 170.101(d) and 170.201(d), 

respectively, of the proposed rule. 

5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates 

the cost of requiring employers to 

maintain records of worker training for 

2 years would be $1.6 million annually 

and about $4 per agricultural 

establishment per year. The cost for 

employers to maintain records for 

handler training for 2 years would be 

$160,000 annually, or less than $1 per 

agricultural establishment and about $3 

per commercial pesticide handling 

establishment per year. For a complete 

discussion of the costs of the proposals 

and alternatives, see the ‘‘Economic 

Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the 

Worker Protection Standard,’’ Chapter 3 

Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

Although EPA cannot quantify the 

benefits of this specific proposed 

option, EPA believes that requiring 

records of worker and handler training 

would improve employers’ compliance 

with the training requirements. 

Improved compliance would increase 

the likelihood that workers and 

handlers perform WPS tasks with the 

information necessary to mitigate 

exposure to pesticides for themselves 

and their family members. 

6. Alternative options considered but 

not proposed. First, EPA considered an 

option to require the employer or trainer 

to provide every trained worker and 

handler with a wallet-sized verification 

record (similar to the current voluntary 

training verification card) that contains 

the proposed recordkeeping 

information, instead of the proposal to 

provide a photocopy of the training 

recordkeeping form. Distribution of the 

training verification cards would be 

limited to trainers who meet the 

proposed qualifications. [See Unit 

VII.D.] The cards would be issued by 

EPA on an annual basis and would 

indicate a date after which the card 

would no longer be valid, i.e., a 2015 

card would state that it would not be 

considered a valid verification of 

training after 12/31/2016. The annual 

card issuance by EPA and clear 

statement of the card’s longest potential 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15463 

validity could help cut down the issues 

of fraudulent use raised by states and 

other stakeholders. 

This alternative would increase the 

burden on trainers, employers, and EPA 

and states, territories, and tribes. Instead 

of providing a copy of the training 

record, the trainer would be required to 

copy the information onto each 

individual training verification card. 

Subsequent employers would need to 

verify the information on the card with 

the original trainer or employer and to 

obtain a copy of the original training 

record for their files. EPA would be 

responsible for printing cards annually. 

EPA and states, territories, and tribes 

would be responsible for distributing 

cards to approved trainers and tracking 

who received the cards. EPA estimates 

that a mandatory training verification 

card program for workers would add 

about $640,000 to the cost of training 

records, increasing the total cost to 

about $2.2 million. Based on the 

increased burden to trainers, employers, 

and states, territories, and tribes without 

significantly different anticipated 

benefits to workers, handlers, trainers, 

and employers, EPA decided not to 

propose this option. 

Second, EPA also considered 

requiring agricultural and handler 

employers to submit worker and 

handler training records to EPA or to the 

state, territory, or tribal regulatory 

authority. The agency responsible at the 

federal or state, territory, or tribal level 

would then maintain a database of 

trained workers and handlers. The 

Agency believes that it is adequate for 

employers to maintain the records, 

making them available to inspectors 

upon request. The submission of 

training records to a central repository 

might benefit EPA and others wishing to 

verify a worker’s or handler’s status. 

However, employers would still bear the 

cost of either creating a record of the 

training in the central repository or 

verifying a worker’s or handler’s 

eligibility in the system. Since most 

workers and handlers have one or two 

employers per year, the burden on 

employers to report to and check with 

a central repository of information may 

not be justified. The proposed rule 

would require that the employer 

maintain records on-site for inspection 

purposes. 

Third, EPA also considered an option 

to require trainers, rather than or in 

addition to employers, to retain records 

of those trained. EPA is not pursuing 

this option because the WPS focuses on 

the responsibilities of agricultural and 

handler employers. Trainers are not 

responsible for the use of the pesticide 

on the establishment and therefore 

cannot be legally responsible for 

following the labeling and complying 

with the WPS requirements. Ultimately, 

the agricultural or handler employer is 

responsible for ensuring that workers 

and handlers receive training and for 

tracking that training. Inspections focus 

on compliance of the agricultural or 

handler employer with the provisions of 

the WPS, not the trainer. The WPS 

would not prohibit the creation of 

training records by the trainer; however, 

the agricultural or handler employer 

would have to maintain a copy of the 

records. 

Finally, the Agency considered 

establishing a 5-year interval for the 

record retention cycle, which would 

coincide with the statute of limitations 

for civil violations (28 U.S.C. 2462). The 

estimated cost of this requirement 

would be $2 million for worker training 

records and $290,000 for handler 

training records. The incremental cost 

between record retention for two or five 

years would be negligible. However, 

EPA believes based on state programs 

(e.g., California and Florida) and 

stakeholder feedback that a requirement 

to keep records for 2 years is sufficient. 

Therefore, EPA decided not to propose 

a 5-year interval for record retention. 

7. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Would a requirement for employers 

to report worker and handler training 

information to the state or federal 

government for compilation in a central 

repository have benefits? If so, please 

detail the potential benefits and cost. 

• Should the Agency reconsider any 

of the alternate options presented in 

developing a final rule? If so, why? 

Please provide data to support your 

position. 

• Are there changes that would make 

the training verification card program 

more effective and less prone to falsified 

cards? If so, please provide detailed 

suggestions for improving the system. 

• Should EPA consider a performance 

standard to evaluate worker and handler 

training (asking questions based on the 

training content) rather than 

recordkeeping? Are there benefits or 

drawbacks to this approach that the 

Agency has not considered? 

• Would employers rely on training 

records provided by the worker or 

handler as verification that the worker 

or handler had received pesticide safety 

training? 

C. Require Employers To Provide 

Establishment-Specific Information for 

Workers and Handlers 

1. Overview. The existing WPS does 

not require employers to provide to 

workers and handlers establishmentspecific information on the location of 

decontamination supplies as part of 

their pesticide safety training. In order 

to allow workers and handlers to 

adequately protect themselves in the 

event of an unexpected exposure that 

could occur through spills, being 

sprayed, or other unusually high 

exposure situations, the Agency 

proposes that in addition to required 

general training employers must provide 

establishment-specific information 

about the location of decontamination 

supplies and pesticide safety and hazard 

information, as well as how to obtain 

medical assistance. Agricultural and 

handler employers would be required to 

provide this establishment-specific 

information to all workers and handlers, 

including those previously trained on 

other establishments. The Agency 

expects this change will equip workers 

and handlers with the knowledge and 

capability to assist in better protecting 

themselves from adverse effects of 

pesticide exposure. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. Sections 

170.135(e) and 170.235(e) require the 

employer to notify workers and 

handlers respectively about the location 

of the pesticide safety poster and the 

emergency medical information. 

Presently, part 170 has no requirement 

for employers to provide information on 

the location of decontamination 

supplies or hazard information to 

workers and handlers. 

3. Summary of the issues. Farmworker 

organizations have raised to EPA the 

need for workers and handlers to 

receive establishment-specific 

information even if the employer can 

verify that the workers and handlers 

have already received pesticide safety 

training. The pesticide safety training 

covers general self-protection 

principles. Establishment-specific 

information on where to find, among 

other things, decontamination supplies, 

emergency contact information, and 

pesticide application information, is not 

consistent across establishments. While 

the workers and handlers may have 

received general information on how to 

protect themselves, without knowledge 

of where the necessary supplies are 

located or how to obtain emergency 

medical assistance they would not be 

able to use the knowledge to protect 

themselves. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

The Agency proposes to require 

employers to provide establishmentspecific pesticide safety training for 

workers and handlers when they enter 

the establishment and before beginning 

WPS tasks. Content for the 

establishment-specific information 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15464 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

would include the location of pesticide 

safety information, the location of 

pesticide application and hazard 

information, the location of 

decontamination supplies, and how to 

obtain emergency medical assistance. 

Employers would be required to provide 

this training prior to the handler 

performing handler activities or the 

worker performing worker activities 

orally in a manner that the handler or 

worker can understand, such as through 

a translator. Lastly, this training would 

be required even if the employer can 

verify that the worker or handler has 

already received pesticide safety 

training on another establishment. 

EPA acknowledges that some of this 

information is already required under 

the current rule. However, EPA believes 

that consolidating the requirements for 

establishment-specific training would 

make them easier for employers to find 

and comply with, resulting in a higher 

likelihood that workers and handlers 

would receive the necessary 

information. 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning the requirement for 

employers to provide location-specific 

information to workers and handlers 

appears in §§ 170.103 and 170.203(b) of 

the proposed rule. 

5. Costs and benefits. The estimated 

cost of this proposal is included in the 

cost of expanded training discussed in 

Unit VII.E. EPA assumes that employers 

cover this information as part of routine 

pesticide safety training and therefore 

including the establishment-specific 

information would add negligible time 

and cost. 

6. Alternative options considered but 

not proposed. EPA did not consider any 

significant alternatives to the proposed 

option. 

7. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following question: 

• To what extent do employers 

already provide this information to all 

workers and handlers when they first 

arrive at the establishment, for example, 

during the hiring process? 

• The current rule requires employers 

to ensure that the workers and handlers 

receive information in a manner they 

understand. Are there any issues with 

the current requirement for employers? 

If so, please describe and provide data 

to support this position. 

D. Establish Trainer Qualifications 

1. Overview. The current rule allows 

workers and handlers to be trained by 

a variety of persons, including certified 

applicators and handlers. In order to 

ensure that the pesticide safety training 

received by workers and handlers is 

provided in a manner conducive to 

adult learning and provided in a 

language and manner in which they can 

understand, the Agency proposes to 

require trainers of workers to have 

completed an EPA-approved train-thetrainer program or be designated by EPA 

or an appropriate state or tribal agency 

as trainers of certified applicators. 

Certified applicators would no longer be 

automatically considered qualified to 

train workers. The Agency proposes to 

retain the existing qualifications for 

handler trainers, namely that in order to 

be a trainer of handlers, one must be a 

certified applicator under 40 CFR part 

171 at the time of the training, to have 

completed train-the-trainer program, or 

be designated by EPA or an appropriate 

state or tribal agency as a trainer of 

certified applicators and to limit 

approval of train-the-trainer programs to 

EPA. In addition, EPA proposes to 

require trainers to be present throughout 

the training and to ensure that there are 

no distractions, e.g., background videos, 

loud machinery, or other instructions, 

competing for the worker’s or handler’s 

attention. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The 

existing WPS designates the following 

groups as qualified to be pesticide safety 

trainers for workers: 

• Applicators certified according to 

40 CFR part 171 (private and 

commercial applicators of RUPs); 

• Persons designated as trainers of 

certified applicators, or pesticide 

handlers by the appropriate state, 

federal, or tribal agency; 

• Individuals who have completed an 

approved pesticide safety train-thetrainer program; or 

• Persons who have completed WPS 

handler training. 

The existing WPS designates the 

following groups as qualified to be 

pesticide safety trainers for handlers: 

• Applicators certified according to 

40 CFR part 171; 

• Persons designated as trainers of 

certified applicators or pesticide 

handlers by the appropriate state, 

federal, or tribal agency; and 

• Individuals who have completed an 

approved pesticide safety train-thetrainer program. 

The current WPS also requires 

trainers to be present to answer 

questions but does not require that they 

be present for the entire length of the 

training. 

3. Summary of the issues. When EPA 

proposed what would become the 1992 

WPS (53 FR 25970; July 8, 1988), 

stakeholders, specifically USDA and 

farmer organizations, raised concerns 

about the need for adequate numbers of 

qualified WPS trainers. To ease the 

burden of transition for agricultural 

employers during the implementation of 

the rule, EPA made approved criteria for 

trainers in the final rule (57 FR 38102, 

38128–29; Aug 21, 1992) intentionally 

broad. Since that time, the pool of 

qualified trainers has expanded due to 

the increase and availability of train-thetrainer programs. EPA has supported the 

Association of Farmworker Opportunity 

Programs (AFOP) ‘‘Serving America’s 

Farmworkers Everywhere’’ AmeriCorps 

project for over ten years. This project 

connects trainers with farmworker 

communities to build training capacity 

and to provide free training services to 

agricultural and handler employers. In 

addition, EPA has developed a train-thetrainer handbook for worker training 

(Ref. 47). Many states have also 

increased the number of qualified 

trainers through train-the-trainer 

programs and other mechanisms. 

Farmworker organizations and 

pesticide safety educators have raised to 

EPA the importance of pesticide safety 

trainers having expertise both in the 

subject matter covered and in adult 

education for low-literacy audiences. 

The Hazard Communications for 

Agricultural Workers Report by JBS 

International found that workers want to 

receive pesticide safety training from 

trainers who are knowledgeable and 

certified (Ref. 40). In order to convey 

information about routes of pesticide 

exposure, potential accidents and how 

to mitigate pesticide exposure, and 

avoiding exposure through basic 

hygiene, the trainer must have a strong 

knowledge of the subject matter. A 

person can obtain this knowledge in 

several ways. First, a person who has 

gone through a train-the-trainer program 

would become versed in the specific 

information to be conveyed to the 

training audience. Second, a person 

who is qualified, as a university 

professor or cooperative extension 

agent, to conduct training for a broad 

range of pesticide users, would have a 

working knowledge of the potential 

pesticide risks faced by workers and 

handlers. Lastly, handlers and 

applicators learn the subject matter in 

the training and certification programs, 

which cover the concepts presented in 

pesticide safety training in more detail. 

Research and stakeholder input have 

highlighted the need for trainers to have 

specific skills to reach this type of 

audience. Farmworker organizations 

and pesticide educators expressed 

concern about the ability of individuals 

without knowledge of adult education 

practices to conduct effective pesticide 

safety training (Ref. 39) (Ref. 46) (Ref. 

48). Stakeholders have also informed 

EPA that training may be presented 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15465 

simultaneously with other information, 

preventing workers and handlers from 

focusing completely on the safety 

information presented. 

Stakeholders have raised concerns 

that trainers lacking skills in adult 

education may be ineffective in 

communicating necessary pesticide 

safety information to workers (Ref. 35) 

(Ref. 36) (Ref. 48) (Ref. 46) (Ref. 39). 

Farmworker organizations have 

supported limiting eligibility of trainers 

of workers and handlers to those 

completing a train-the-trainer program 

‘‘covering methods of conducting an 

informal adult participatory education 

session for low literacy learners, with 

limited English proficiency’’ (Ref. 35). A 

pilot train-the-trainer program in 

Washington State showed that 

participants who learned training 

techniques applicable to the worker 

population were more successful in 

communicating with their target 

audience than they had been prior to 

training, indicated by improved 

performance of the audience on a posttraining evaluation of knowledge (Ref. 

17). 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA proposes to require trainers of 

workers to complete a pesticide safety 

train-the-trainer program approved by 

EPA or to be designated as a trainer of 

certified applicators by EPA or a state or 

tribal agency responsible for pesticide 

enforcement. The proposal would delete 

the option for certification under 40 

CFR part 171 or training as a WPS 

handler to serve as sufficient 

qualifications for a person to be a trainer 

for workers. 

Additionally, the Agency proposes to 

require trainers of workers and trainers 

of handlers to be present during the 

entirety of a training session and to 

answer questions. Trainers must also 

ensure that the training is presented in 

a manner free of distractions. 

EPA proposes to retain the existing 

categories for trainers of handlers and to 

add a requirement that the train-thetrainer program be approved by EPA. 

Under a cooperative agreement with 

the NASDA Research Foundation, EPA 

has developed the National Worker 

Safety Trainer Handbook (Ref. 47). This 

manual outlines the necessary pesticide 

safety information for workers, as well 

as describing adult education principles 

and how to communicate across 

languages and cultures. In addition to 

the National Worker Safety Trainer 

Handbook, EPA also supports the 

training of pesticide safety trainers of 

workers by AFOP. Both of these 

programs would serve as models for an 

EPA-approved train-the-trainer program. 

Using these models, EPA would develop 

guidance to describe the necessary 

elements of a train-the-trainer program 

and the process for seeking EPA 

approval. EPA anticipates that any 

interested organizations, including nonprofit organizations, universities, state 

regulatory agencies, and the pesticide 

industry, could seek approval for and 

administer a train-the-trainer course that 

meets EPA’s standards. 

EPA proposes to retain the options for 

persons designated as trainers of 

certified applicators or handlers by EPA 

or a state or tribal agency responsible for 

pesticide enforcement because either 

EPA or the state or tribe has recognized 

that they have the subject matter 

expertise and qualifications necessary to 

convey the pesticide safety information 

to workers or handlers. Many 

cooperative extension services (part of 

land grant universities) have experts on 

pesticide safety that work with 

agricultural employers to provide 

information on safe pesticide use. EPA 

believes that in their role as educators 

and with knowledge of adult education, 

pesticide application, and safety 

principles, these persons are qualified to 

provide the information to workers and 

handlers. State regulatory agencies also 

hire or contract with adult educators to 

provide pesticide safety training to 

workers or handlers. Rather than 

increase the burden on the state or tribal 

lead agency by requiring that all persons 

complete a pesticide safety train-thetrainer course, EPA believes that state 

and tribal lead agencies would ensure 

that persons they designate as trainers 

can appropriately convey the 

information required under the 

proposed regulation to workers and 

handlers. 

EPA proposes to eliminate the 

automatic authorization of certified 

applicators and WPS handlers to train 

workers. Although certified applicators 

have demonstrated competency in 

pesticide application and safety, they 

may not possess skills as trainers, 

particularly for low-literacy, nonEnglish speaking, adult audiences. 

Handlers may possess pesticide safety 

knowledge and may have cultural and 

language abilities in common with 

workers, but they may lack teaching 

skills or sufficient technical knowledge 

needed to effectively convey the 

information. For training to make the 

most impact, trainers need to be 

competent not only in their knowledge 

of pesticide risks but also in 

communicating with adult learners with 

educational challenges. Trainers may 

have difficulty conveying the abstract 

concept of pesticide risk, due to barriers 

such as the limited English language 

skills, cultural differences, and low 

educational levels of many workers and 

handlers. EPA believes that there are 

sufficient qualified trainers to meet the 

proposed requirements now, as opposed 

to when the 1992 WPS was 

implemented, based on trainers 

qualified by AFOP initiatives and the 

publication and dissemination of an 

EPA train-the-trainer handbook. 

EPA proposes to retain the option for 

certified applicators to train handlers. 

While the Agency has some concern 

regarding the ability of certified 

applicators to provide effective training 

for workers because worker trainers 

need to have specific capability to 

deliver basic information to an audience 

that may have a low education level and 

limited literacy and English skills, EPA 

thinks this group can be successful as 

trainers for handlers. There is a large 

overlap between the roles of applicators 

and handlers, which allows applicators 

to draw on their personal knowledge 

and skills needed to correctly and safely 

perform handler tasks. In addition, in 

the revisions to part 171, EPA is 

proposing to require certified 

applicators to provide training that 

mirrors the WPS handler training to 

noncertified applicators applying RUPs 

under their direct supervision. EPA 

believes that the certified applicators are 

appropriately qualified to convey the 

proper pesticide application techniques 

and importance of protecting oneself 

from pesticide exposure to handlers that 

will be performing similar tasks in areas 

that have been treated with pesticides. 

EPA believes that increasing the 

qualifications of trainers will increase 

the value of training sessions by 

improving the quality of the training. 

Workers will benefit by improved 

understanding of the learning objectives 

and an increased ability to protect 

themselves and their families. 

To ease implementation and ensure a 

sufficient cadre of qualified trainers is 

available, EPA proposes to continue 

allowing certified applicators to conduct 

worker training until two years 

following the effective date of the final 

rule. This transition period would allow 

time for applicators and other persons 

that do not meet the current 

requirements and who wish to conduct 

worker training to qualify as trainers 

under the proposed requirements, either 

by attending an EPA-approved train-thetrainer program or seeking designation 

as an approved trainer of workers from 

EPA or the state or tribe, and for all 

trainers to become familiar with new 

training materials developed as a result 

of the finalized rule. 

EPA plans to support the 

development of training materials for 

workers and handlers that reflect the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15466 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

new training requirements such as 

manuals and videos. EPA will work 

with stakeholders to develop these 

materials when the amendments to the 

rule are finalized and plans to have 

them ready for distribution when the 

revised training requirements go into 

effect. 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning trainer qualifications for 

workers and handlers appears in 

§§ 170.101(c)(4) and 170.201(c)(4) 

respectively of the proposed rule. 

5. Costs. EPA estimates the cost of 

revising the standards for worker 

trainers would be $1.1 million annually, 

or about $3 per agricultural 

establishment. For a complete 

discussion of the costs of the proposals 

and alternatives, see the ‘‘Economic 

Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the 

Worker Protection Standard,’’ Chapter 3 

Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

EPA cannot quantify the precise 

benefits associated with this proposal; 

however, EPA believes requiring 

trainers to have the ability to convey the 

pesticide safety information, along with 

knowledge of adult education principles 

and how to communicate with lowliteracy audiences, would increase 

overall understanding and retention of 

the pesticide safety training by workers. 

This improvement would increase the 

likelihood that workers and handlers 

adopt the principles outlined in the 

pesticide safety training and reduce the 

potential for exposure to themselves and 

their family members. 

6. Alternative options considered but 

not proposed. EPA considered several 

options regarding categories of qualified 

trainers. One option considered by the 

Agency was to continue to consider 

applicators certified under 40 CFR part 

171 and handlers as qualified to train 

workers. EPA does not think, however, 

that a certified applicator’s knowledge 

of pesticide safety and application 

principles alone is sufficient to qualify 

the certified applicator as an educator 

for basic safety principles for workers. 

As discussed above, teaching an adult 

population, especially individuals with 

low-literacy skills, differing cultural 

norms, and a variety of primary 

languages, requires trainers with skills 

in reaching this type of audience. After 

considering this alternative in light of 

the demographics of workers and the 

importance of providing safety 

information in manner workers can 

understand, EPA does not consider it 

reasonable to assume that certified 

applicators and handlers necessarily 

have the adult education skills to 

adequately perform WPS training for 

workers. Certified applicators and 

handlers may become trainers if they 

complete a train-the-trainer course or 

are designated as trainers by the EPA or 

a state or tribal agency. 

EPA also considered an option to 

restrict trainer eligibility to only trainers 

who have completed a train-the-trainer 

program. The Agency believes that 

allowing trainers of applicators and 

those having completed a train-thetrainer course to train workers, as well 

as allowing certified applicators to train 

handlers, will offer continued flexibility 

for agriculture and result in less burden 

than restricting the qualifications to a 

single type of trainer. EPA has 

confidence that trainers designated as 

qualified by EPA or the states or tribes 

would have knowledge of adult 

education and the safety principles that 

workers need to know. Requiring all 

worker and handler trainers to complete 

a train-the-trainer program would limit 

the number of eligible trainers and as a 

result there might not be sufficient 

numbers to meet employers’ training 

needs. 

EPA also considered implementing a 

test to determine the eligibility of 

trainers. Though examination would 

provide a method of evaluating 

knowledge, safety educators and 

advocate groups maintained that 

trainers need skills that cannot readily 

be assessed by an examination. For 

example, it would be difficult to assess, 

through an exam, whether a person has 

skills in communicating with lowliteracy, adult audiences. EPA believes 

that train-the-trainer courses in which 

trainers learn and practice interactive 

and engaging training techniques, in 

addition to the necessary pesticide 

safety information, would be more 

effective than a written exam to prepare 

educators for an audience of workers 

and handlers. 

7. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Are there other programs that 

would prepare trainers to convey 

pesticide safety information to workers 

and handlers? Please describe the 

program and the feasibility of its 

implementation for affected 

establishments. 

• Should EPA consider requiring 

trainers of workers and handlers to 

refresh their qualifications periodically, 

such as requiring attending a train-thetrainer program every 5 years? Please 

provide data in support or opposition. 

• The current rule requires employers 

to ensure that the workers and handlers 

receive information in a manner they 

understand. Are there any issues with 

the current requirement for trainers? If 

so, please describe and provide data to 

support this position. 

E. Expand the Content of Worker and 

Handler Pesticide Safety Training 

1. Overview. The WPS currently 

requires employers to provide pesticide 

safety training covering specific content 

to workers and handlers. EPA proposes 

to expand the information required to be 

covered in worker and handler pesticide 

safety training so that workers and 

handlers can better protect themselves 

from adverse effects of pesticide 

exposures. 

Additional content in worker 

pesticide safety training would include, 

among other things, information on: 

how to reduce pesticide take-home 

exposure, the requirements for earlyentry notification, the requirement for 

emergency assistance for workers, and 

the availability of hazard 

communication materials for workers, 

and informing workers of the 

obligations of agricultural employers 

and what workers can expect. 

Additional content in handler 

pesticide safety training would include 

the handlers’ requirement to cease 

application if he or she observes a 

person other than another trained and 

properly equipped handler in the area 

under treatment or entry restricted area, 

and a requirement for OSHA-equivalent 

training on respirator use, fit-testing of 

respirators, and medical evaluation for 

respirator users. 

EPA expects this additional 

information provided in the proposed 

expansions to worker and handler 

pesticide safety training to better protect 

workers and handlers from risks 

associated with pesticides. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. Under 40 

CFR 170.130(d)(4), worker pesticide 

safety training must include, at a 

minimum, the following 11 basic safety 

training points: 

• Where and in what form pesticides 

may be encountered during work 

activities. 

• Hazards of pesticides resulting from 

toxicity and exposure, including acute 

and chronic effects, delayed effects, and 

sensitization. 

• Routes through which pesticides 

can enter the body. 

• Signs and symptoms of common 

types of pesticide poisoning. 

• Emergency first aid for pesticide 

injuries or poisonings. 

• How to obtain emergency medical 

care. 

• Routine and emergency 

decontamination procedures, including 

emergency eye flushing techniques. 

• Hazards from chemigation and drift. 

• Hazards from pesticide residues on 

clothing. 

• Warnings about taking pesticides or 

pesticide containers home. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15467 

• Requirements of the WPS designed 

to reduce the risks of illness or injury 

resulting from workers’ occupational 

exposure to pesticides, including 

application and entry restrictions, the 

design of the warning sign, posting of 

warning signs, oral warnings, the 

availability of specific information 

about applications, and the protection 

against retaliatory acts. 

Under 40 CFR 170.230(c)(4), handler 

pesticide safety training must include, 

at a minimum, the following 13 basic 

safety training points: 

• Format and meaning of information 

on the product label, including safety 

information. 

• Hazards of pesticides from toxicity 

and exposure. 

• Routes through which pesticides 

can enter the body. 

• Signs and symptoms of pesticide 

poisoning. 

• Emergency first aid for pesticide 

poisoning. 

• How to get emergency medical care. 

• Routine and emergency 

decontamination procedures. 

• Personal Protective Equipment 

(PPE). 

• Heat-related illness issues. 

• Safety requirements for handling, 

transporting, storing, and disposing of 

pesticides. 

• Environmental concerns. 

• Warnings about taking pesticides or 

pesticide containers home. 

• Training on the requirements of the 

regulation related to handling. 

3. Summary of the issues. The 

stakeholder engagement process 

produced many comments on the 

content of pesticide safety training for 

workers and handlers. [See Unit V.B.] 

Recommendations to improve worker 

pesticide safety training in the ‘‘Report 

on the National Assessment of EPA’s 

Pesticide Worker Safety Program’’ 

included adding elements to training on 

potential sources of pesticide exposure 

and preventing family exposure, such as 

specific information on the need to 

wash work clothes separately from other 

clothing (Ref. 17) (Ref. 15). 

Additionally, farmworker organizations 

support expansion of the worker 

pesticide safety training to include 

general information about pesticide 

hazards, ways to reduce take-home 

exposure, and worker rights. In contrast, 

other stakeholders raised concerns for 

extending the length of training, 

increasing the burden on employers, or 

making the training tedious for workers 

who may not be paid for time spent in 

training. Many stakeholders also 

requested that EPA be mindful when 

revising the WPS of the burdens faced 

by workers and some handlers, due to 

their low income, low literacy, and 

limited English language skills. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA is proposing a number of new 

provisions to be included in the content 

for worker and handler safety training. 

Each of these is discussed in greater 

detail in this section. Where some 

proposed changes only clarify or 

enhance an existing training topic, 

rather than substantially altering the 

content of the topic, EPA does not 

discuss the proposed modifications in 

as great detail as the proposed 

modifications to existing language that 

substantially alter the content of the 

training topic. 

EPA proposes to add the following 

topics to both worker and handler 

training: protection from pesticide takehome exposure, enhanced emergency 

assistance provisions in the WPS, and 

the availability of hazard 

communication materials. 

Additional worker safety training 

topics would add about 15 minutes to 

the training and would include, in 

addition to the points in the current 

WPS: Handler tasks that employers 

must not direct or allow workers to do, 

early-entry notification requirements 

including age restrictions, hazards of 

pesticide exposure to children and 

pregnant women, how to report 

suspected violations, and the 

prohibition of employer retaliation for 

reporting suspected violations or 

attempting to comply with 40 CFR part 

170. 

The proposed revised regulation for 

worker training at § 170.101(c)(2) 

through (3) would require the following 

training content: 

• Agricultural employers’ obligation 

to provide workers with information 

and protections designed to reduce 

work-related pesticide exposures and 

illnesses. This includes providing 

pesticide safety training, pesticide safety 

and application information, 

decontamination supplies, and 

emergency medical assistance, and 

notifying workers of restrictions during 

applications and on entering pesticide 

treated areas. 

• How to recognize and understand 

the meaning of the warning sign used 

for notifying workers of restrictions on 

entering pesticide treated areas on the 

establishment. 

• How to follow directions and/or 

signs about keeping out of entry 

restricted or pesticide treated areas. 

• Where and in what form pesticides 

may be encountered during work 

activities and potential sources of 

pesticide exposure on the agricultural 

establishment. This includes pesticides 

drifting from nearby applications, and 

that pesticide residues may be on or in 

plants, soil, irrigation water, tractors, 

application equipment, or used personal 

protective equipment. 

• Potential hazards from toxicity and 

exposure that pesticides present to 

workers and their families, including 

acute and chronic effects, delayed 

effects, and sensitization. 

• Potential hazards from chemigation 

and drift. 

• Routes through which pesticides 

can enter the body. 

• Signs and symptoms of common 

types of pesticide poisoning. 

• Emergency first aid for pesticide 

injuries or poisonings. 

• Routine and emergency 

decontamination procedures, including 

emergency eye flushing techniques. 

• Wash immediately in the nearest 

clean water if pesticides are spilled or 

sprayed on the body and as soon as 

possible, shower, shampoo hair, and 

change into clean clothes. 

• How and when to obtain emergency 

medical care. 

• When working near pesticides or in 

pesticide treated areas, wear work 

clothing that protects the body from 

pesticide residues and wash hands 

before eating, drinking, using chewing 

gum or tobacco, or using the toilet. 

• Wash or shower with soap and 

water, shampoo hair, and change into 

clean clothes as soon as possible after 

working near or in pesticide treated 

areas. 

• Potential hazards from pesticide 

residues on clothing. 

• Wash work clothes before wearing 

again. 

• Wash work clothes separately from 

other clothes. 

• Do not take pesticides or pesticide 

containers used at work to your home. 

• Agricultural employers are required 

to provide workers with pesticide 

hazard information. 

• Agricultural employers must not 

allow or direct any worker to mix, load 

or apply pesticides or assist in the 

application of pesticides unless the 

worker has been trained as a handler. 

• There are minimum age restrictions 

and notification requirements for earlyentry activities. 

• Potential hazards to children and 

pregnant women from pesticide 

exposure. 

• Keep children and nonworking 

family members away from pesticide 

treated areas. 

• Remove work boots or shoes before 

entering home. 

• After working near pesticides or in 

pesticide treated areas, remove work 

clothes and wash or shower before 

physical contact with children or family 

members. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15468 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

• How to report suspected pesticide 

use violations to the state or tribal 

agency responsible for pesticide 

enforcement. 

• Agricultural employers are 

prohibited from intimidating, 

threatening, coercing, or discriminating 

against any worker for the purposes of 

interfering with any attempt to comply 

with the requirements of this part, or 

because the worker has made a 

complaint, testified, assisted, or 

participated in any manner in an 

investigation, proceeding, or hearing 

pursuant to this part. 

Additional handler training topics 

would add about 15 minutes to the 

existing training and would include: 

proper removal of PPE; the requirement 

for handlers to cease application if 

persons are in the treated area or entry 

restricted area; the requirement that 

handler employers must ensure 

handlers have received respirator fittesting, training, and medical evaluation 

if required to wear a respirator; and the 

minimum age requirement for handlers. 

The proposed revised regulation for 

handler training at § 170.201(c)(2) 

through (3) would require the following 

training content: 

• Employers’ obligation to provide 

handlers with information and 

protections designed to reduce workrelated pesticide exposures and 

illnesses. This includes providing 

pesticide safety training, pesticide safety 

and application information, 

decontamination supplies, and 

emergency medical assistance, and 

notifying handlers of restrictions during 

applications and on entering pesticide 

treated areas. 

• How to recognize and understand 

the meaning of the warning sign used 

for notifying workers of restrictions on 

entering pesticide treated areas on the 

establishment. 

• How to follow directions and/or 

signs about keeping out of entry 

restricted or pesticide treated areas. 

• Where and in what form pesticides 

may be encountered during work 

activities and potential sources of 

pesticide exposure on the agricultural 

establishment. This includes pesticides 

drifting from nearby applications, and 

that pesticide residues may be on or in 

plants, soil, irrigation water, tractors, 

application equipment, or used personal 

protective equipment. 

• Potential hazards from toxicity and 

exposure that pesticides present to 

workers and their families, including 

acute and chronic effects, delayed 

effects, and sensitization. 

• Potential hazards from chemigation 

and drift. 

• Routes through which pesticides 

can enter the body. 

• Signs and symptoms of common 

types of pesticide poisoning. 

• Emergency first aid for pesticide 

injuries or poisonings. 

• Routine and emergency 

decontamination procedures, including 

emergency eye flushing techniques. 

• Wash immediately in the nearest 

clean water if pesticides are spilled or 

sprayed on the body and as soon as 

possible, shower, shampoo hair, and 

change into clean clothes. 

• How and when to obtain emergency 

medical care. 

• When working near pesticides or in 

pesticide treated areas, wear work 

clothing that protects the body from 

pesticide residues and wash hands 

before eating, drinking, using chewing 

gum or tobacco, or using the toilet. 

• Wash or shower with soap and 

water, shampoo hair, and change into 

clean clothes as soon as possible after 

working near or in pesticide treated 

areas. 

• Potential hazards from pesticide 

residues on clothing. 

• Wash work clothes before wearing 

again. 

• Wash work clothes separately from 

other clothes. 

• Do not take pesticides or pesticide 

containers used at work to your home. 

• Agricultural employers are required 

to provide handlers with pesticide 

hazard information. 

• Agricultural employers must not 

allow or direct any worker to mix, load 

or apply pesticides or assist in the 

application of pesticides unless the 

worker has been trained as a handler. 

• Early-entry workers must be at least 

16 years of age to perform early-entry 

activities and workers must receive 

notification prior to conducting earlyentry activities. 

• Potential hazards to children and 

pregnant women from pesticide 

exposure. 

• Keep children and nonworking 

family members away from pesticide 

treated areas. 

• Remove work boots or shoes before 

entering home. 

• After working near pesticides or in 

pesticide treated areas, remove work 

clothes and wash or shower before 

physical contact with children or family 

members. 

• How to report suspected pesticide 

use violations to the state or tribal 

agency responsible for pesticide 

enforcement. 

• Employers are prohibited from 

intimidating, threatening, coercing, or 

discriminating against any handler for 

the purposes of interfering with any 

attempt to comply with the 

requirements of this part, or because the 

worker has made a complaint, testified, 

assisted, or participated in any manner 

in an investigation, proceeding, or 

hearing pursuant to this part. 

• Information on proper application 

and use of pesticides. 

• Requirement for handlers to follow 

all pesticide label directions. 

• Format and meaning of all 

information contained on pesticide 

labels and in labeling. 

• Need for and appropriate use and 

removal of all personal protective 

equipment. 

• How to recognize, prevent, and 

provide first aid treatment for heatrelated illness. 

• Safety requirements for handling, 

transporting, storing, and disposing of 

pesticides, including general procedures 

for spill cleanup. 

• Environmental concerns, such as 

drift, runoff, and wildlife hazards. 

• Handlers must not apply pesticides 

in a manner that results in contact with 

workers or other persons. 

• Handler employers are required to 

provide handlers with information and 

protections designed to reduce workrelated pesticide exposures and 

illnesses. This includes providing, 

cleaning, maintaining, storing, and 

ensuring proper use of all required 

personal protective equipment; 

providing decontamination supplies; 

and providing specific information 

about pesticide use and labeling 

information. 

• Handlers must cease or suspend a 

pesticide application if workers or other 

persons are in the treated area or the 

entry-restricted area. 

• Handlers must be at least 16 years 

of age. 

• Handler employers must ensure 

handlers have received respirator fittesting, training, and medical evaluation 

if they are required to wear a respirator. 

• Handler employers must post 

treated areas as required by this rule. 

i. Protection from Pesticide TakeHome Exposure. Although the current 

training instructs workers and handlers 

not to take home pesticide containers 

and that clothing can carry pesticide 

residue, the Agency proposes to expand 

the existing sections to include more 

specific information in the worker and 

handler pesticide safety training on 

ways to reduce take-home pesticide 

exposure. Specifically, the expanded 

training content would include the 

following: Instructions on washing 

before touching family members, 

removing soiled work boots or shoes 

before entering the home, washing 

clothes that may have pesticide residues 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15469 

on them before wearing them again and 

separately from other family clothes, 

and keeping family members away from 

treated areas, as well as information on 

the potential risks to children and 

pregnant women from pesticide 

exposure. 

Workers and handlers may be 

exposed to pesticides at work; 

additionally, they and their families 

may be exposed to pesticide residues 

brought into their homes from the 

workplace. ‘‘Take-home’’ exposure is 

the movement of agricultural pesticides 

from the workplace to the home via 

contact with pesticide-contaminated 

clothing, dirt tracked into the home, or 

other pathways. This type of exposure 

has generated concern among health 

care professionals and worker 

advocates. A 1995 study by the Centers 

for Disease Control (CDC) on worker’s 

home contamination found, in multiple 

industries, that hazardous chemical 

contamination of workers’ homes is a 

worldwide problem, resulting in injury 

and at times, death (Ref. 49 pp. vii, 17– 

19). 

Although EPA does not have 

conclusive data about the impact of 

pesticide residue transfer from a worker 

or handler to his or her home, car, and 

family members, the Agency recognizes 

that workers and handlers are exposed 

to chemicals in the workplace and 

should be educated on minimizing the 

transfer of these chemicals to non-work 

locations. Some studies have been 

conducted to evaluate whether nonworking children in agricultural 

families may have greater exposure to 

agricultural chemicals than children of 

non-agricultural families from the 

presence of pesticide residue in their 

home (Ref. 50). Contamination of the 

home from agricultural pesticides can 

come from numerous sources, including 

soil, dust, or other residue on clothing 

and vehicles and contaminated storage 

containers (Ref. 49) (Ref. 51). 

Additionally, agricultural pesticides 

introduced into the home may persist 

longer than in outdoor areas, due to the 

lack of degradative environmental 

processes, such as those furthered by 

rain and sun. Peer-reviewed studies 

have concluded that ‘‘farmworker and 

all rural families must be educated 

about drift and how to reduce exposure’’ 

(Ref. 52 p. 1259) (Ref. 53) and that 

‘‘pregnant farmworkers and those living 

with farmworkers need to be educated 

to reduce potential take-home pesticide 

exposure’’ (Ref. 34 p. 491). 

Studies have focused on the presence 

of agricultural pesticides in the homes 

of workers. Centers for Children’s 

Environmental Health and Disease 

Prevention Research were established to 

explore ways to reduce children’s health 

risks from environmental factors. The 

program is jointly funded by EPA and 

the National Institute of Environmental 

Health Sciences (NIEHS) and also 

collaborates with the Centers for Disease 

Control (Ref. 54). Two of the centers, the 

University of California at Berkeley (UC 

Berkeley) and the University of 

Washington, have a number of studies 

which focus on agricultural pesticides 

and children, some with a primary 

outcome of pesticide exposure 

reduction strategies. The Center for the 

Health Assessment of Mother and 

Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS) 

Study, a longitudinal birth cohort study 

of children in the Salinas Valley, 

California, is the largest study 

administered by UC Berkeley’s 

Children’s Center (Ref. 55). California 

Department of Health Services tested 

dust in worker and non-worker homes 

and concluded that there is a greater 

presence of pesticide residue in the 

homes of workers (Ref. 56). Additional 

studies apart from the UC Berkeley 

activities have also examined the 

transfer of pesticide residues from 

pesticide-treated areas to the home and 

automobiles, i.e., the take-home 

pathway (Ref. 23) (Ref. 50) (Ref. 51) (Ref. 

57) (Ref. 58). 

Effective methods of reducing takehome exposure exist. CDC’s 1995 study 

identified worksite behaviors, such as 

minimizing workplace exposures, 

storing clean clothes in uncontaminated 

areas of the worksite, changing work 

clothes prior to returning home, and 

showering before leaving the workplace, 

that are effective means to reduce takehome exposure (Ref. 49). The report also 

identified methods in the home to 

reduce contamination, such as 

laundering work clothes separately from 

family laundry, preventing family 

members from visiting the workplace, 

and informing the workers of risks to 

family members and how to minimize 

their exposure. Workers and their 

families should be familiar with how 

behaviors such as hand washing, proper 

laundering, and removing work clothes 

before entering the home can reduce 

risk of exposure (Ref. 34). 

ii. Training on Reporting Violations and 

Employer Retaliation Prohibition 

EPA proposes to require that worker 

and handler pesticide safety training 

include information on how to report 

suspected pesticide use violations. EPA 

also proposes to include a training point 

explaining that agricultural employers 

are prohibited from retaliation against 

workers and handlers for attempting to 

comply with the WPS or reporting 

suspected violation of the WPS. 

Including this information in the worker 

and handler training would increase the 

effectiveness of the existing WPS 

protections against retaliations. 

Under the current 40 CFR 170.7(b) 

employers are prohibited from taking 

‘‘any retaliatory action for attempts to 

comply with this part or any action 

having the effect of preventing or 

discouraging any worker or handler 

from complying or attempting to comply 

with any requirement of this part.’’ The 

existing § 170.130(d)(4)(xi) requires 

employers to provide training on 

protections against retaliatory acts. 

Similar protection against retaliation for 

handlers is covered in 

§ 170.230(c)(4)(xiii). 

Farmworker advocacy organizations 

recommend including in the worker and 

handler pesticide safety training 

information on the rights of workers and 

handlers under the WPS (Ref. 36). The 

Agency agrees that workers and 

handlers should be aware of WPS 

provisions on how to report violations 

and the prohibition on retaliation by the 

agricultural employer. Farmworker 

advocacy organizations indicate that 

workers and handlers informed of their 

employers’ requirements and the 

process to report violations and 

pesticide exposure incidents are more 

likely to report them. This can lead to 

a clearer understanding of 

circumstances leading to WPS 

violations and pesticide exposure issues 

by enforcement. 

EPA believes it is important for 

workers and handlers to understand that 

the WPS provides protections for their 

safety and that if their employers do not 

provide the required protections, the 

government can assist them. By 

incorporating this information into the 

WPS training, it is more likely that 

workers and handlers will understand 

the information and be aware of the 

resources available to them in the event 

of a suspected act of retaliation or 

noncompliance with the WPS. 

Farmworker organizations requested 

that WPS worker and handler training 

include contact information for legal 

representation (Ref. 35). EPA, however, 

does not agree. EPA does not consider 

it appropriate to recommend particular 

attorneys or legal representatives. 

Moreover, while legal representation 

may be helpful for a worker or handler 

who experiences retaliation or a serious 

pesticide exposure, it is not clear that 

requiring the requested notification 

would significantly contribute to the 

goals of FIFRA. 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning training in regard to 

reporting suspected violations and 

employer prohibition against retaliation 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15470 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

appears in §§ 170.101(c)(3)(viii) through 

(ix) and 170.201(c)(3)(v) of the proposed 

rule. 

iii. Training on Hazard 

Communications Materials for Workers 

and Handlers. EPA proposes to require 

agricultural and handler employers to 

provide workers and handlers with 

access to the expanded pesticide 

application information, the SDS, and 

the pesticide product labeling upon 

request for up to two years. [See Unit 

IX.] EPA proposes to include an 

overview of the new hazard 

communication requirements and 

materials (expanded application 

information, SDS, and product labeling) 

in the pesticide safety trainings for 

workers and handlers. 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning hazard communication 

content of worker and handler pesticide 

safety training appears in 

§§ 170.101(c)(3)(i) and 170.201(c)(3)(v) 

of the proposed rule. 

iv. Training on Early-Entry 

Notification for Workers. EPA is 

proposing to add to the worker pesticide 

safety training points about the 

minimum age restriction and 

notification requirements for early-entry 

work. Workers would learn that entry 

into a treated area under an REI would 

be limited to workers 16 years of age or 

older and what notification 

requirements must be provided prior to 

being directed to perform early-entry 

tasks. EPA expects that providing this 

information to workers during training 

would make workers aware of their 

agricultural employer’s obligation to 

provide information on the protections 

required when asked to perform earlyentry work. EPA believes that workers 

should be made aware of employer 

obligations in their training so they will 

understand the significance of (and, if 

they fail to receive it, notice the absence 

of) the information employers would be 

required to provide. For a complete 

discussion of the proposed amendments 

to the early-entry requirements, see Unit 

XII. The proposed regulatory text 

concerning early-entry notification and 

minimum age content of worker and 

handler pesticide safety training appears 

in §§ 170.101(c)(3)(iii) and 

170.201(c)(3)(v) of the proposed rule. 

v. Handler Responsibilities. EPA 

proposes that a handler be required to 

cease application if the handler observes 

a person other than another trained and 

properly equipped handler in the area 

under treatment or associated entryrestricted area. EPA believes that either 

the handler would have prior 

knowledge that another handler would 

be in the area during treatment, or 

would cease application until he or she 

could verify whether the person(s) in 

the treated area met the standard as a 

trained and properly equipped handler. 

This new requirement would impose 

additional responsibility on handlers. 

[See Unit XI.] Therefore, EPA proposes 

to add to the handler training 

requirements a point on this specific 

handler responsibility. 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning the cessation of application 

content of handler pesticide safety 

training appears in § 170.201(c)(3)(i) of 

the proposed rule. 

vi. Respirator Fit-Testing and Medical 

Evaluation for Handlers. Unit XVI.E. 

discusses EPA’s proposal to adopt the 

OSHA standard (29 CFR part 1910) for 

respirator use. The OSHA standard 

requires employers and users to take 

steps to ensure respirators are used 

safely, including fit testing the handler’s 

respirator, conducting medical 

evaluation, and training handlers on 

proper respirator use. 

EPA proposes to require that handler 

training inform handlers of the new 

obligations of handler employers 

regarding proper respirator use. Handler 

training content is proposed to inform 

handlers that their employer must 

ensure they have received respirator fittesting, training and medical evaluation 

if they are required to wear a respirator; 

only those handlers who would use a 

respirator would need to receive the full 

OSHA training on respirators. EPA 

expects this change would inform 

handlers of the new requirements for 

respirator use and their importance. 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning adding to the training the 

employer’s responsibility to provide 

handlers using respirators with 

respirator training, fit-testing, and 

medical evaluation appears in 

§ 170.201(c)(3)(iii) of the proposed rule. 

5. Costs. The proposed expansions to 

training content would expand worker 

training from approximately 30 minutes 

to 45 minutes, and handler training 

from 45 minutes to 60 minutes. The 

Agency believes that the expanded 

training is necessary for workers and 

handlers to better protect themselves. 

EPA estimates the cost of expanding 

pesticide safety training for workers 

would be $4.3 million annually or about 

$11 per agricultural establishment per 

year. The cost to expand pesticide safety 

training for handlers would be $660,000 

annually, or about $3 per agricultural 

establishment and $15 per commercial 

pesticide handling establishment per 

year. For a complete discussion of the 

costs of the proposals and alternatives, 

see the ‘‘Economic Analysis of Proposed 

Revisions to the Worker Protection 

Standard,’’ Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 

1). 

EPA cannot quantify the specific 

benefits associated with this proposal. 

However, EPA believes that adding 

information to worker and handler 

training would assist workers and 

handlers to mitigate pesticide exposure 

to themselves and their families. EPA 

believes this would result in a lower 

number of occupation-related pesticide 

exposures and reduce chronic and 

developmental effects from pesticide 

exposure. 

6. Alternate options considered but 

not proposed. EPA considered various 

combinations of the additional training 

content discussed above. For example, 

EPA considered simply clarifying the 

training required under the current rule 

to be more specific about the 

information to be covered. EPA also 

considered not adding the information 

about employers’ responsibilities to 

provide training to early-entry workers 

and to handlers using respirators in 

order to shorten the total duration of a 

training program; however, given the 

importance of communicating the 

additional information to workers and 

handlers to ensure they have the 

information necessary to protect 

themselves and their families from 

pesticide exposure and the relatively 

low burden associated with extending 

the training to cover the content, EPA 

believes that all of the aforementioned 

points should be added to the training. 

While a shorter training program with 

fewer points would reduce the cost of 

the proposal slightly, EPA believes the 

benefits of providing the proposed 

additional training topics to workers 

and handlers are reasonably balanced 

against the cost. 

7. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Are there any training points listed 

above that EPA should consider not 

including in the final proposal? If so, 

which points and why? 

• Are there points that EPA should 

consider adding to the training content? 

If so, what points should be added? 

Please provide a rationale for why the 

additional content would benefit 

workers and/or handlers. 

F. Retain Audiovisual Presentations as 

Permissible Methods for Pesticide Safety 

Training 

1. Overview. The existing WPS allows 

trainers to train workers and handlers 

using a variety of methods, including an 

EPA-approved video or DVD. EPA 

recognizes concerns raised by 

stakeholders that the video/DVD may 

not be an adequate training tool when 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15471 

used as a stand-alone training, but EPA 

has decided to retain the video as a 

training method and to add 

requirements for the trainer to be 

present throughout the presentation, to 

answer all questions from those 

participating in the training, and to 

ensure that the training is reasonably 

free of distractions. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS 

requires trainers to present the pesticide 

safety information ‘‘either orally from 

written materials or audiovisually’’ (40 

CFR 170.130(d)(1) and 170.230(c)(1)). 

EPA developed a variety of training 

materials, including training videos 

covering the pesticide safety points 

specified in 40 CFR 170.130 and 

170.230. A worker training video, 

‘‘Chasing the Sun Pesticide Safety 

Training’’ runs for approximately 30 

minutes, and a handler training video, 

‘‘Pesticide Handlers and the WPS’’ runs 

for approximately 50 minutes. Each 

video covers the current training points 

and both are available in English and 

Spanish. 

3. Summary of the issues. Farmworker 

organizations have voiced opposition to 

maintaining a video as the training 

device (Ref. 35), instead recommending 

that EPA require employers to provide 

training using methods with greater 

interaction to better communicate with 

workers (Ref. 36). A report from EPA’s 

National Assessment of the Worker 

Protection Program recommended that 

training materials encourage interaction 

and participation, and be both culturally 

and linguistically appropriate (Ref. 15). 

The Agency recognizes the passive 

nature of video training and 

understands that some stakeholders 

believe that a lack of worker or handler 

engagement during video training may 

prevent effective transmission of 

pesticide safety information. Focusgroup research, however, indicates that 

workers prefer to receive training 

information in a video or provided 

orally along with simple drawings on 

paper as visual aids rather than an oral 

presentation without any visual aids 

(Ref. 40). Additionally, research has 

shown that comprehension of pictorials 

for safety-related information is 

significantly enhanced when 

accompanied by even brief trainer 

involvement (Ref. 59). 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA proposes to continue to allow 

audiovisual training tools, and to add 

requirements for the trainer to be 

present during the training, to answer 

questions from trainees, and to ensure 

that the training is reasonably free from 

distractions. [See Unit VII.D.] Combined 

with more qualified trainers familiar 

with the principles of adult education, 

EPA expects that use of EPA-approved 

video would enhance, rather than 

diminish, comprehension of training 

objectives. 

Based on feedback received directly 

from the affected community of 

workers, EPA decided to retain the 

option for trainers to use audiovisual 

materials, including but not limited to 

videos, DVDs, and PowerPoint 

presentations, as part of the training 

program. EPA believes that allowing use 

of audiovisual training tools provides 

flexibility to trainers and employers by 

allowing them to be present to monitor 

the audience, to stimulate discussion, 

and to answer questions, while the 

video presents the major concepts of the 

training. This would help small 

establishments that conduct infrequent 

trainings to ensure that the training 

covers all of the major points. In 

addition, EPA recognizes that some 

employers and trainers are more 

comfortable utilizing audiovisual 

materials as part of training because 

widely used videos employ actors 

portraying workers to communicate the 

messages, which can be more 

convincing to the training audience. 

The proposed regulatory text 

requiring the trainer to be present 

throughout the training for workers and 

handlers appears in §§ 170.101(c)(1) and 

170.201(c)(1), respectively, of the 

proposed rule. 

5. Costs and benefits. EPA does not 

estimate any costs associated with this 

proposal because it retains an existing 

provision of the rule. 

6. Alternate options considered but 

not proposed. EPA considered 

eliminating the option for trainers to 

present material audio visually. Based 

on the rationales discussed above, EPA 

believes that allowing trainers to use 

audiovisual training materials and 

adding a requirement for the trainer to 

be present and answer workers and 

handlers’ questions would adequately 

address the concerns raised by 

farmworker groups while allowing 

trainer’s flexibility in how they 

communicate with workers and 

handlers. 

7. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following question: 

• Please provide any additional 

information on the efficacy of different 

methods used to conduct worker and 

handler training. 

G. Eliminate Exception to Handler 

Training Requirements 

1. Overview. Currently, an employer 

does not have to provide handler 

training to a person performing handler 

tasks if the handler has satisfied the 

training requirements under the 

Certification of Pesticide Applicators 

Regulation (40 CFR part 171). In order 

to ensure handlers receive the 

information necessary to understand 

WPS protections, EPA proposes to 

eliminate this exception. EPA expects 

removal of this exception would ensure 

all handlers receive complete 

information to protect themselves in 

situations specific to WPS 

establishments. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. Under 40 

CFR 170.230, pesticide handlers 

currently are required to be trained on 

pesticide safety. Under 40 CFR 

170.230(b)(2), employers may be 

excepted from the requirement to 

provide handler training when their 

handlers have satisfied the training 

requirements in 40 CFR 171. Part 171, 

however, does not include specific 

training requirements relevant to WPS; 

therefore, the exception allows handlers 

to qualify without learning about part 

170 requirements, such as REIs and the 

prohibition against spraying when 

anyone is in the treated area. 

3. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA proposes to eliminate the exception 

for handler training for a handler who 

has been trained in accordance with the 

requirements in 40 CFR part 171. In 

essence, this change would require 

persons who apply pesticides under the 

direct supervision of a certified 

applicator to receive handler training 

under the WPS. As explained in Unit II, 

the Agency is considering separate 

revisions to 40 CFR part 171 that could 

include specific training requirements 

for persons applying RUPs under the 

supervision of a certified applicator. 

Although the training requirements in 

these two proposed rules overlap 

substantially (e.g., safe application 

techniques, understanding label 

requirements, safe storage and disposal), 

the training EPA is considering to 

require under 40 CFR part 171 does not 

include specific information on WPS 

requirements, handler responsibilities, 

and reducing take-home exposure 

specifically in agriculture. WPS 

information is critical for handlers so 

they can protect themselves, their 

families, workers, the environment, and 

bystanders. 

4. Alternative options considered but 

not proposed. While EPA considered 

proposing identical training 

requirements for both § 170.201 and part 

171, many RUP users never apply 

agricultural pesticides, and would not 

need to know all the detailed 

requirements related to the WPS 

protections, such as warning sign 

postings and specific handler 

responsibilities. EPA believes the WPSVerDate Mar<15>2010 19:35 Mar 18, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MRP3.SGM 19MRP3

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15472 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

specific information is critical to equip 

a handler to avoid risk of exposure and 

illness in agricultural situations. 

Therefore, the Agency does not intend 

to impose the same training 

requirements for noncertified 

applicators under 40 CFR part 171. 

5. Cost. EPA believes the cost for this 

requirement would be negligible. Those 

employers that intend to provide 

training under 40 CFR part 171 for their 

handler employees would be able 

provide the proposed WPS handler 

training and satisfy the requirements of 

both regulations. The estimated training 

burden for the two requirements is 

substantially similar. 

6. Request for comment. EPA requests 

feedback on the following: 

• Should the proposed training under 

40 CFR part 171 include a requirement 

for expanded training on the WPS? 

• How would the benefits to 

employers from giving a single training 

that would apply to both WPS handlers 

and applicators using RUPs under the 

direct supervision of a certified 

applicator compare to the costs of 

requiring agricultural applicator training 

for all applicators using RUPs under the 

direct supervision of a certified 

applicator? 

VIII. Notifications to Workers and 

Handlers 

A. Posted Notification Timing & Oral 

Notification 

1. Overview. The current rule allows 

employers to provide to workers either 

oral or posted warnings about areas 

where an REI (regardless of its length) 

has been in effect within the last 30 

days unless required to provide both 

oral and posted warnings by the specific 

pesticide label. For farms, forests, and 

non-enclosed nurseries (what EPA is 

proposing to define as ‘‘outdoor 

production’’), EPA proposes to require 

that agricultural employers post 

warning signs regarding the application 

of a pesticide that has an REI greater 

than 48 hours, and proposes to allow 

the option of oral warning or posted 

notification for products with REIs of 48 

hours or less. For greenhouses and 

indoor nurseries (what EPA is proposing 

to define as ‘‘enclosed space 

production’’), EPA proposes to require 

that agricultural employers post 

warning signs according to the current 

posted warning requirements when the 

product applied has an REI greater than 

4 hours, and proposes to allow the 

option for oral or posted notification 

where the product applied has an REI of 

4 hours or less. EPA expects the changes 

to improve worker protection by 

increasing workers’ awareness of treated 

areas and reminding them to take 

required precautions and to avoid 

pesticide exposure, leading to an overall 

reduction in occupational pesticiderelated illnesses. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. Under 40 

CFR 170.120, agricultural employers are 

required to notify workers about 

pesticide applications and areas on the 

agricultural establishment subject to an 

REI. Notification is required when 

workers or handlers are on the 

establishment during application or the 

REI and will pass within one quarter 

(1/4) mile of the treated area. In 

greenhouses and some enclosed 

nurseries, the agricultural employer 

must post warning signs. On farms, and 

in forests and non-enclosed nurseries, 

the agricultural employer may choose 

either to post warning signs at the usual 

points of entry around the treated area 

or to notify workers orally about 

applications that will take place on the 

establishment. Both posted and oral 

worker notification must inform 

workers about the location of the 

application and treated areas under REIs 

so workers do not enter. In cases where 

the product labeling requires both 

written and oral notification of workers, 

the WPS also requires this ‘‘double 

notification.’’ Part 170 does not 

currently require the agricultural 

employer to keep a record of oral 

warnings. 

3. Summary of the issues. In 2006, 

Farmworker Justice sent a letter to the 

EPA Administrator, signed by more than 

50 different farmworker groups, 

suggesting revisions for making the WPS 

more protective. The letter states, 

‘‘Restricted-entry intervals (REIs) are 

. . . intended to provide a physical 

barrier, reducing worker exposure to 

pesticides when and where the risk is 

greatest. But workers are not effectively 

warned to keep out of recently treated 

areas.’’ (Ref. 35) Farmworker 

organizations noted three problems with 

the current requirement: Workers may 

not remember REI details that span 

multiple days, oral warnings may not be 

adequately provided by the employer in 

the appropriate language or understood 

and retained by the worker, and 

compliance with the oral warning 

requirement is difficult to verify. 

Farmworker Justice recommended 

posting areas treated with a pesticide 

with an REI longer than 72 hours and 

requiring recordkeeping of oral 

notifications to workers. 

The Farmworker Justice comments are 

consistent with research showing that 

oral instruction alone may not be an 

effective method of safety instruction. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

For ‘‘outdoor production,’’ EPA 

proposes to require that agricultural 

employers post warning signs where the 

pesticide to be applied has an REI 

greater than 48 hours, and to allow the 

option of oral warning or posted 

notification for products with an REI of 

48 hours or less. For ‘‘enclosed space 

production,’’ EPA proposes to require 

posting of warning signs where the 

product applied has an REI greater than 

4 hours, and to allow the option of oral 

warning or posted notification for 

products with an REI of 4 hours or less. 

EPA believes that under the current 

rule agricultural employers most 

commonly opt to provide oral 

notification to their workers because 

this is less costly and less burdensome 

than physically posting treated areas. 

However, workers may not recall oral 

notifications when REIs are longer than 

a few days. Adults remember only about 

10% of what they hear, but when the 

information is seen and heard retention 

improves to about 50% (Ref. 41). Entry 

into a treated area during an REI 

presents an elevated risk of pesticide 

exposure and EPA believes that 

ensuring that workers are adequately 

notified of treated areas in a manner 

they can recall and understand would 

result in fewer entries into treated areas 

during the REI without appropriate 

protection. 

A 2008 SENSOR-Pesticides/California 

Department of Pesticide Regulation 

publication cites reentry into pesticidetreated areas prior to the end of the REI 

as the second leading factor contributing 

to reports of acute occupational 

pesticide poisoning cases in agricultural 

workers (Ref. 11). One reason workers 

may be entering pesticide-treated areas 

is their lack of awareness that the area 

has been treated with a pesticide and is 

under an REI, which EPA believes can 

be addressed by more robust posting of 

treated areas. 

Because workers face challenges with 

literacy and understanding English, EPA 

believes that reducing the reliance on 

spoken messages to protect workers and 

increasing reliance on a clear, graphic, 

posted warning would better protect 

workers from the risks of entering a 

treated area before the REI expires 

without proper protection. The posted 

warning signs will serve as physical 

reminders for workers to avoid areas in 

which the REI has not expired. During 

pesticide safety training, workers would 

be informed of the requirement for 

agricultural employers to provide oral or 

posted notification for treated areas, in 

addition to the current requirement to 

describe the warning signs, which 

would increase workers’ likelihood of 

noticing and complying with entry 

restriction signs. [See Unit VII.E.] 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15473 

Treated areas under an REI pose 

elevated risk of exposure; thus, by 

keeping workers out, negative health 

effects of pesticide exposure may be 

avoided. EPA expects the proposed 

requirement to increase the number of 

areas posted on agricultural 

establishments across the nation, 

thereby increasing the number of 

workers who are aware of the REI and 

avoid entering, and ultimately leading 

to a reduction of incidence of pesticide 

illnesses related to unintentional entry 

into treated areas under an REI. 

The protective effect of increased 

posting requirements through 

subsequent reduction of pesticide 

illnesses has been shown in Monterey 

County, California. In response to a 

series of worker exposure incidents, 

Monterey County required agricultural 

employers to post areas treated with a 

pesticide with an REI of 24 hours or 

longer. Since its implementation, this 

county-specific requirement has led to a 

significant reduction in pesticiderelated illnesses caused by entering a 

treated area before the expiration of an 

REI (Ref. 60). California cannot provide 

specific data on the percent reduction, 

but a 2001 report from the California 

Department of Pesticide Regulation 

noted stakeholder consensus on and 

support for the requirement, stating: 

‘‘All participants strongly believe that 

field posting prevents workers from 

early reentry. Monterey County 

participants support their 24-hour 

posting regulations, even though 

compliance is costly, because field 

posting prevents both application and 

reentry errors’’ (Ref. 60). 

EPA believes the proposed posting 

requirement may also foster compliance 

and facilitate enforcement because WPS 

inspectors could readily view posted 

warning signs. Inspectors who see 

workers in a treated area while the 

posted warning signs were displayed 

could investigate whether the workers 

received proper early entry protections. 

EPA believes posting all treated areas 

would be a very effective method for 

ensuring that workers are notified about 

what areas are under an REI. However, 

the burden on employers to post all 

treated areas subject to an REI would be 

substantial. To treat an area with an REI 

of 24 hours, the employer would have 

to post the area, make the treatment, and 

retrieve the signs the following day. 

EPA believes that it is reasonable to 

expect workers to remember oral 

warnings related to treated areas under 

REIs for at most 2 work days, or about 

48 hours. 

EPA is proposing to allow oral or 

posted warnings for areas in 

greenhouses treated with an REI of 4 

hours or less. Greenhouse production is 

much more compact than outdoor 

production. In a row of planting tables, 

there could be many applications. EPA 

recognizes the need for workers to have 

information about the different risks 

they face; however, EPA also believes 

that products with an REI of 4 hours or 

less generally pose lower risks than 

products with longer REIs. 

As noted, EPA believes that workers 

can retain warning information 

provided orally for up to 48 hours. 

However, greenhouses and other 

enclosed space production 

establishments have significantly more 

applications in a smaller space. EPA 

believes it is unreasonable to expect 

workers to remember all of the 

information provided orally about 

treated areas when each different 

planting tray could have different 

requirements, therefore EPA is 

proposing a lower threshold for posting 

notification of treated areas on 

establishments where multiple 

applications may be conducted in a 

small area. EPA believes allowing 

employers the option to provide oral or 

posted notification of treated areas for a 

small subset of pesticides provides 

employers with flexibility while 

ensuring workers receive the 

information necessary to protect 

themselves. 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning notification appears in the 

following sections of the proposed rule: 

outdoor production—§ 170.109(a)(1)(i) 

and enclosed space production— 

§ 170.109(a)(1)(ii). 

5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates 

the cost of requiring employers to post 

all treated areas with an REI longer than 

48 hours would be $11.1 million 

annually, or about $28 per 

establishment per year. EPA estimates 

that the proposed changes to 

notification in greenhouses would save 

about $10,000 per year, or $14 per small 

greenhouse. For a complete discussion 

of the costs of the proposals and 

alternatives, see the ‘‘Economic 

Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the 

Worker Protection Standard,’’ Chapter 3 

Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

EPA cannot quantify the benefits 

associated with this specific proposal; 

however, EPA believes requiring 

employers to post treated areas under an 

REI of greater than 48 hours would 

provide workers with more reliable 

information on treated areas and when 

to stay out. EPA expects this would 

result in fewer workers entering treated 

areas under an REI and therefore reduce 

the number of pesticide-related illnesses 

attributable to this cause. 

6. Alternative options considered but 

not proposed.—i. Alternatives to Posting 

Timeframe. EPA considered the 

Farmworker Justice recommendation for 

EPA to require posted warning signs in 

treated areas with REIs greater than 72 

hours. This option would provide more 

protection than the current regulation, 

but not as much as the proposed option 

which would require the same posting, 

but for REIs greater than 48 hours. Given 

the importance to the worker of 

understanding which areas are under an 

REI, EPA believes that posted 

notification for products with REIs over 

72 hours would not adequately warn 

workers to take precautions. EPA 

believes that it would be unreasonable 

to expect a worker to retain the 

information about what areas were 

treated and when REIs expire for longer 

than a two day period. EPA estimates 

the cost of this proposal would be about 

$7.9 million, or $20 per establishment. 

EPA also considered requiring 

agricultural employers to post warning 

signs in treated areas with an REI of 24 

hours or longer, similar to the 

requirement in Monterey County, 

California. EPA recognizes the impact of 

Monterey’s posting requirement in 

reducing exposure to workers. However, 

EPA also recognizes the need to balance 

the protection of workers and burden on 

agricultural employers and applicators. 

Monterey County represents a small 

geographical area. EPA believes that 

while posting of treated areas with an 

REI of 24 hours or longer may have been 

practical in this limited region, it would 

not be practical as a national 

requirement. Agricultural employers 

would have a much higher burden to 

post every treated area with an REI of 24 

hours or longer. EPA believes that 

workers could retain information on 

treated areas and REIs for up to two 

days. 

Lastly, EPA considered a requirement 

to post warning signs in all treated areas 

under REIs for enclosed space and 

outdoor production. This option would 

ensure that workers are aware of the 

status of every treated area and every 

area without posting would be safe for 

workers to enter. Posting of all treated 

areas where an REI is in effect would 

send a clear message to workers; 

however, it would be very difficult for 

agricultural employers to comply with 

this requirement. Some products have 

an REI of 4 hours. In essence, an 

employer would post signs after 

application and almost immediately 

take them down. While this task may be 

easy in enclosed space production, it 

may be substantially more burdensome 

for an agricultural employer engaged in 

outdoor production. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15474 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

EPA believes that the proposed option 

to require posting of all areas of outdoor 

production treated with a product with 

an REI greater than 48 hours strikes a 

balance between the three alternatives 

considered. EPA recognizes the value of 

allowing oral warning for worker 

notification of treated areas with REIs 

less than 48 hours because this option 

would provide regulatory flexibility 

(Ref. 18). EPA believes that workers 

informed orally can remember that an 

area has been restricted for entry for up 

to two days. Posting areas treated with 

a pesticide product with an REI greater 

than 48 hours would provide workers 

visual reminders when the REI is 

sufficiently long that a worker could 

have difficulty remembering the specific 

area treated or length of the REI. 

ii. Recordkeeping of Oral Notification. 

To address concerns that workers may 

not receive oral notifications of treated 

areas with REIs shorter than or equal to 

48 hours, EPA considered adding a 

requirement for agricultural employers 

to retain records of the oral warning 

provided, signed by the workers who 

received the notification, for 2 years. 

The required record would contain: 

• Location and description of the 

entry-restricted area and the treated 

area; 

• Date and time the REI starts and 

ends; 

• Date and time the agricultural 

employer provided the oral warning; 

• Name and signature of the person 

providing the warning; and 

• Name and signature of each 

employee that received notification. 

Requiring the employee’s signature on 

the record would provide incentive to 

the employer to provide the notification 

in a manner the worker understands in 

order to obtain the signature. This 

requirement would impose significant 

burden on employers. The time required 

to comply with the recordkeeping 

would substantially increase the time 

currently required to provide the oral 

notification, based on the additional 

requirement to explain the notification 

record and secure the signatures of all 

workers entering or working within 1/4 

mile of the treated area. 

In addition, workers may have 

difficulty reading and understanding the 

record of the notification because many 

are not literate in English. Workers may 

sign the notification record because 

instructed to do so by the employer, not 

because they understand the 

information provided and intent of the 

record of the oral notification, 

undermining the intent of the record as 

confirmation of transfer of information 

to workers. 

EPA estimates the cost to collect and 

retain records for 2 years would be 

about $20 million, or about $51 per 

establishment. This cost is substantially 

higher than the cost for recordkeeping of 

pesticide safety training because 

pesticide safety training would only 

occur once annually per worker whereas 

records of oral notification could be 

required almost every time an 

application occurs. EPA has insufficient 

data to support a claim that the 

potential benefits of this alternative, i.e., 

increased enforceability of the WPS, 

would outweigh the potential burden on 

agricultural employers to record and 

maintain the information. 

7. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• For outdoor production, EPA 

proposes to allow the option of oral 

warning or posted notification for 

products with an REI of 48 hours or less. 

Is there a different time period that 

would better balance the costs of 

compliance with the expected risk 

reduction? 

• Will the proposed requirements for 

posting instead of oral warnings provide 

sufficient benefit for workers to warrant 

the additional burden placed on 

agricultural employers? 

• Should EPA require recordkeeping 

for oral notification? If so, why? 

B. Locations of Warning Sign 

1. Overview. Where the existing WPS 

requires a warning sign to be posted, the 

signs must be placed where they are 

visible from all usual points of worker 

entry to the treated area, the corners of 

the treated area, or an area affording 

maximum visibility. EPA proposes to 

revise the required posting locations to 

include locations visible from a worker 

housing area if the housing area is 

within 100 feet of a treated area for 

outdoor production. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS 

requires employers to post warning 

signs (40 CFR 170.120(c)). For 

applications in farms, forests, and nonenclosed nurseries (what EPA is 

proposing to define as ‘‘outdoor 

production’’), the warning signs must be 

visible from all usual points of worker 

entry into the treated area, including, at 

a minimum, each access road, each 

border with a labor camp (what EPA is 

proposing be referred to as a ‘‘worker 

housing area’’) adjacent to the treated 

area, and each footpath or other walking 

route that enters the treated area. For 

applications in greenhouses and indoor 

nurseries (what EPA is proposing to 

define as ‘‘enclosed space production’’), 

the warning signs must be visible from 

all usual points of worker entry to the 

treated area, including, each aisle or 

other walking route that enters the 

treated area. When there are no usual 

points of worker entry to the treated 

area (farm, forest, nursery or 

greenhouse), the employer must post 

signs in the corners of the treated area 

or in any other location offering 

maximum visibility. 

3. Summary of the issues. During the 

National Assessment process, 

stakeholders, including farmworker 

groups and healthcare organizations, 

raised concerns about providing notice 

to worker housing inhabitants when 

their location is not directly adjacent to 

the treated area (Ref. 17). Workers and 

their families housed near treated areas 

may have a higher likelihood of 

exposure to pesticides from 

inadvertently entering a treated area; the 

increased detection of pesticides in the 

body has been found to be associated 

with housing adjacent to treated areas 

(Ref. 51) (Ref. 57). In order to mitigate 

the risk associated with walking into a 

treated area without adequate 

notification, stakeholders suggested 

increasing the posting of areas near 

worker housing areas (Ref. 35). 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

To prevent inadvertent entry into 

treated areas from onsite worker 

housing areas, EPA proposes to require 

a posted warning sign visible from a 

worker housing area if the housing area 

is within 100 feet of a treated area for 

outdoor production in addition to the 

required current locations. EPA expects 

this requirement would improve 

notification of workers and their 

families in worker housing areas, 

mitigating exposure resulting from entry 

into a treated area under an REI. This 

additional posting location should also 

improve safety of families living on or 

near agricultural establishments. 

Individuals in worker housing areas 

would be able to see the posted warning 

signs and avoid entry into the area. 

EPA considered the demographics of 

the worker population when developing 

this proposal. In recognition of their low 

literacy and limited English language 

skills, EPA proposes to use the widely 

recognized warning sign indicating to 

stay out of a particular area with text in 

at least two languages. In addition, 

workers and their families generally live 

near agricultural areas but may not be 

aware of when a nearby area has been 

treated. Children may play around the 

home in a treated area, increasing the 

likelihood of exposure to pesticides. By 

posting information warning of 

pesticide applications near worker 

housing for workers and their families 

to see, EPA believes that they will be 

less likely to inadvertently enter a 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15475 

treated area and thereby will reduce 

overall risk of exposure to pesticides. 

This proposal supports EPA’s 

commitments to keeping children safe 

and to take specific measures to protect 

vulnerable or disadvantaged 

communities and populations. 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning the warning sign appears in 

§ 170.109(b)(3)(ii) of the proposed rule. 

5. Cost. EPA believes the cost of this 

proposed expansion of the areas that 

must be posted would be negligible. For 

a complete discussion of the costs of the 

proposals and alternatives, see the 

‘‘Economic Analysis of Proposed 

Revisions to the Worker Protection 

Standard,’’ Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 

1). 

6. Alternative options considered but 

not proposed. EPA considered a 

recommendation offered by Farmworker 

Justice to require signs to be posted at 

the usual points of entry and every 100 

feet along the perimeter of the treated 

area (Ref. 35). Many members of the 

PPDC workgroup, including state 

regulatory agencies, cooperative 

extension services, and the agricultural 

industry, said that posting warning 

signs every 100 feet around treated areas 

under an REI would impose 

unnecessary burdens on the agricultural 

employer without resulting in 

additional protections for workers (Ref. 

36). Based on anticipated high burden 

without demonstrable benefits for this 

option, EPA decided not to propose 

increasing posting to every hundred feet 

around the perimeter. 

7. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Are there preferable alternatives to 

the proposed option for posting 

locations that EPA has not considered? 

If so, please describe and provide data 

to support the alternative. 

C. Warning Sign Content 

1. Overview. The current WPS 

warning sign says ‘‘Keep Out’’ and has 

a picture of a stern-faced man with an 

upraised hand in a red circle. EPA 

proposes to require the phrase ‘‘Entry 

Restricted’’ instead of ‘‘Keep Out’’ on 

warning signs. EPA also proposes to 

change the red shape on the sign from 

a circle to an octagon. EPA believes the 

text change would more accurately 

reflect the intended message for workers 

to be adequately prepared and informed 

before entering a posted area, and the 

octagonal shape will provide an 

effective signal that entry is restricted 

that does not depend on literacy or 

language spoken. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. Under 40 

CFR 170.120(c)(1), posted warning signs 

must state ‘‘Danger, Pesticides’’ and 

‘‘Keep Out’’ in English and Spanish or 

another language the workers 

understand and contain the ‘‘stern-faced 

man with the upraised hand’’ in a red 

circle as pictured (in black and white) 

below. 

3. Summary of the issues. 

Stakeholders, including state regulators, 

educators, and farmworker groups, have 

noted that the message on the sign can 

be confusing. Under the WPS, workers 

can be trained and equipped to enter a 

treated area during an REI to conduct 

certain early-entry tasks, such as 

repairing a clogged irrigation hose. [See 

Unit XII.B.] Due to these exceptions, 

including the ‘‘Keep Out’’ text on the 

warning sign may lead to worker 

confusion, since workers have been 

trained to stay out of a treated area 

posted with the warning sign and also 

may be directed by their employer to 

enter the treated area to conduct an 

appropriate early-entry task. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA proposes to revise the required text 

on the warning sign to convey more 

accurate information to workers. While 

warning signs would retain the phrase 

‘‘Danger, Pesticides’’ text at the top, the 

message at the bottom of the sign would 

read ‘‘Entry Restricted’’ instead of 

‘‘Keep Out’’. EPA believes this revision 

to the text more accurately reflects that 

the sign is a warning to those entering 

a treated area. ‘‘Entry restricted’’ 

provides a bold warning for anyone 

entering a treated area but also allows 

that some entry may be permitted. 

Additionally, EPA plans to replace 

the current shape of the red circle that 

contains the stern-faced man with the 

upraised hand with an octagon. A red 

octagon is a widely-recognized symbol 

to stop, and this will provide a stronger 

signal to workers to be cautious when 

they encounter the posted warning sign, 

even if they are unable to comprehend 

the text. Workers will receive pesticide 

safety training to reinforce the meaning 

of the warning signs and help them in 

determining how to proceed. [See Unit 

VII.E.] The proposed warning sign is 

pictured below (in black and white). 

EPA specifically considered input 

received directly from workers in 

developing this proposal. Workers have 

indicated that they prefer to get 

information in simple language and 

images that communicate the message 

(Ref. 40). EPA expects that these 

modifications to the warning sign will 

provide a clearer, simpler warning to 

workers. EPA is aware of the importance 

of conveying clear and simple safety 

information to worker populations, 

particularly for workers who may have 

a low literacy level in English or their 

native language (Ref. 61, p. 16). NAWS 

data show that 85% of workers would 

have difficulty obtaining information 

from printed materials in any language 

(Ref. 3, p. 17). The proposed 

modifications to the warning sign would 

make it clearer and simpler, which 

should enhance comprehension by lowliteracy adults, and by children of farm 

workers (Ref. 62). 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning the content of the warning 

sign appears in § 170.109(b)(2) of the 

proposed rule. 

5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates 

the cost of requiring employers to use 

the revised warning sign would be 

$99,000 annually, or an average of $0.25 

per establishment per year. EPA 

estimates that employers currently 

purchase new signs every 2 years 

because weather and outdoor exposure 

renders the signs unusable after this 

period. For a complete discussion of the 

costs of the proposals and alternatives, 

see the ‘‘Economic Analysis of Proposed 

Revisions to the Worker Protection 

Standard,’’ Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 

1). 

EPA cannot quantify specific benefits 

for this proposal. EPA believes that 

requiring the use of signs that more 

accurately convey the intended message 

would lead to better understanding of 

the sign and its message by workers. 

This would result in less confusion 

about what the sign means, which 

should mean less potential for workers 

to disregard the sign out of confusion, 

and thus, fewer workers entering treated 

areas under an REI which should 

decrease the number of occupational 

pesticide-related illnesses. 

6. Alternative options considered but 

not proposed. Farmworker Justice 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP19MR14.000</GPH> EP19MR14.001</GPH>
15476 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

recommended that EPA replace the 

‘‘stern-faced man with the upraised 

hand’’ with the skull and crossbones. 

They noted that the skull and 

crossbones is a universally recognized 

symbol that communicates high risk of 

danger or death, and suggest that 

workers would better recognize the risks 

associated with entering an area posted 

with the warning sign if it bore this 

symbol. 

EPA considered Farmworker Justice’s 

recommendation to change the warning 

sign graphic to the skull and crossbones, 

but decided against this option. The 

skull and crossbones symbol is 

currently used on Toxicity I and II 

pesticide product labeling and for 

designation of treated areas for certain 

extremely hazardous pesticides, for 

example, fumigants, and using the same 

symbol in less hazardous conditions 

would weaken its impact where it is 

needed most. The skull and crossbones 

symbol is associated with extreme 

toxicity or death, which is not always 

appropriate for every pesticide that has 

an REI. In contrast, the proposed sign 

indicates to workers that they should 

use caution in entering the treated area, 

but that entry may be permissible with 

the proper safety equipment. EPA does 

not want to send workers a mixed 

message by using the skull and 

crossbones on the sign. In addition, 

workers have been trained to recognize 

the current sign since the rule went into 

effect. The Agency believes that the 

‘‘stern-faced man with the upraised 

hand’’ is still the most appropriate and 

well-recognized symbol for workers. 

7. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Should EPA consider replacing the 

current or proposed general field 

posting sign with risk-based reentry 

signs? What would be the costs and 

benefits of using risk-based signs? 

IX. Hazard Communication 

A. Pesticide-Specific Hazard 

Communication Materials—General 

1. Overview. The existing WPS does 

not require employers to provide 

workers and handlers with pesticidespecific hazard information on the 

products they may be exposed to in the 

workplace. In contrast, OSHA’s Hazard 

Communication Standard (HCS), which 

covers most workplaces, requires 

employers to provide chemical-specific 

hazard information (i.e., the safety data 

sheets or SDSs) to workers before they 

enter an area where they could be 

exposed and to make the same material 

available to workers upon request. EPA 

proposes to require that agricultural and 

handler employers provide workers and 

handlers with access to copies of the 

SDS and pesticide labeling for products 

that have been applied on the 

establishment and to which workers and 

handlers may be exposed. EPA believes 

making this information available to 

workers and handlers may assist them 

and possibly health care providers in 

the event of an emergency situation 

involving pesticide exposure. EPA also 

believes that providing access to 

specific hazard information would assist 

workers and handlers in better 

protecting themselves and others from 

pesticide hazards in the workplace. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS 

contains several provisions designed to 

communicate pesticide hazard 

information to workers and handlers. By 

providing workers and handlers with 

relevant information, these provisions 

minimize workplace risks associated 

with pesticide use and mitigate the 

potential for occupational pesticide 

exposure. First, the WPS requires 

employers to train workers and handlers 

on basic pesticide safety and the general 

hazards associated with pesticides (40 

CFR 170.130 and 170.230). Second, the 

WPS requires employers to display 

basic pesticide safety information at a 

central location on the establishment to 

remind workers and handlers of safe 

practices when working with or around 

pesticides and to provide information 

about obtaining emergency medical 

assistance (40 CFR 170.124 and 

170.224). Third, the WPS requires 

employers to provide handlers with 

access to the pesticide labeling during 

pesticide handling activities and to 

ensure that the handler has read the 

labeling, or been informed in a manner 

the handler understands, of all labeling 

requirements related to safe pesticide 

use (40 CFR 170.232(a)). Lastly, 

employers must display certain 

information about pesticide applications 

made on the establishment whenever 

workers or handlers will be on the 

establishment and a pesticide has been 

applied or an REI has been in effect 

within the last 30 days (40 CFR 170.122 

and 170.222). Although the existing 

WPS requirements provide workers and 

handlers with basic safety information 

on how to protect themselves from 

general pesticide hazards, and where 

pesticides have been applied on the 

establishment, no requirement exists for 

employers to make pesticide-specific 

hazard communication materials, such 

as the SDS and the pesticide labeling, 

accessible to both workers and handlers. 

3. Summary of the issues. During the 

National Assessment meetings, health 

care, medical, and farmworker 

organizations urged the Agency to add 

pesticide-specific hazard 

communication provisions to the rule 

(Ref. 17). They noted that the WPSrequired information about pesticide 

applications that must be displayed at 

the establishment provides a limited set 

of information about the pesticides used 

on the establishment. The information 

does not provide an explanation of the 

specific symptoms associated with 

exposure to a specific product, nor does 

it provide other use-related information 

that workers, handlers, and health care 

providers would benefit from reviewing 

in the event of a pesticide-related illness 

or an emergency. To support their 

request, they noted the disparity 

between information about chemical 

hazards required to be provided to 

workers and handlers covered by the 

WPS and the information provided to 

workers in all other industries under the 

OSHA HCS. 

Farmworker organizations suggested 

that workers and handlers should 

receive ‘‘written information, in a 

pictorial and low-literacy format, 

concerning the short- and long-term 

health effects associated with each 

pesticide used at their worksite’’ (Ref. 

35, p. 2). Farmworker Justice 

recommended that growers provide 

‘‘crop sheets,’’ i.e., booklets with 

information on each pesticide used on 

an establishment, to each worker and 

handler at the beginning of each work 

period that involves entry into any 

treated area. (Crop sheets can take 

various forms but generally summarize 

information about the pesticides used 

on a particular crop, the timing of 

application, the type of application (for 

example, air blast or ground boom), and 

potential symptoms from exposure to 

the pesticide.) Farmworker Justice 

suggested that the crop sheets be 

available in English and Spanish. They 

believe that information presented in 

this format would enable workers and 

handlers to recognize adverse effects 

and seek medical assistance if they 

experienced symptoms related to 

exposure to a specific pesticide (Ref. 

35). Other stakeholders have suggested 

that the detailed health effects 

information from Safety Data Sheets be 

provided orally to employees. EPA 

believes that the benefits of reading this 

detailed and often lengthy information 

to workers and handers are uncertain 

and such information could confuse 

workers with complex pesticide hazard 

information where the level of hazard is 

different for every situation. 

Pesticide safety trainer representatives 

on the Pesticide Program Dialogue 

Committee Workgroup suggested that 

providing simple information on how to 

prevent potential pesticide exposure is 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15477 

the most effective way to enable workers 

and handlers to protect themselves (Ref. 

36) (Ref. 39); they did not endorse a 

specific type of hazard communication 

information. Health care organizations 

noted that requiring employers to 

maintain pesticide labeling or SDS 

could facilitate quick access to these 

documents by workers, handlers, or 

their representatives in the event of an 

accidental exposure requiring medical 

attention. These groups noted that 

health care practitioners can provide 

more appropriate medical attention if 

they can review and reference either the 

label or the SDS. [See Unit XIV.] 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA proposes to require that 

agricultural and handler employers 

make available to workers and handlers 

SDS and the labeling for pesticides used 

on the establishment that require WPS 

compliance. This proposed requirement 

would be in addition to the existing 

requirements to notify workers and 

handlers of the date, time, and location 

of application, length of REI, and to 

identify the pesticide product. 

Employers would be required to 

maintain the SDSs and the pesticide 

labeling on the establishment for 2 years 

from the date of the pesticide 

application. Workers, handlers or their 

authorized representatives could request 

access to the pesticide-specific hazard 

information during normal business 

hours. [See Units IX.B. and IX.C. for 

proposed revisions to employer 

requirements to provide information 

about pesticide applications.] 

In adopting the Hazard 

Communication Standard, OSHA said 

there was evidence to indicate potential 

for chemical exposure in every type of 

industry, and that lack of knowledge 

about those hazardous chemicals puts 

employees at significant risk of 

experiencing material impairment of 

health (52 FR 31852; August 24, 1987) 

(59 FR 6126; February 9, 1994) (Ref. 63). 

While the WPS pesticide safety training 

provides general information about risks 

associated with pesticide exposure and 

how a worker or handler can protect 

himself or herself, the addition of a 

requirement to provide information 

about each specific pesticide would 

provide complete hazard information. 

The addition of a requirement to 

provide pesticide-specific hazard 

information about each pesticide 

product requiring WPS compliance that 

is applied on the establishment would 

provide workers and handlers with 

more complete information about the 

chemical hazards they may encounter in 

the workplace. 

Requiring employers to maintain the 

product labeling and SDSs for products 

applied on their establishment would 

ensure that workers and handlers have 

access to detailed types of pesticide 

hazard and emergency response 

information that would enable them to 

better protect themselves and respond to 

emergencies. Additionally, as discussed 

in Unit XVI., medical personnel are 

generally able to provide better 

treatment in the event of a pesticide 

exposure incident when they have more 

information about the pesticide product 

to which the worker or handler may 

have been exposed. Allowing 

authorized representatives of workers 

and handlers to have access to the 

product labeling and SDSs upon request 

would assure that the information can 

be accessed if a worker or handler is 

incapacitated; in addition, it would help 

assure that access to this information is 

not impeded due to employee fears of 

retaliation. It also increases the 

likelihood that workers and handlers 

will receive assistance in reading and 

understanding these documents in cases 

where they need such assistance. 

EPA believes that imposing this 

requirement would not be unduly 

burdensome to employers and would 

provide workers, handlers, and 

emergency responders with access to 

appropriate pesticide-specific hazard 

information that should meet their 

needs. The SDS provides succinct 

information about the known health 

hazards of the material, providing 

hazard information that typically is not 

presented on the product labeling, and 

it is readily available from pesticide 

manufacturers and should be provided 

with the pesticide container at the point 

of sale. Based on EPA’s review of 

current state pesticide laws and 

regulations, and labor laws pertaining to 

agricultural operations using pesticides, 

12 states currently require agricultural 

employers to make SDSs available to 

employees that may potentially be 

exposed to pesticides as part of their 

occupational duties (Ref. 64). Ten of the 

states implement this requirement 

under state labor regulations. Florida 

and California implement it under state 

pesticide laws. 

The use of SDS in hazard 

communication in all other industries, 

as well as in agriculture in several 

states, leads the Agency to believe that 

it would be the appropriate vehicle to 

make pesticide-specific hazard 

information available to workers and 

handlers. 

EPA recognizes that some employers 

may maintain electronic copies of their 

records. Under the proposed option, an 

employer could maintain a copy of the 

pesticide labeling used for the 

application and the corresponding SDS 

in either paper or electronic form. The 

employer would need to be able to 

provide a paper copy of the materials 

upon request. Employers would not 

need to update the pesticide labeling on 

file each time a new version is released; 

the labeling on file must correspond 

with the labeling used at the time of 

application. 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning the provision of SDSs and 

pesticide product labeling appears in 

§ 170.11(b) of the proposed rule. 

5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates 

the cost of requiring employers to 

maintain application information, SDS, 

and labeling for 2 years would be $3 

million annually, or about $8 per WPS 

establishment per year. The cost to 

obtain the SDS and labeling, as well as 

the additional information described in 

unit IX.B., and to make it available 

would be about $5.3 million annually, 

or about $14 per establishment. For a 

complete discussion of the costs of the 

proposals and alternatives, see the 

‘‘Economic Analysis of Proposed 

Revisions to the Worker Protection 

Standard,’’ Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 

1). 

EPA cannot quantify the specific 

benefits associated with this proposal; 

however, the Agency believes that 

workers and handlers would benefit 

from having access to more complete 

information about the pesticides to 

which they may be exposed. The 

additional information also could be 

used to assist in more accurately 

diagnosing and treating pesticiderelated illnesses. EPA believes the costs 

of making more pesticide application 

information available to workers and 

handlers are reasonable when compared 

to the expected benefits associated with 

the requirement. 

6. Alternative options considered but 

not proposed. EPA considered three 

alternatives to the proposed option: a 

requirement to make crop sheets 

available, a requirement to translate 

SDSs into different languages, and 

limiting the required pesticide 

information to the pesticide labeling. 

First, the Agency considered requiring 

employers to provide workers and 

handlers with a crop sheet in English 

and Spanish for each pesticide they 

might encounter, each time they enter 

the treated area. The Agency is aware of 

several attempts by state agencies to 

pilot this use of crop sheets. California 

and Texas have had requirements for 

employers to provide crop sheets to 

those working in pesticide-treated areas. 

Texas funded the initial development 

and periodic updating of the crop 

sheets, but the process became too 

expensive and labor intensive for the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15478 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

state to continue. The states reported 

that the crop sheets were left as litter in 

the treated area. Texas reported that the 

redundancy between the requirements 

under Texas law and the WPS 

contributed to the decision to 

discontinue the crop sheet program. 

EPA believes that developing crop 

sheets as recommended by farmworker 

organizations would be challenging 

because they suggested simple pictorial 

descriptions of hazards and symptoms, 

which would not be accomplished 

easily with the technical information 

that is generally included on an SDS. In 

addition, many agricultural enterprises 

produce a variety of commodities, 

increasing the number and complexity 

of the crop sheets. Agricultural practices 

differ across regions and according to 

local conditions, making it difficult to 

develop a standard set of crop sheets 

that could be used nationally; a booklet 

that would be useful for vegetables 

grown in New England would not be 

representative of practices in vegetable 

production in the Southwestern United 

States. As part of its consideration, the 

Agency assessed the cost of developing 

crop sheets based on the assumption 

that pesticide registrants would develop 

the crop sheets because they have the 

most complete knowledge of each 

pesticide’s properties, hazards, and 

potential health effects. The estimated 

cost of $13 million annually does not 

include copying and distributing the 

crop sheets to workers and handlers 

every time they enter a treated area. 

Copying and distributing the crop sheets 

would significantly increase the cost of 

this option. 

Based on the experience of states that 

have attempted to implement crop sheet 

distribution programs, EPA does not 

believe that workers and handlers 

would benefit sufficiently to justify the 

cost of developing, compiling, 

translating, and distributing specific 

crop sheets. 

Second, EPA considered requiring 

pesticide-specific hazard 

communication materials to be made 

available in a language that workers and 

handlers can understand. This would 

mean translating a copy of the SDS and 

labeling into each language understood 

by a worker or handler on the 

establishment and maintaining copies of 

the original and translated SDS and 

labeling, rather than providing the 

information in English and putting the 

burden of translation on the worker or 

handler. 

The NAWS estimates that the majority 

of agricultural workers (83%) are nonEnglish speakers (Ref. 65). Additionally, 

NAWS data show that 85% of workers 

‘‘would have difficulty obtaining 

information from printed materials in 

any language’’ (Ref. 61, p. 16). 

Additionally, workers and handlers 

speak a large number of languages and 

dialects, and the Agency believes it 

would be impractical to translate and 

present complex information into so 

many different languages. This 

requirement would be complicated 

further by the fact that some indigenous 

worker and handler populations do not 

have a written language. EPA assumes 

that a majority of requests for the SDS 

will be made related to a health care 

incident, which means that either the 

health care practitioner or a worker 

advocacy support group would likely 

receive the information. These groups 

are more likely to have staff that speak 

English and are capable of translating 

the information for the worker or 

handler if necessary. 

All other industries—including the 

construction, janitorial, and 

maintenance industries where there are 

traditionally significant numbers of 

workers with limited skills reading or 

understanding English—use SDSs in 

English to meet OSHA’s Hazard 

Communication Standard requirements 

to make chemical hazard information 

available to employees (29 CFR 

1910.120(g)). Most readily available 

sources of pesticide-specific hazard 

information, such as SDS and pesticide 

labeling, are in English. EPA did not 

estimate the cost of translating the SDS 

and labeling into each language spoken 

by workers and handlers, but expects 

that the burden would be extremely 

high. The burden of producing SDSs in 

multiple languages would probably fall 

on registrants, but agricultural and 

handler employers would bear the 

burden of obtaining and maintaining a 

copy of this information in every 

language spoken by their workers and 

handlers. 

Based on this information, EPA does 

not believe that the risk reductions 

expected to result from providing SDSs 

to workers in their native languages 

would justify the significant costs of 

doing so. Medical and legal personnel 

who would provide assistance to 

workers in the event of a suspected 

exposure are proficient in English and 

could use the SDSs as already 

developed by the pesticide registrant. 

Finally, EPA considered requiring the 

employer to maintain only labeling for 

pesticides that require WPS compliance 

that are applied on their establishments, 

rather than both the product’s labeling 

and SDS. Pesticide labeling must 

accompany the product; therefore, 

employers generally already have a copy 

of the labeling for products applied on 

their establishment. When a pesticide is 

applied by a commercial applicator or 

someone other than the agricultural 

employer, he or she can easily request 

a copy of the pesticide labeling from the 

person who made the application. The 

SDS, on the other hand, does not 

accompany the product and may require 

more time to locate, increasing the 

burden on the agricultural employer. 

Limiting the requirement to the 

pesticide labeling could reduce the 

burden on agricultural employers. 

EPA believes that the burden 

associated with retrieving a pesticide 

SDS is, however, not substantial 

because the SDS is readily available 

online and can be requested from and 

provided by the pesticide manufacturer 

and sometimes the pesticide dealer. The 

SDS contains information necessary for 

the diagnosis and treatment of certain 

pesticide-related illnesses. In some 

instances of pesticide-related illnesses, 

time is of the essence in determining the 

course of treatment. In these instances, 

having the SDS readily available for the 

worker, handler, and/or treating medical 

personnel could be essential to ensuring 

proper treatment. The cost for requiring 

the employer to collect and make 

available only the labeling would be 

about $1.6 million, or about $4 per 

establishment. EPA believes that the 

additional burden associated with 

retrieving the SDS for each product is 

justified by the potential benefit to 

workers and handlers from having the 

SDS available in the event of a 

pesticide-related illness. 

7. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• What would be the burden on 

employers to maintain the SDS and 

pesticide label for 2 vs. 5 years? 

• Do agricultural employers already 

collect SDSs? If so, how do they obtain 

them and what burden is associated 

with retrieving the SDS for one or more 

products? 

• What are the benefits and 

drawbacks of requiring employers to 

maintain and provide access to 

employees and others the proposed 

pesticide-specific hazard information? 

• Are there other approaches for 

providing workers and handlers with 

understandable, readily accessible, and 

relevant information on the symptoms, 

short-term health effects, and long-term 

health effects of exposure (including 

prenatal exposure) to specific 

pesticides? If so, please describe these 

approaches, their implementation, and 

the advantages they provide in 

comparison to the proposed approach. 

• Are there other data on the benefit 

to workers and handlers from receiving 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15479 

pesticide-specific information before 

every entry into a pesticide treated area? 

• Does opening access to pesticidespecific information to authorized 

representatives raise any problems? If 

so, please describe the potential issues 

with particularity and provide 

supporting information where available. 

B. Pesticide Application Information— 

Content and Timing 

1. Overview. The existing WPS 

contains requirements for agricultural 

employers to record and display 

information about pesticide applications 

and to make that information accessible 

to workers and handlers. However, the 

existing requirements do not include 

some key information about pesticide 

applications that could help workers 

and handlers better identify treated 

areas on the establishment and avoid 

pesticide exposure. EPA proposes to 

require additional information about 

pesticide applications to be recorded. 

EPA also proposes to change the timing 

of when employers must record the 

information. EPA believes the 

additional information would better 

inform workers and handlers of relevant 

information about pesticide 

applications. The more flexible timing 

requirements for recording application 

information would reduce burden on 

employers. [See Unit IX.C. for proposed 

revisions to requirements for displaying 

information about pesticide 

applications.] 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The 

existing WPS requires agricultural 

employers to record and display certain 

information about pesticide applications 

at a central location on the 

establishment. Employers must comply 

with this requirement when workers or 

handlers will be on the establishment 

and an application of a pesticide 

requiring WPS compliance has been 

made or an REI has been effect within 

the last 30 days (40 CFR 170.122 and 

170.222). The purpose of this 

requirement is to communicate 

information to workers and handlers 

about the locations of potential 

pesticide hazards on the establishment, 

for example, entry restricted areas or 

areas under an REI. The WPS requires 

employers to record and display the 

following information about pesticide 

applications: 

• Location and description of the 

treated area, 

• Product name, 

• EPA registration number, 

• Active ingredient(s) of the pesticide 

product, 

• Time and date the pesticide is to be 

applied, and 

• REI for the pesticide. 

The existing WPS requires the 

application information to be accurate 

and to be displayed before application 

takes place if workers are present on the 

establishment. If no workers or handlers 

are on the establishment at the time of 

application, the information must be 

posted before the first work period 

when workers or handlers are on the 

establishment. If warning signs are 

posted for the treated area before an 

application, the specific application 

information for that application must be 

displayed at the same time or earlier, in 

accordance with the display 

requirements. When workers or 

handlers are present on the 

establishment, the employer must 

display the application information for 

at least 30 days after the end of the REI. 

Employers may discontinue the 

information display prior to 30 days 

after the end of the REI when workers 

or handlers are no longer on the 

establishment. 

3. Summary of the issues. During the 

National Assessment and SBREFA 

consultation process, employers and 

pesticide applicators noted that they 

had difficulty recording and displaying 

application information before the 

application occurs (Ref. 17) (Ref. 18). 

They cited changes in pesticide 

application plans, usually to 

accommodate changing weather 

conditions, as a primary reason for not 

being able to accurately record the 

pesticide application information. 

State regulatory agencies noted that 

the current requirement for providing 

information about pesticide applications 

lacked specific information necessary to 

enable state inspectors to accurately 

determine the start and end times of the 

REIs (Ref. 17). As a result of a highprofile pesticide enforcement case and 

the aforementioned difficulty 

determining REI start and end times, 

North Carolina informed EPA that it has 

taken steps to amend the state pesticide 

laws. The amended laws would require 

the end times of pesticide applications 

to be recorded as part of state pesticide 

recordkeeping so inspectors could 

calculate precise REIs (Ref. 66). 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. In 

addition to the pesticide application 

information currently required to be 

recorded, the Agency proposes to 

require agricultural employers to record 

further specific information about 

pesticide applications. The proposed 

information would include the specific 

crop or site treated, the start and end 

dates and times of the application, and 

the end date and duration for the REI. 

EPA also proposes to revise the 

requirement for when information must 

be recorded to allow flexibility for 

agricultural employers to record the 

pesticide application information no 

later than the end of the day of the 

application. 

An agricultural establishment can 

grow a variety of crops in specific areas. 

EPA believes that adding the type of 

crop site to the record would help 

workers, handlers, and pesticide 

inspectors to distinguish the particular 

treated area to which the information 

pertains. EPA also believes that 

including the specific start and end 

times for the pesticide application, in 

addition to the date of application, 

would assist workers, handlers, and 

inspectors in accurately calculating the 

date and time the REI ends. The 

requirement for employers to note the 

specific date and time when the REI 

ends would clarify when workers may 

enter the treated area. The proposed 

revisions would require agricultural 

employers to make the pesticide 

application information (as well as the 

proposed pesticide-specific hazard 

information [see Unit IX.A.]) available 

no later than the end of the day of the 

pesticide application when workers are 

on the agricultural establishment that 

day. By ‘‘make available,’’ the Agency 

means that the agricultural employer 

must, at a minimum, have the materials 

in a place where the workers, upon 

request, can have access to view them. 

If workers are not on the establishment 

on the day of application, the 

information must be made available at 

the beginning of the first work period 

following application. Changing when 

the application information must be 

made available allows flexibility if the 

application schedule changes. Making 

these changes would allow more 

realistic timeframes for recording 

application information and would take 

into account the realities of fluctuations 

in application timing. The change also 

would accommodate the requests to 

record the end time of the application 

and timing of REI. Information would be 

more accurate and the burden of 

correcting the information would be 

reduced. 

EPA does not believe that allowing 

the application information to be made 

available by the end of the day would 

put workers and handlers at risk 

because notification of treated areas to 

workers and handlers must occur before 

the treatment commences by either oral 

notification or by the posting of warning 

signs. Therefore, EPA believes that 

workers would be protected during 

application and immediately postapplication by the WPS notification 

provisions. 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning the timing and content of 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15480 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

pesticide application information 

required to be displayed appears in 

§ 170.11(b) of the proposed rule. 

5. Costs. Because the information 

required in this proposal is linked to the 

retention of the pesticide labeling and 

SDS, the costs were calculated together. 

Therefore, the estimated costs for this 

proposal are included in the cost 

discussed in Unit IX.A. For a complete 

discussion of the costs of the proposals 

and alternatives, see the ‘‘Economic 

Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the 

Worker Protection Standard,’’ Chapter 3 

Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

6. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Would the additional pesticide 

application information proposed by 

EPA impose undue burden on the 

applicator or the employer? 

• Are there benefits or drawbacks to 

requiring this additional information 

that EPA has not considered? If so, 

please describe. 

C. Pesticide Application Information— 

Location and Accessibility 

1. Overview. The WPS contains 

requirements for agricultural employers 

to record and display information about 

pesticide applications made on the 

establishment at a central location on 

the establishment from the time of the 

application until 30 days after the REI 

expires. EPA proposes to replace the 

current requirement with a requirement 

for employers to make pesticide 

application information available on 

request by a worker, handler, or his or 

her representative. The proposal would 

also increase the time employers must 

maintain the application information on 

the establishment from 30 days after the 

REI expires to 2 years. The employer 

would maintain the pesticide 

application information in the same 

location as the SDS and labeling 

(pesticide-specific hazard 

communication; see Unit IX.A.). EPA 

believes this proposal would reduce the 

overall burden on agricultural 

employers while still providing workers 

and handlers with reasonable access to 

information regarding pesticide 

applications and pesticide-specific 

hazard information. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. As 

described in Unit IX.B., the WPS 

requires agricultural employers to 

record and display certain information 

about WPS-covered pesticide 

applications at a central location on the 

establishment when workers or handlers 

will be on the establishment and an 

application of a WPS-covered pesticide 

has been made or an REI has been in 

effect within the past 30 days (40 CFR 

170.122 and 170.222). 

3. Summary of the issues. During the 

National Assessment meetings, 

stakeholders, particularly employers, 

noted the difficulty in maintaining the 

pesticide application information at a 

central posting site (Ref. 17). Pesticide 

application plans frequently change, 

and keeping a notice board at a central 

location, which, in some cases, may be 

a significant distance from the treated 

area, up to date with those changes 

presents a challenge to the employer, 

especially prior to the application. 

Agricultural employer stakeholders 

noted that weathering of the posted 

information quickly impacts legibility, 

making it difficult to meet the legibility 

requirements for the information (Ref. 

67). Some states, including Florida, 

recognize the difficulty facing 

employers and have developed a 

portable central location display. 

Florida’s display includes a laminated 

metal sign and weatherproof box to 

contain the necessary WPS information. 

Florida developed this display to 

increase compliance, to increase 

durability of the poster and information, 

and to provide a solution to the 

problems noted with maintaining the 

legibility of information required to be 

displayed at a central location on large 

establishments (Ref. 67). 

Keeping the information current at the 

central location has been problematic 

for agricultural employers, as records of 

frequent pesticide applications on an 

establishment with multiple crops can 

be difficult to maintain accurately 

during the growing season (Ref. 17). 

Employers argued that keeping the 

application information at a central 

location essentially requires them to 

maintain two copies of pesticide 

application records because they cannot 

rely on the WPS central posting site to 

be the only copy of application records, 

imposing a double recordkeeping 

burden. Keeping two separate sets of 

application information records with 

the same information on a busy 

establishment can be difficult. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA proposes to require the employer to 

maintain pesticide application 

information and make it accessible to 

workers, handlers, or authorized 

representatives of workers or handlers 

upon request, and to eliminate the 

requirement for agricultural employers 

to display the pesticide application 

information at a central location. The 

proposed requirement does not specify 

a particular location on the 

establishment where the employer must 

store records, but does require that 

pesticide application records must be 

maintained on the establishment and 

must be made available upon request to 

workers, handlers, or their 

representative during normal business 

hours. The application information 

must be maintained in addition to the 

pesticide-specific hazard information. 

[See Unit IX.A.] 

The requirement for display of 

pesticide application information at a 

central posting site has been the most 

frequently cited area for noncompliance and violations. Between 

2006 and 2008, there was an annual 

average of 770 WPS violations related to 

central posting reported by states to 

EPA’s Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance (Ref. 68) (Ref. 

69) (Ref. 70). EPA has concerns about 

the difficulties expressed by 

stakeholders such as regulators and 

agricultural employers in maintaining 

this information at the central posting 

area, and it is reflected in the violation 

records. EPA has concerns about the 

usefulness of the central display to 

workers and handlers, especially on 

large establishments, because the 

worker or handler may be assigned to 

work miles from the central display and 

would not encounter it on a routine 

basis. Moreover, if the information is 

not accurate or correctly maintained, 

workers and handlers could be deprived 

of receiving accurate information about 

pesticide applications on the 

establishments. Rather than continue a 

requirement that burdens employers 

without clear benefits to workers and 

handlers, EPA has decided to revise the 

requirement related to displaying 

information about pesticide 

applications. 

The proposed requirement for 

maintaining and making pesticide 

application information (and the related 

pesticide-specific hazard 

communication information as 

discussed in Unit IX.A) available to 

workers and handlers upon request 

parallels OSHA’s requirement for 

employers to provide hazard 

information. EPA recognizes that 

OSHA’s HCS has been successfully 

implemented in all other industries, and 

that employers covered by the WPS 

struggle with maintaining the central 

display according to current 

requirements. The intent of the 

requirement is to give the workers and 

handlers access to accurate and legible 

pesticide application and hazard 

information. EPA believes that a 

requirement that allows employers to 

keep records in a location other than on 

display at a central location will 

significantly reduce burden on the 

employers without sacrificing the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15481 

amount or type of information to which 

workers or handlers have access. 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning the accessibility of 

application information appears in 

§ 170.11(b) of the proposed rule. 

5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates 

the cost of requiring employers to make 

pesticide application information 

available upon request and eliminating 

the requirement for central posting 

would be $1.1 million annually, or 

about $3 per WPS establishment. This 

estimated cost does not include any 

additional copies of the pesticide 

application information necessary 

because time and weather render the 

display illegible. The cost estimate 

includes an assumption that 25% of 

workers and handlers would request 

access to the materials, which EPA 

recognizes is a conservative estimate 

and drives the cost of the requirement 

higher. The anticipated benefits of this 

proposal were discussed in the section 

above. For a complete discussion of the 

costs of the proposals and alternatives, 

see the ‘‘Economic Analysis of Proposed 

Revisions to the Worker Protection 

Standard,’’ Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 

1). 

EPA believes that this proposal would 

reduce the burden on employers by 

allowing them to maintain the records 

in a location that is not subject to 

weathering and would not substantially 

increase the burden on workers and 

handlers seeking this information. EPA 

believes that most workers do not 

routinely pass the central posting area 

because their workplace is at a different 

part of the establishment. The proposed 

change would continue to make 

available at a designated location 

pesticide application information for 

workers and handlers. 

6. Alternative options considered but 

not proposed. EPA considered requiring 

that employers post specific pesticide 

application information on the signs 

used to post each treated area. Under 

this option, specific information about 

the pesticide used, date of application, 

and REI would be included on the 

bottom of each warning sign posted 

around a treated area. [See Unit VIII.C. 

for a discussion of the proposals related 

to notifications to workers and 

handlers.] This option would allow 

early-entry workers to access 

information about the specific 

pesticides used in areas where they may 

be working at the time they enter the 

treated area. However, this alternative 

option would substantially increase the 

burden associated with posting treated 

areas because employers would have to 

copy the pesticide and application 

information onto each warning sign. In 

addition, when treated areas are posted 

for multiple days, the sign could 

become weathered and illegible, 

imposing the additional burden on the 

grower to update the legibility of the 

sign or negating the intended protection 

associated with providing the 

information at the treated area. This 

option could also reduce information 

available to workers and handlers 

because pesticide application 

information would not be available 

when the treated area does not require 

a posted warning sign. 

EPA believes that the proposed 

options to post a general warning sign 

at pesticide treated areas [see Unit VIII] 

and to require the employer to maintain 

and make accessible pesticide-specific 

application information balance the 

need for workers and handlers to have 

access to pesticide hazard information 

and the burden on agricultural 

employers. Therefore, EPA decided not 

to propose this option. 

D. Pesticide Application Information 

and Pesticide-Specific Hazard 

Communication Materials—Retention of 

Records 

1. Overview. The current WPS 

requires employers to maintain 

information about pesticide applications 

from the time of application until 30 

days after the REI expires. The Agency 

proposes to require employers to retain 

the pesticide application and related 

pesticide-specific hazard 

communication information for 2 years 

from the date of the end of the REI for 

each product applied. EPA believes the 

extended recordkeeping period would 

ensure that state, tribal and federal 

agencies, workers, handlers, and health 

care workers have access to the 

information when necessary to 

investigate a health-related pesticide 

incident or potentially unlawful 

pesticide application. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The 

existing WPS requires agricultural 

employers to display information about 

pesticide applications from the time of 

application until 30 days after the REI 

has expired (40 CFR 170.122(b) and 

170.222(b)). 

3. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

The Agency proposes to require 

employers to retain and make available 

for 2 years from the date of the end of 

the last applicable REI pesticide 

application information and related 

pesticide-specific hazard 

communication information that 

includes the SDSs and product labeling 

for pesticides that require WPS 

compliance. EPA expects the extended 

recordkeeping period would ensure that 

application information is maintained 

for a sufficient period of time to allow 

for follow-up in the event of health 

problems that might be related to 

pesticide exposure or for investigation 

of a suspected pesticide misuse. EPA 

recognizes that some employers may 

maintain electronic copies of their 

application records and other 

documents such as SDS and pesticide 

labeling. Under the proposed option, an 

employer could maintain a copy of the 

application information, the pesticide 

labeling used for the application, and 

the corresponding SDS in either paper 

or electronic form. The employer would 

need to be able to provide access to the 

electronic format of the materials or 

make available a paper copy of the 

materials upon request. Employers 

would need to ensure that the copy of 

the pesticide label on file is the same as 

the label for the pesticide product at the 

time it was applied on the 

establishment. Employers would not 

need to update the pesticide labeling or 

SDS on file each time a new version is 

released; however, if the product used 

in a subsequent application bears a 

different version of the labeling, the 

employer would need to keep both 

versions of the labeling on file, in a 

manner identifying which version was 

used on which occasion. 

EPA believes the current 30-day 

timeframe for retention of the 

application information is not adequate 

for workers or handlers to access the 

information, especially if there has been 

a delayed health impact from the 

exposure. It is possible for latent health 

effects from a pesticide exposure to 

occur after the 30-day window, 

necessitating access to information 

about the potential source of exposure 

and the types of pesticides that may 

have been involved. In 2004 and 2005, 

farmworker women who had worked in 

Florida, North Carolina, and New Jersey 

gave birth to babies with birth defects. 

In 2006, EPA investigated the incidents 

and sought information about pesticide 

exposures several months after the 

women’s employment ended (Ref. 71). 

The ability to perform a full 

investigation into the serious health 

effects was hampered by the 30-day 

limit for retention of the WPS-required 

application information (Ref. 72). 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning the 2-year recordkeeping 

requirement appears in § 170.11(b)(2) of 

the proposed rule. 

4. Costs. The costs of this proposal 

were discussed in Unit IX.A. in 

conjunction with the requirement to 

retain and make available the SDS and 

pesticide labeling. For a complete 

discussion of the costs of the proposals 

and alternatives, see the ‘‘Economic 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15482 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the 

Worker Protection Standard,’’ Chapter 3 

Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

5. Alternative options considered but 

not proposed. EPA considered requiring 

application records and hazard 

information to be maintained for 5 

years. The incremental cost between the 

2-year and 5-year period is negligible 

because the principal costs of 

recordkeeping occur when the record is 

created. Several states, including 

California, have required employers to 

retain WPS records for 2 years. Based on 

their experience, 2 years is a sufficient 

time to allow the state to investigate 

complaints. Therefore, it is not clear 

that the increased burden associated 

with requiring employers to maintain 

records for 5 years would be justified. 

6. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Should EPA consider a different 

timeframe for recordkeeping for this 

requirement? If so, what period and 

why? 

• What burdens would be imposed on 

agricultural employers as a consequence 

of the proposed two-year record 

retention requirement? 

• How would the burden of the 

proposal to maintain application 

records compare with the current 

requirement to maintain a central 

display? 

X. Information Exchange Between 

Handler and Agricultural Employers 

1. Overview. The current WPS 

requires handler and agricultural 

employers to exchange information 

about pesticide applications. EPA 

proposes to add to the existing 

requirement information about the 

location of the ‘‘entry-restricted areas’’ 

and the start and end times of pesticide 

applications. EPA also proposes to 

require the handler employer to provide 

any changes to pesticide application 

plans to the agricultural employer 

within 2 hours of the end of the 

application rather than before the 

application. Changes to the estimated 

application end time of less than one 

hour would not require notification. 

EPA expects these changes to reduce 

worker pesticide exposure by providing 

accurate, timely information about 

applications to the agricultural 

employer. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. When 

handlers are employed by an employer 

other than the agricultural employer, the 

existing WPS requires the agricultural 

employer to provide the handler 

employer with information about 

treated areas on the agricultural 

establishment, including specific 

location and description of any such 

areas and restrictions on entering those 

areas (40 CFR 170.124). 

The WPS requires handler employers 

to provide agricultural employers with 

the following information prior to the 

pesticide application: 

• Location and description of the area 

to be treated, 

• Time and date of application, 

• Product name, active ingredient(s), 

and EPA Registration Number for the 

product, 

• REI, 

• Whether posting and/or oral 

notification are required, and 

• Any other product-specific 

requirements on the product labeling 

concerning protection of workers or 

other persons during or after 

application. 

Handler employers are currently 

required to inform agricultural 

employers when there will be changes 

to scheduled pesticide applications, 

such as to give notice of changes to 

scheduled pesticide application times, 

locations, and subsequent REIs, before 

the application takes place (40 CFR 

170.224). 

3. Summary of the issues. State 

regulatory agencies participating in the 

IGW raised concerns over the 

regulation’s silence regarding handler 

employers’ responsibilities in the event 

a scheduled pesticide application 

changes resulting in the original 

information no longer being accurate 

(Ref. 14). IGW members questioned field 

implementation of the provision 

because the agricultural employer could 

send a worker into an area that is 

believed not to be treated while the 

handler employer changes the 

application schedule. As a result, the 

worker would be at risk of being directly 

or indirectly exposed to pesticides. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA proposes two additions to the 

information currently required to be 

exchanged between agricultural and 

handler employers: the location of the 

‘‘entry-restricted area’’ and the start and 

end times of the pesticide application. 

This information should help clarify the 

current rule and assist with field 

implementation. 

First, EPA proposes to expand the 

agricultural employer’s required 

information exchange with the handler 

employer to include the location of the 

proposed ‘‘entry-restricted area,’’ which 

EPA proposes to define as the area 

surrounding a treated area during 

pesticide application from which 

workers or other persons must be 

excluded during the pesticide 

application. 

Second, to clarify and improve 

handler employer requirements for 

providing information to the 

agricultural employer, EPA proposes to 

require the handler employer to include 

the proposed start and estimated end 

times for the application, which are 

needed to accurately calculate the REI 

end date and time. EPA proposes to 

require the handler employer to provide 

changes to pesticide application plans 

to the agricultural employer within 2 

hours of the end of the application 

rather than before the application. 

Changes to the estimated application 

end time of less than one hour would 

not require notification. These changes 

would allow more flexibility for handler 

employers by reducing the number of 

times they would have to communicate 

with the agricultural employer while 

maintaining communication of 

important application and safety 

information. Currently, the handler 

employer or handler must inform the 

agricultural employer of all changes to 

pesticide application timing before the 

application takes place. For example, if 

a rain storm delayed the application, 

this could mean multiple exchanges of 

information before the application takes 

place. 

EPA expects these changes would 

make the required information exchange 

easier for agricultural and handler 

employers to understand and follow. 

Providing more accurate information 

about the timing of applications and 

subsequent REI would assist employers 

in ensuring that workers and handlers 

are kept out of areas being treated or 

under an REI unless properly protected. 

Overall, the proposal should reduce the 

number of incidents resulting from 

workers or handlers entering treated 

areas unaware of an ongoing application 

or existing REI. 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning the information exchange 

between agricultural employers and 

handlers appears in §§ 170.9(k) and 

170.13(i)–(j). 

5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates 

the proposed revisions to the 

information exchange requirements 

would have no or negligible cost 

because they clarify the rule and codify 

existing guidance. For a complete 

discussion of the costs of the proposals 

and alternatives, see the ‘‘Economic 

Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the 

Worker Protection Standard,’’ Chapter 3 

Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

6. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Is it reasonable to require the 

handler employer to notify the 

agricultural employer of changes to 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15483 

scheduled pesticide applications within 

2 hours of the end of the application? 

• What are the benefits to expanding 

the information to be exchanged 

between handler and agricultural 

employers? Are there any drawbacks? 

• Would this impose additional 

burden on employers? If so, what 

burden and how could it be reduced? 

XI. Handler Restrictions 

A. Suspend Application 

1. Overview. EPA proposes to add a 

provision to the WPS stating that the 

handler or applicator must 

‘‘immediately cease or suspend 

application if any worker or other 

person, other than an appropriately 

trained and equipped handler, is in the 

treated or entry restricted area.’’ This 

statement would help to ensure that 

handlers understand their responsibility 

to protect workers from pesticide 

exposure through direct contact or drift. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The 

current rule requires handlers to ‘‘assure 

that no pesticide is applied so as to 

contact, either, directly or through drift, 

any worker or other person, other than 

an appropriately trained and equipped 

handler.’’ 

3. Stakeholder information 

considered by EPA. WPS inspectors 

have informed EPA that the current 

WPS language does not provide 

sufficient directive for handlers to stop 

an application if a person, other than a 

trained and properly equipped handler, 

enters the treated area and entryrestricted area during application. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

The proposal would require handlers to 

cease application if they observe any 

person other than a trained and properly 

equipped handler to be present in the 

treated or entry-restricted area. This 

clarifies and strengthens the current 

WPS language which does not currently 

include a ‘‘cease application’’ statement 

but does require the handler to assure 

no pesticide is applied so as to contact 

a worker. This additional ‘‘cease 

application’’ statement is an important 

clarification considering the SENSORPesticides/California Department of 

Pesticide Regulation publication that 

cites drift as the leading factor 

contributing to reports of acute 

occupational pesticide poisoning cases 

in agricultural workers (Ref. 11). 

Further, the Washington State 

Department of Health’s Pesticide 

Incident Reporting and Tracking Review 

Panel 2009 Annual Report details an 

incident involving 54 workers exposed 

to drift from an aerial application where 

47 workers sought medical treatment for 

multiple health symptoms. The adverse 

effects of this incident may have been 

mitigated if the handler acted to cease 

application when he saw the workers 

located in the treated or entry-restricted 

area (Ref. 73). 

The regulatory text concerning the 

suspension of an application appears in 

§ 170.205(a) through (b) of the proposed 

rule. 

5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates 

the cost of this proposal would be 

negligible because it clarifies an existing 

requirement. 

6. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Will this proposal, in combination 

with the entry-restricted area 

requirements proposed in Unit XIV., 

effectively reduce worker exposure to 

spray drift? Please provide rationale and 

data to substantiate your response. 

• Are there alternatives to this 

proposal that would better protect 

workers and others from spray drift, 

while reserving the flexibility to use 

pesticides in agriculture? Please provide 

rationale and data to support your 

response. 

B. Establish Minimum Age of 16 for 

Handling Pesticides 

1. Overview. The current WPS does 

not establish any age restrictions for 

handlers. EPA proposes to prohibit 

persons younger than 16 years of age 

from handling pesticides, with an 

exception for handlers working on an 

establishment owned by an immediate 

family member. See Unit XVIII.A., for a 

complete discussion of the immediate 

family exception. EPA expects this 

change will result in reduced risks to 

children and improved competency in 

handling, resulting in reduced exposure 

to workers, handlers, bystanders, and 

the environment. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS 

does not establish a minimum age for 

handlers. 

3. Summary of the issues. FLSA 

establishes a minimum age of 16 years 

for any person employed in agriculture 

to handle a pesticide designated as 

toxicity category I or II. The FLSA’s 

statutory parental exemption in 

agricultural employment permits a 

youth under the age of 16 to perform 

any work if he or she is employed ‘‘by 

his parent or by a person standing in the 

place of his parent on a farm owned or 

operated by such parent or person.’’ 29 

U.S.C. 213(c)(2). The CHPAC 

recommended that EPA establish a 

minimum age of 16 for pesticide 

handlers of any agricultural pesticide, 

based on a recommendation from 

NIOSH. (Ref. 74). Handlers, compared to 

workers, face exposure to pesticides at 

higher levels as they mix, load, and 

apply pesticides (Ref. 75). A report from 

NIOSH compiles studies that 

demonstrate ‘‘[y]outh are at increased 

risk of injury from lack of experience. 

Inexperienced workers are unfamiliar 

with the requirements of work, are less 

likely to be trained to recognize hazards, 

and are commonly unaware of their 

legal rights on the job. Developmental 

factors—physical, cognitive, and 

psychological—may also place them at 

increased risk.’’ (Ref. 76) 

In addition, during the SBREFA 

consultation described in Unit IV.B., the 

SERs recommended establishing a 

minimum age of 16 under the 

certification of pesticide applicators rule 

(40 CFR 171), with an exception to the 

minimum age on family farms (Ref. 42). 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA proposes to prohibit a handler 

employer from allowing persons 

younger than 16 years old to perform 

handling tasks. The minimum age 

would not apply to handlers that fall 

under the WPS immediate family 

exception, i.e., working on a farm 

owned by an immediate family member. 

As discussed above, the FLSA already 

establishes 16 as a minimum age for 

persons using toxicity category I and II 

pesticides in agricultural employment. 

This restriction does not extend 

protection to all handlers under the 

WPS. Handlers may use pesticides in 

any toxicity category, from I to IV. EPA 

recognizes that some states may have 

additional requirements, such as 

requiring parental permission for the 

employment of children ages 16 and 17 

in agricultural operations. EPA seeks to 

ensure that all adolescent handlers 

receive equal protection, regardless of 

the toxicity of the pesticide used. 

OSHA asked NIOSH to evaluate the 

existing Hazardous Order regulations 

and to make recommendations for 

strengthening the protections provided 

by these requirements. Among other 

things, NIOSH responded with rationale 

for changing the hazardous order related 

to pesticide use in agriculture to 

establish 16 as the minimum age for 

using all pesticides, not only those 

pesticides in toxicity categories I and II. 

The NIOSH report cites data from a 

study which examined pesticide 

poisoning among working children. A 

total of 531 children under the age of 18 

years were identified to have acute 

occupational pesticide-related illness. It 

was estimated that 62% of the cases 

were children employed in agricultural 

production and services. Of the 81% of 

cases where the EPA acute toxicity 

category was available, 67% of the 

illnesses were associated with toxicity 

category III pesticides, which are not 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15484 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

currently prohibited under the 

hazardous order (Ref. 76, p. 93). 

Aside from any increased risks that 

children may suffer from pesticide 

exposures, the Agency recognizes that 

children generally lack the experience 

and judgment to avoid or prevent 

unnecessary exposure. A study 

conducted by the National Institutes of 

Health also demonstrates that because 

their brains are still developing, 

adolescents may have trouble balancing 

risk-reward decision-making and goaloriented decision making (Ref. 77 p. 7). 

Although adolescents may understand 

the possible consequences of their 

actions, they are more likely to make 

decisions based upon their initial 

emotional responses, which will often 

lead them to make suboptimal choices 

(Ref. 77, p. 7). Additionally, younger 

persons are less likely to be aware of 

their rights and how to recognize 

hazards in the workplace (Ref. 76). 

The proposed age restriction would 

include a requirement for the handler 

employer to record the training and the 

birth date of all persons trained. It 

would be possible for someone under 16 

years old to receive handler training; 

however, the trained individual would 

not be permitted to perform handling 

tasks until they turn 16. The proposed 

age restriction advances the Agency’s 

commitment to protecting children. 

EPA recognizes the independence of 

the family farm and believes that farm 

family parents are in the best position 

to make decisions about the types of 

activities in which their children can 

safely engage. EPA believes that 

handlers working on an establishment 

covered by the immediate family 

exception would be adequately 

prepared and supervised by family 

members. Therefore, the minimum age 

requirement for handlers would not 

apply to persons performing handling 

tasks when covered by the immediate 

family exemption. 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning the minimum age of 16 for 

handlers appears in §§ 170.9(c) and 

170.13(c) of the proposed rule. The 

exception for persons covered by the 

immediate family exemption is found in 

§ 170.301(a)(1)(i). 

5. Costs. EPA estimates the cost of 

requiring handlers to be at least 16 years 

old would be $466,000 annually, or 

about $2 per agricultural establishment 

per year. It would impose no cost on 

commercial pesticide handling 

establishments. The cost of maintaining 

records of handlers’ birth dates is 

included in the cost of retaining records 

for handler training. EPA recognizes 

that the estimated cost of this proposal 

is conservative because it does not 

reflect state requirements for minimum 

age that exceed the FLSA. For a 

complete discussion of the costs of the 

proposals and alternatives, see the 

‘‘Economic Analysis of Proposed 

Revisions to the Worker Protection 

Standard,’’ Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 

1). 

EPA cannot quantify the benefits 

associated with this proposal. However, 

EPA believes this proposal would 

improve the health of adolescent 

handlers, as well as other workers and 

handlers on the establishment and the 

environment. As discussed above, 

adolescents’ judgment is not fully 

developed. EPA believes that restricting 

adolescents’ ability to handle pesticides 

would lead to less exposure potential 

for the handlers themselves, and less 

potential for misapplication that could 

cause negative impacts on other 

handlers or workers on the 

establishment, as well as the 

environment. 

6. Alternative options considered but 

not proposed. As an alternative, EPA 

considered proposing a minimum age of 

18 for pesticide handlers, which would 

also include an exception for persons 

performing handler tasks on a farm 

owned by an immediate family member. 

Handlers must exercise good judgment 

and responsible behavior to best protect 

themselves and others as they work 

with these potentially toxic materials. 

Research shows the differences in the 

decision-making of adolescents and 

adults leads to the conclusion that 

handlers who are adolescents may take 

more risks than those who are adults. 

The Department of Labor has 

established a general rule, applicable to 

most industries, except agriculture, that 

workers must be at least 18 years old to 

perform hazardous jobs (29 CFR 

570.120) (75 FR 28458; May 20, 2010). 

The use of agricultural pesticides 

presents demonstrable risks of 

significant harm to the applicator, the 

public, and the environment, and these 

risks are significantly influenced by the 

user’s judgment and decision-making 

skills. Requiring handlers to be 18 years 

of age or older would prevent youth 

under 18 from being exposed while 

performing handling activities and 

would reduce risks to other persons and 

the environment from misapplication 

owing to users’ poor judgment or 

decision-making skills. This option 

would harmonize the age requirements 

for pesticide handlers with the 

minimum age requirements for workers 

performing hazardous jobs in other 

industries. This alternative would also 

align with society’s general trend 

toward increasing the ages at which 

persons are eligible to do certain things 

that present recognized risks, such as 

consuming alcohol or becoming a 

licensed driver. 

EPA estimates that requiring handlers 

to be at least 18 years old would cost 

about $3.1 million annually, or $11 per 

agricultural establishment and $320 per 

commercial pesticide handling 

establishment per year. EPA proposes to 

follow the existing framework of the 

FLSA and DOL’s rules to propose a 

minimum age of 16, based on the 

existing rules and the higher cost of 

increasing the minimum age for 

handlers to 18. 

7. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Are there alternatives that have not 

been considered that would improve 

protections for adolescent handlers, 

either those under 16 or 18 years old, 

while allowing flexibility for pesticide 

use for agriculture? 

• What would be the impact on state 

programs of establishing a minimum age 

of either 16 or 18 for handlers? 

• Would establishing a minimum age 

of 16 for handlers have an impact on 

state requirements for certified 

applicators to be a minimum age? If so, 

please provide data to support this 

position. 

• Would establishing a minimum age 

of 18 for handlers have an impact on 

state requirements for certified 

applicators to be a minimum age? If so, 

please provide data to support this 

position. 

• Are there additional benefits or 

burdens with establishing a minimum 

age of 16 or 18 for handlers? If so, please 

provide data to support either position. 

XII. Restrictions for Worker Entry into 

Treated Areas 

A. Establish Minimum Age of 16 for 

Workers Entering a Treated Area under 

an REI 

1. Overview. The existing WPS does 

not establish age restrictions for workers 

entering a treated area under an REI. 

EPA proposes to prohibit any worker 

under 16 years old from entering a 

treated area under an REI. This proposal 

would include an exemption for persons 

entering a treated area under an REI 

covered by the immediate family 

exemption [see Unit XVIII.A]. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS 

establishes conditions for when a 

worker may enter into a treated area 

under an REI (40 CFR 170.112). The 

conditions are related to the type of 

work performed (often referred to as 

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

time the worker may be in the treated 

area. However, the WPS establishes no 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15485 

minimum age for a worker sent into a 

treated area under an REI. 

3. Summary of the issues. In 2009, 

Earth Justice petitioned EPA to expand 

the protections of children in 

agriculture (Ref. 78 p. 23). The petition 

referenced several studies suggesting 

negative health impacts on youth 

workers less than 18 years of age who 

had been exposed to pesticides (Ref. 78). 

These references linked pesticide 

exposure to childhood leukemia and 

delayed neurological development in 

youth (Ref. 78 p. 8). The CHPAC also 

recognized that ‘‘growth and 

development of many organ systems 

continues into late adolescence’’ and 

recommended that EPA enhance 

protection for workers in the 16–20 year 

old age group (Ref. 74 pp. 2–3). 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA proposes to prohibit employers 

from directing workers under 16 years 

old to enter a treated area to perform 

early-entry activities while an REI is in 

effect. This prohibition would not apply 

to persons entering a treated area to 

perform early-entry activities while an 

REI is in effect on a farm owned by an 

immediate family member. To verify 

compliance with this requirement, EPA 

also proposes to require the agricultural 

employer to keep a record of the birth 

date of each worker trained. [See Unit 

VII.A.] While EPA believes that the 

proposed protections required for entry 

into a treated area during an REI would 

mitigate risks to the general worker 

population, concerns remain for 

children. Children may be more 

susceptible to pesticides because their 

systems are developing, so a level of 

exposure considered safe for an adult 

may not be safe for a child (Ref. 79 p. 

51). See discussion in Unit XI.B. 

Due to workers’ low income, 

farmworker families may face more 

pressure to have children working in 

pesticide treated areas. EPA has 

particular concern for children working 

in a pesticide-treated area before the REI 

expires. As discussed earlier, the 

potential risk for pesticide exposure is 

elevated when a treated area is under an 

REI. EPA considered this elevated risk 

in combination with children’s 

potentially greater susceptibility to 

pesticide exposure and developing 

decision-making capabilities, as well as 

the demographics of workers when 

developing this proposal. EPA believes 

this proposal is necessary to prevent 

unreasonable risks to children, taking 

into account the economic needs of farm 

worker families. 

As discussed above, protections 

already exist under the FLSA for 

persons under 16 years old working 

with pesticides in agriculture. 

Extending these protections to those 

who enter a treated area during an REI 

could mitigate the potential effects of 

elevated pesticide exposure to children 

under 16 while their systems are still 

developing. 

EPA recognizes that farm family 

parents are in the best position to make 

decisions about the types of activities in 

which their children can safely engage. 

EPA believes that persons performing 

early-entry tasks who are on an 

establishment covered by the immediate 

family exception would be adequately 

prepared and supervised by family 

members. Therefore, the minimum age 

requirement for early-entry workers 

would not apply to persons performing 

early-entry tasks when covered by the 

WPS immediate family exemption. 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning a minimum age of 16 for 

entering a treated area under an REI 

appears in § 170.303 of the proposed 

rule. The exception for persons covered 

by the immediate family exemption is 

found in § 170.301(a)(1)(i). 

5. Costs/Benefits. EPA estimates the 

cost of requiring early-entry workers to 

be at least 16 years old would be 

$156,000 annually, or less than $1 per 

WPS establishment per year. For a 

complete discussion of the costs of the 

proposals and alternatives, see the 

‘‘Economic Analysis of Proposed 

Revisions to the Worker Protection 

Standard,’’ Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 

1). 

EPA cannot quantify the benefits 

associated with this proposal; however, 

EPA is committed to protecting the 

health of children. EPA believes that 

imposing this requirement would 

reduce the number of children who 

suffer occupational pesticide-related 

illnesses, as well as the chronic and 

developmental effects that may be 

associated with children’s exposure to 

pesticides. 

6. Alternative options considered but 

not proposed. EPA considered a 

minimum age of 18 for workers to enter 

treated areas under an REI, with an 

exception for persons covered by the 

immediate family exception. Studies 

show that children’s systems continue 

developing until they reach adulthood, 

increasing the potential for adverse 

outcomes from their exposure, as 

compared to adults. Additionally, data 

show children’s maturity and 

comprehension are still developing (Ref. 

77 p. 2). Early entry workers are 

exposed to pesticides before the REI has 

expired, meaning there may be higher 

levels of residues and more potential for 

exposure and negative health impacts. 

Early entry workers must use PPE 

properly and comply with additional 

measures to ensure they are protected 

from the higher potential risks. 

Adolescents may be less likely to 

comply with these measures and more 

likely to take risks that put their health 

at risk because their maturity and 

comprehension of risk are still 

developing. 

EPA estimates the cost of this option 

would be about $723,000 annually, or 

about $2 per agricultural establishment. 

EPA does not have data to indicate that 

the anticipated additional protection for 

children support increased costs of the 

higher minimum age. 

7. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following question: 

• Are there other ways EPA could 

protect children less than 16 years old 

from pesticide risks associated with 

entry into a treated area during an REI? 

If so, please describe. 

• What would be the impact on state 

programs of establishing a minimum age 

for early entry workers? 

• Would establishing a minimum age 

of 16 or 18 for early entry workers have 

an adverse impact on state requirements 

for certified applicators to be a 

minimum age, generally 16 or 18? 

• Are there additional benefits or 

burdens with establishing a minimum 

age of 16? If so, please provide data to 

support this position. 

• Are there additional benefits or 

burdens associated with establishing a 

minimum age of 18? If so, please 

provide data to support this position. 

B. Requirements for Entry During an REI 

1. Overview. The WPS establishes 

specific exceptions to the prohibition on 

sending workers into a treated area 

while an REI is in effect. Workers who 

enter pesticide-treated areas during an 

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

without adequate protection may face 

an elevated risk from pesticide 

exposure. EPA proposes to require 

employers (1) to inform workers sent 

into a treated area while the REI is in 

effect of the specific exception under 

which they would enter, (2) to describe 

the tasks permitted and any limitations 

required under that exception, and (3) to 

explain the personal protective 

equipment required by the labeling. 

EPA also proposes to require the 

employer to create a record of the oral 

notification, to obtain the signature of 

each early-entry worker acknowledging 

the oral notification prior to the early 

entry, and to maintain the record for 2 

years. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS 

prohibits employers from directing 

workers to enter a treated area where an 

REI is in effect except under specific 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15486 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

early entry exceptions (40 CFR 

170.112(a)). Recognizing some 

circumstances in which there may be a 

need to have work performed in a 

treated area during the REI, EPA 

established exceptions to the general 

prohibition for ‘‘no-contact,’’ ‘‘shortterm,’’ and ‘‘agricultural emergency 

activities’’ (40 CFR 170.112). EPA later 

established two administrative 

exceptions that are not in 40 CFR part 

170, for ‘‘limited contact’’ and irrigation 

activities (60 FR 21955; May 3, 1995) 

(60 FR 21960; May 3, 1995). Each 

exception requires specific protective 

measures or limitations on work to 

protect early-entry workers from 

unreasonable adverse effects from 

pesticide exposure. [For a complete 

discussion of the exceptions and 

proposed revisions, see Unit XII.D.] The 

WPS requires employers to provide 

workers with PPE, to assure that earlyentry workers follow precautions listed 

on the label, and to provide water and 

decontamination supplies nearby for 

when the worker exits the treated area. 

3. Summary of the issues. Farmworker 

Justice suggested that workers may not 

recognize the elevated risk from early 

entry or understand the requirements of 

the exceptions, and therefore may fail to 

appreciate the particular importance of 

complying with the terms of the earlyentry exception. Farmworker Justice 

recommended that workers receive 

information about the health effects 

associated with the pesticides they may 

encounter while working (Ref. 35 p. 7). 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. In 

addition to what the WPS currently 

requires, EPA proposes to require that 

agricultural employers: 

• Provide oral notification to earlyentry workers prior to each entry into an 

area under an REI; 

• Provide information (in addition to 

the current requirement to follow 

product labeling instruction) about the 

pesticide application, the specific task 

to be performed, and the amount of time 

that the worker is allowed to remain in 

the treated area; 

• Collect written acknowledgement of 

receipt of the oral notification, 

including the date of birth, printed 

name and signature of each worker, 

prior to his or her entry; and 

• Retain for 2 years the worker-signed 

record of this notification. 

When entering a treated area during 

an REI, the worker faces risk of exposure 

to pesticides at concentrations with the 

potential for adverse health effects that 

are of specific concern. Evaluation of 

incident reports has demonstrated that 

workers who enter a treated area prior 

to the expiration of the REI are more 

adversely affected than those workers 

who enter the treated area after the REI 

has expired, suffering from respiratory 

issues, rashes, and other illness (Ref. 

11). Results from a recent SENSORPesticides/California Department of 

Pesticide Regulation analysis of the 

most common factors contributing to 

incidents of pesticide poisoning 

indicate that ‘‘early reentry into a 

recently treated area’’ was the second 

most common factor (Ref. 11). The 

report cites early reentry as contributing 

to 17% (336) of all acute pesticide 

poisoning cases for which a cause was 

identified in the agricultural industry 

between 1998 and 2005 (Ref. 11, p. 891). 

EPA expects the proposed 

requirements to provide early-entry 

workers information about the pesticide 

application, the specific task to be 

performed, and the amount of time that 

the worker is allowed to remain in the 

treated area, and to obtain the earlyentry worker’s signature to increase the 

likelihood of those workers 

understanding and following the 

applicable risk mitigation measures and 

assure that workers have information 

about what early-entry activities they 

performed in the event they suffer a 

pesticide-related illness. Sending a 

worker into a treated area under an REI 

to perform specific tasks with the 

appropriate knowledge and equipment 

to protect him or herself decreases the 

likelihood that the worker would 

experience pesticide poisoning. Further, 

the proposed requirement to create and 

maintain a record to verify the oral 

notification would serve as a tool for 

inspectors to verify rule compliance. 

This proposal would work in concert 

with two other proposed changes: 

requiring posting of treated areas [Unit 

VIII.] and enhancing the content of 

worker training [Unit VII.]. The Agency 

believes that training early-entry 

workers on what they should expect if 

the agricultural employer requests that 

they enter a treated area under an REI, 

as well as posting all areas treated with 

a product that has an REI of 48 hours 

or longer, would better prepare workers 

to protect themselves while performing 

early-entry tasks. 

EPA is proposing to require 

recordkeeping of oral notification to 

early-entry workers, but not 

recordkeeping of oral notification of 

treated areas (discussed above in Unit 

VIII.A.6.ii.) based on the elevated risks 

facing early-entry workers and 

importance of ensuring they have the 

information necessary to protect 

themselves during the higher-risk early 

entry activities. Workers receiving 

general notification of treated areas do 

not need to know how long they may be 

in the area, types of exposure, or how 

best to protect themselves; they are 

instructed to keep out of specific treated 

areas. EPA believes that the burden on 

employers to create and maintain a 

record of the early-entry worker 

notification is balanced by the increased 

flexibility to employers, while ensuring 

sufficient protection for early-entry 

workers. As discussed above, EPA does 

not believe that the cost of creating and 

maintaining records of oral notification 

of pesticide-treated areas is outweighed 

by the potential benefits. 

Additionally, the cost of creating and 

maintaining a record of oral notification 

for early entry workers is substantially 

lower than the cost of creating and 

maintaining a record of oral notification 

when the REI has expired. 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning early-entry requirements 

appears in § 170.305 of the proposed 

rule. 

5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates 

the cost of requiring employers to 

provide early-entry workers with oral 

notification would be about $700,000 

annually, or about $2 per establishment 

per year. 

EPA estimates the cost of requiring 

employers to maintain records of oral 

notifications provided to early-entry 

workers would be $470,000 annually, or 

about $1 per establishment per year. 

For a complete discussion of the costs 

of the proposals and alternatives, see the 

‘‘Economic Analysis of Proposed 

Revisions to the Worker Protection 

Standard,’’ Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 

1). 

EPA cannot quantify the benefits 

associated with this proposal; however, 

EPA recognizes that entering a treated 

area during an REI is one of the primary 

identified sources of pesticide-related 

illness in workers. EPA believes this 

proposal would provide workers with 

more information about the risks they 

may face and how to protect themselves 

from pesticide exposure, and would 

ultimately lead to a reduction in the 

number of pesticide-related illnesses 

associated with early entry into a 

pesticide-treated area. 

6. Alternative options considered but 

not proposed. Many of the alternative 

options considered are more fully 

discussed in other areas of this 

preamble. EPA considered the option of 

eliminating early entry for no-contact, 

limited contact, irrigation and shortterm exceptions as recommended by 

worker advocacy organizations. [See 

Unit XII.D.] EPA also considered 

requiring agricultural employers to 

distribute pesticide hazard information 

to each worker upon entry into any 

treated area. [See Unit IX.A.] 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15487 

EPA also considered requiring 

employers to keep records of the 

conditions of the exception claimed and 

notification to workers for 5 years 

instead of the proposed requirement of 

2 years. Because most of the costs 

associated with recordkeeping are 

incurred upon creating the record, the 

incremental costs of retaining the 

records for a longer period are minimal. 

However, as discussed earlier, it is not 

clear that the potential benefits 

associated with retaining the records for 

a longer period justify the increased cost 

and burden on employers. 

7. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Is there other information related to 

entry into a treated area under an REI 

that EPA should require employers to 

document? If so, what information and 

why? 

• Are there other ways EPA could 

verify that workers received notification 

and the proper equipment to work in a 

treated area under an REI without the 

proposed recordkeeping? 

C. Clarify Requirement for 

Decontamination Supplies for Workers 

Entering a Treated Area Under an REI 

1. Overview. The existing WPS 

requires employers to provide earlyentry workers with ‘‘a sufficient amount 

of water’’ for decontamination. EPA 

proposes to clarify the meaning of ‘‘a 

sufficient amount of water’’ for 

decontamination of workers entering a 

treated area under an REI. EPA expects 

that the clarification would facilitate 

compliance and that adequate 

decontamination supplies would reduce 

the likelihood that workers would suffer 

an illness from the exposure during 

early-entry work and would protect 

worker families from take-home 

exposure. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS 

requires the agricultural employers to 

provide ‘‘soap, clean towels, and a 

sufficient amount of water so that the 

workers may wash thoroughly’’ when 

workers perform tasks in a treated area 

while the REI is in effect (40 CFR 

170.112(d)). 

3. Summary of the issues. Farmworker 

Justice and state regulators have 

requested that EPA clarify what amount 

of water would be sufficient. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA proposes to require that 

agricultural employers provide at least 3 

gallons of water per worker for 

decontamination after a worker has 

performed tasks in a treated area under 

an REI. This amount is based on the 

1993 EPA guidance document, ‘‘How to 

Comply with the Worker Protection 

Standard for Agricultural Pesticides: 

What Employers Need to Know.’’ (Ref. 

80 p. 25) EPA believes this amount of 

water would be sufficient for a worker 

to wash exposed areas. This is the same 

amount of water being proposed for 

handler decontamination. [See Unit 

XIV.A.] 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning the required amount of 

water appears in § 170.305(j) of the 

proposed rule. 

5. Costs/Benefits. EPA estimates the 

cost of the proposal to increase the 

quantity of water available for earlyentry worker decontamination would be 

$2,500 annually, or less than $0.01 per 

WPS establishment per year. For a 

complete discussion of the costs of the 

proposals and alternatives, see the 

‘‘Economic Analysis of Proposed 

Revisions to the Worker Protection 

Standard,’’ Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 

1). 

EPA expects that adequate 

decontamination supplies would reduce 

instances where workers fail to wash 

after performing WPS tasks owing to 

insufficient supplies, thereby reducing 

the likelihood that workers would suffer 

an illness from the exposure during 

early-entry work and would protect 

worker families from take-home 

exposure. EPA also expects that the 

clarification would make it easier for 

employers to understand and comply 

with the WPS decontamination supply 

requirements. 

6. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Is 3 gallons for decontamination a 

reasonable amount of water for an earlyentry worker who has been exposed to 

a pesticide? If not, why? 

• What amount of water would be 

reasonable, or what other alternative is 

there? 

D. Exception to the General Prohibition 

Against Sending Workers Into a Treated 

Area Under an REI 

1. Overview. The existing WPS 

includes specific exceptions to the 

employer prohibition against sending 

workers into a treated area during an 

REI. EPA proposes to clarify these 

exceptions to make them more 

understandable and easier for employers 

to follow. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS 

prohibits employers from directing 

workers into a treated area while an REI 

is in effect (40 CFR 170.112(a)). The 

regulation also provides for exceptions 

to the entry restrictions so that certain 

activities considered critical to 

successful agricultural production can 

take place during an REI. The 

exceptions to the entry restrictions 

allow entry into an area under an REI 

for activities with no-contact, certain 

short-term activities, and certain 

activities associated with agricultural 

emergencies (40 CFR 170.112(b)–(d)). 

EPA added the exception provisions to 

the 1992 WPS to minimize potential 

adverse impacts on agriculture that 

could occur because of the restrictions 

on entering treated areas while an REI 

is in effect. The exceptions allow earlyentry activities only under very limited 

circumstances. The exception 

provisions include specific 

requirements and limitations intended 

to ensure that workers are adequately 

protected during any allowed earlyentry activities. 

In addition, the WPS includes an 

administrative process to allow 

additional exceptions to the prohibition 

on early entry for activities critical to 

agricultural production that were not 

addressed in the existing exceptions (40 

CFR 170.112(e)). In 1995, the Agency 

granted administrative exceptions for 

irrigation and limited contact activities. 

The rationale for and terms and 

conditions of these administrative 

exceptions were included in the final 

Federal Register notice announcing the 

Agency’s approval of the request for the 

exceptions (60 FR 21955; May 3, 1995) 

(60 FR 21960; May 3, 1995). 

3. Summary of the issues. In general, 

USDA has indicated support for revising 

the regulation to clarify the 

requirements of the exception to enable 

worker reentry without compromising 

human health. USDA said growers need 

maximum flexibility to direct workers to 

reenter treated areas to perform tasks in 

a timely manner (Ref. 81). 

EPA received a letter signed by a 

broad coalition of farmworker 

organizations that opposed the 

inclusion of any exception to the 

prohibition on directing workers to 

enter a treated area while an REI is in 

effect (Ref. 35). They suggested that REIs 

should protect post-application workers 

by reducing their exposure to pesticides 

at a time when the residues are 

hazardous. Farmworker advocates noted 

that creating exceptions to the REIs 

substantially weakens this protection 

and increases the risk of injury to the 

workers, even if additional personal 

protective equipment is required and 

provided. Farmworker organizations 

asserted that many worker injuries 

occurred because workers were put back 

in the treated area before the REI had 

expired. They also indicated a belief 

that required PPE is often not worn 

because it interferes with workers’ 

ability to perform their tasks in an 

efficient manner. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15488 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA agrees that some of the current 

exception provisions contain vague or 

unenforceable language that may be 

confusing to agricultural employers and 

the regulated community. Unclear 

regulations present compliance 

challenges for employers and, if 

misunderstood, may place early-entry 

workers at risk of being sent into treated 

areas to engage in tasks that should not 

take place during the REI. 

Detailed descriptions of the proposed 

revisions and specifically related 

stakeholder input are discussed below. 

i. Clarify conditions of ‘‘No Contact’’ 

exception. 

a. Existing WPS regulations. The nocontact exception permits entry into a 

treated area under an REI for activities 

for which workers will have no contact 

with treated surfaces (40 CFR 

170.112(b)). Examples of acceptable ‘‘no 

contact’’ activities include the 

following: 

• Worker in an open-cab vehicle in a 

treated area where the plants and other 

treated surfaces cannot brush against the 

worker and cannot drop or drip 

pesticides onto the worker; 

• After a pesticide is correctly 

incorporated or injected into the soil, 

the worker is performing tasks that do 

not involve touching or disrupting the 

soil surface other than walking with 

shoes on the soil surface; and 

• Worker in an enclosed cab vehicle 

in a treated area. 

b. Summary of the issues. States and 

employers requested clarification from 

EPA on the conditions of the no-contact 

exception and what tasks constituted 

no-contact activities. Specifically, they 

suggested that wearing PPE to prevent 

contact with pesticide treated surfaces 

does not constitute no-contact early 

entry. 

A coalition of farmworker advocate 

groups requested that EPA impose 

greater restrictions on the no-contact 

exception (Ref. 35). 

c. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

The Agency proposes to clarify that 

activities reasonably expected to involve 

contact with treated surfaces cannot be 

no-contact activities, even if the contact 

is limited or mediated through the use 

of personal protective equipment. 

Wearing PPE reduces exposure to 

pesticide residues, but it cannot be 

relied upon to reduce exposure to the 

same level expected of a no-contact 

activity. Even with PPE, workers 

engaged in activities involving treated 

surfaces still face a risk of greater 

exposure than they would if they did 

not contact treated surfaces. 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning the no-contact exception 

appears in § 170.303(a) of the proposed 

rule. 

d. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates 

there are no costs associated with this 

proposal since it is merely a 

clarification of the existing regulations. 

ii. Limit ‘‘agricultural emergency’’ 

exception. 

a. Existing WPS regulations. The 

current WPS permits early entry into a 

treated area during an REI in the event 

of an agricultural emergency. The 

emergency exception provision applies 

only where a state, tribal or federal 

agency having jurisdiction has declared 

the existence of circumstances that 

could cause an agricultural emergency 

to exist on the establishment. The 

existing exception allows early entry for 

an unlimited duration and does not 

prohibit hand labor activities. The 

agricultural emergency exception 

requires the employer to provide 

required PPE to all workers who engage 

in early entry activities. 

b. Summary of the issues. State 

regulators, farmworker groups, and 

agricultural employers raised several 

concerns about the exception for 

agricultural emergencies (Ref. 82, p. 6). 

The primary issues concerned what 

constitutes an agricultural emergency, 

whether the state or tribe’s lead agency 

for pesticide regulation is the only 

agency that can declare an agricultural 

emergency, which types of other 

agencies may be authorized to declare 

an agricultural emergency, and whether 

the lead agency may declare in advance 

conditions that would constitute an 

agricultural emergency. 

EPA has provided guidance through 

the IGW policy document that any 

federal agency or state or tribal 

government may declare an agricultural 

emergency (Ref. 14). For example, the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) may do so 

indirectly by declaring that specific 

weather conditions could constitute an 

agricultural emergency. However, there 

are no recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements, so EPA has no data 

available regarding the number of times 

agricultural emergencies have been 

declared by states, tribes, or federal 

agencies. 

A coalition of farmworker advocate 

groups requested that EPA impose 

greater restrictions on the agricultural 

emergency exception (Ref. 35). 

c. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA proposes to limit the organizations 

that can declare an agricultural 

emergency and to limit the time a 

worker can be in the treated area in an 

agricultural emergency exception when 

a product requiring double notification 

has been used. 

Since issuing the IGW policy 

document, the Agency has come to 

doubt that agencies other than EPA and 

state or tribal pesticide regulatory 

agencies have the background and 

technical expertise to adequately assess 

the potential risks and benefits of early 

entry into pesticide treated areas during 

REIs, or that they fully understand 

FIFRA’s statutory requirements to 

balance risks and benefits when 

establishing conditions for workers to 

enter treated areas while an REI is in 

effect. EPA therefore proposes to narrow 

the agricultural emergency exception so 

that only EPA, a state department of 

agriculture, or the state or tribal lead 

agency may declare an agricultural 

emergency under the WPS to allow 

early entry into pesticide treated areas 

during the REI. The Agency has 

particular concerns about the potential 

risks to workers entering areas under the 

agricultural emergency exception when 

the areas have been treated with a 

pesticide requiring double notification 

(i.e., products whose labeling requires 

both oral and posted notification of 

pesticide treatments because it presents 

a heightened risk to worker health). This 

is especially the case when, as noted 

above, the current agricultural 

emergency exception provides no time 

limits for worker entry and permits 

hand labor. EPA believes that, when 

such high toxicity double-notification 

products are used, the potential 

pesticide exposure and risk to workers 

engaging in hand labor activities during 

an REI is unreasonable. 

EPA therefore proposes to limit the 

amount of time a worker is permitted to 

spend in an area treated with a doublenotification product to no more than 4 

hours in any 24-hour period during an 

agricultural emergency exception 

situation. EPA believes this change 

would preserve the needed flexibility 

for agriculture to address the conditions 

of the agricultural emergency while 

offering increased protections for 

workers potentially exposed to the most 

highly toxic pesticides. Even though an 

individual worker is limited to 4 hours 

of early entry under such a situation, an 

agricultural employer could rotate 

workers after each 4-hour interval. 

The revised text for the agricultural 

emergency exception appears in 

§ 170.303(c) of the proposed rule. 

d. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates 

the cost for limiting the organizations 

that can declare an emergency and 

establishing a 4-hour time limit (in a 24- 

hour period) for entry into an area 

treated with a double-notification 

chemical under an agricultural 

emergency would be negligible. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15489 

e. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Are there reasons EPA should 

consider eliminating the agricultural 

emergency exception? 

• What benefits and drawbacks are 

associated with limiting the agencies 

that can declare an agricultural 

emergency? 

• Please share any data on the use of 

the agricultural emergency exception, 

establishing a time limit, or other 

restrictions associated with exceptions. 

• Should EPA develop guidance on 

the criteria for declaring an agricultural 

emergency and/or how a person or 

organization could request an eligible 

agency to declare an agricultural 

emergency? 

iii. Codify ‘‘Limited Contact’’ and 

‘‘Irrigation’’ exceptions. 

a. Existing WPS Regulations. EPA 

established two administrative 

exceptions to the WPS prohibition 

against entry into treated areas during 

an REI for ‘‘limited contact’’ and 

‘‘irrigation’’ activities. (60 FR 21955; 

May 3, 1995) (60 FR 21960; May 3, 

1995) However, these administrative 

exceptions, including the terms and 

conditions of the exceptions, do not 

appear in part 170. The language in the 

existing administrative exception for 

irrigation activities states that the task 

must be unforeseen to meet the criteria 

for early entry. 

b. Summary of the issues. 

Stakeholders, primarily state regulatory 

agencies, have raised concerns about the 

use of the term ‘‘unforeseen’’ in the 

exception (Ref. 36 p. 27). Irrigation is 

rarely an unforeseen event in most 

agricultural areas and it must take place 

to ensure crop survival. During the 

National Assessment meetings, state 

regulatory officials and other 

stakeholders noted that the need to 

irrigate is almost always foreseen, so the 

requirement for the need for irrigation to 

be unforeseen limits the legitimate use 

of the exception. 

A coalition of farmworker 

organizations recommended that EPA 

eliminate the irrigation and limited 

contact exceptions (Ref. 35). Their 

recommendation was based on coalition 

members’ belief that EPA 

underestimated the level of contact 

workers would have with treated 

surfaces and the potential for pesticide 

exposure through contact with treated 

surfaces. 

EPA’s FIFRA Scientific Advisory 

Panel said that data generated by the 

Agricultural Reentry Task Force and 

peer-reviewed by EPA have shown 

which activities may be classified as no 

and low contact activities that do not 

jeopardize the well-being of workers 

(Ref. 83). 

c. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA proposes to revise part 170 to 

codify the two current administrative 

exceptions for ‘‘limited contact’’ and 

‘‘irrigation’’ activities. In addition, EPA 

proposes to remove the term 

‘‘unforeseen’’ from the irrigation 

exception to make the text more 

accurately reflect field practices. 

Finally, EPA proposes to prohibit early 

entry under the limited contact and 

irrigation exceptions into areas treated 

with a pesticide requiring double 

notification (i.e., products whose 

labeling requires both oral and posted 

notification of pesticide treatments), 

owing to the higher potential for risks to 

workers’ health. 

EPA believes that incorporating these 

exceptions into the rule, rather than 

having them in separate Federal 

Register notices that employers may not 

be aware of, would increase the 

regulated community’s awareness and 

understanding of the exceptions. 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning the ‘‘limited contact’’ and 

the ‘‘irrigation’’ exceptions appear in 

§ 170.303(d) of the proposed rule. 

d. Costs. EPA estimates there would 

be no costs associated with this 

proposal. 

iv. Eliminate provision for exceptions 

requiring Agency approval. 

a. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS 

permits persons or organizations to 

request the Agency to grant an 

administrative exception to entry 

restrictions specific to certain crops and 

activities and pesticide products (40 

CFR 170.112(e)). This same type of 

process was used to develop the 

‘‘limited contact’’ and ‘‘irrigation’’ 

exceptions discussed above. 

b. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA proposes to eliminate the 

administrative exception process. When 

the WPS was first promulgated, REIs for 

most pesticides subject to the WPS were 

established generically through the WPS 

labeling provision in 40 CFR part 156, 

and the administrative exception 

process was included in order to 

provide product-specific REIs. However, 

as a result of the Agency’s pesticide 

reregistration efforts under section 4 of 

FIFRA, REIs are now established for 

each individual pesticide product 

through the registration or re-evaluation 

processes. Through these processes, the 

specific needs of crop production are 

considered in setting REIs for specific 

products and cropping practices. 

Accordingly, the Agency believes it is 

more appropriate that such requests for 

adjusted REIs be addressed through 

amendments to the registration of each 

specific pesticide product than as 

administrative exceptions to the WPS. 

Additionally, by proposing to codify 

the existing administrative exceptions 

as permanent exceptions, the Agency 

believes that the current suite of 

available exceptions to the entry 

restrictions would provide agriculture 

with the needed flexibility to address 

the range of potential agricultural 

production problems that would 

warrant the need for an exception to the 

current entry restrictions. The Agency 

has not received any requests for new 

administrative exceptions in the last 15 

years. 

There is no proposed regulatory text 

associated with the removal of this 

provision. 

c. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates 

there would be no costs associated with 

this proposal. 

5. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Do you have factual information 

about the current frequency of use of 

any of the exceptions? If so, please 

provide it to the Agency. 

• What are the benefits and 

challenges of the proposed amendments 

to each of the exceptions? 

• Are there other reasonable 

alternatives that EPA did not consider? 

If so, please describe and provide a 

rationale for their consideration. 

• Should EPA consider a different 

time limit for the agricultural emergency 

exception? For other exceptions? 

• Are there any drawbacks to adding 

the irrigation and limited contact 

exceptions into the rule? 

• For all comments, please provide 

factual information in support of your 

assertions. 

E. Expansion of Entry-Restricted Areas 

1. Overview. The existing WPS 

establishes entry-restricted areas 

adjacent to the treated areas (i.e., 

adjacent to the areas where pesticides 

are actually applied) only in nurseries 

and greenhouses. EPA proposes to 

establish similar entry-restricted areas 

during applications on farms and in 

forests. EPA expects this change would 

result in reduced incidents of pesticide 

exposure to workers and other persons 

from unintentional contact during 

application. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS 

requires agricultural employers to 

restrict nursery and greenhouse workers 

and other persons on those 

establishments from entry-restricted 

areas, defined as specific areas adjacent 

to those targeted for pesticide 

application (40 CFR 170.110). The size 

of the entry-restricted area depends on 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15490 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

the type of product applied and the 

application method. For example, if a 

pesticide is applied as a mist in a 

nursery, the rule prohibits the employer 

from directing any worker or other 

person from entering the area being 

treated and within 100 feet of the 

treated area in all directions from the 

nursery. The entry-restricted area 

applies only during application and is 

distinct from the REI, which limits entry 

into a treated area for a specific period 

of time after the application ceases. 

Entry-restricted areas are also relevant 

to handlers and handler employers 

since the WPS prohibits handlers from 

applying pesticides in a manner that 

results in contact with workers or other 

persons (40 CFR 170.210(a)). The 

handler and the handler employer are 

responsible for ensuring that the 

pesticide application does not contact 

any person, which effectively requires 

the handler to cease or suspend 

application if any persons are in areas 

where contact is possible. 

3. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA proposes to apply to farms and 

forests the entry-restricted area 

requirements currently applicable to 

nurseries so that all production 

applications are subject to similar 

requirements. The proposed entryrestricted areas for farms and forests 

would range from the treated area alone 

to 100 feet beyond the treated area, 

depending on the type of product 

applied and the application method. 

Fumigation is one of the application 

methods covered by the entry-restricted 

area requirements. The proposed WPS 

entry-restricted areas would still be 

limited by the boundary of the 

establishment owner’s property, as the 

establishment owner is subject to the 

current rule. For example, if the WPS 

requires the entry-restricted area to 

extend 100 feet in all directions from 

the treated area, but there is only 50 feet 

between the treated areas and the 

boundary of the owner’s property, then 

the property line would be the extent of 

the entry-restricted area under the WPS. 

WPS entry-restricted areas are limited 

by the boundaries of the agricultural 

establishment to limit the employer’s 

responsibility under the WPS to the 

people on his or her establishment. The 

Agency believes that the proposed 

creation of entry-restricted areas for all 

farm and forest applications would 

reduce risk to workers and other 

persons from pesticide exposure when 

they may be working in or nearby an 

area adjacent to an ongoing pesticide 

application. The proposed revisions 

would also provide more consistent 

protection across all establishments 

covered by the WPS. 

The existing part 170 does not require 

entry-restricted areas beyond the actual 

treated area for farms and forests. A 

worker may be assigned to work in an 

area immediately adjacent to an area 

being treated with pesticides. Many 

incidents of drift and off-target 

application have resulted in reported 

worker illnesses. A recent study cited 

off-target drift as the leading cause of 

reported agricultural worker exposure 

incidents, with 1,216 individual worker 

pesticide exposures reported from 

1998–2005 (Ref. 11 p. 891). 

The proposed changes do not cover 

applications of soil fumigants or any 

other pesticides that have buffer zones 

intended to protect human health 

included on the product labeling. Where 

EPA has established entry-restricted 

areas for a specific pesticide or group of 

pesticides through labeling, the 

labeling-specific restrictions supersede 

the generic requirements of the WPS. 

The proposed entry-restricted areas 

would complement the existing WPS 

requirement that prohibits handlers 

from applying pesticides in a way that 

results in contact with workers or other 

persons and the proposal that would 

require handlers performing an 

application to cease or suspend the 

application if workers or any persons 

are in the entry-restricted areas during 

application. The proposal also works in 

concert with the prohibition on the 

agricultural employer allowing or 

directing any worker or other person, 

other than an appropriately trained and 

equipped handler, to enter or remain in 

the treated area or any applicable entryrestricted area during application. 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning entry-restricted areas during 

applications on farms and in forests and 

outdoor nurseries appears in 

§ 170.105(a) of the proposed rule. 

4. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates 

the cost for restricting entry to areas 

adjacent to an area being treated would 

be negligible. There may be instances 

where worker tasks in these adjacent 

areas must be stopped until the 

application is complete, but EPA 

believes employers can generally 

reassign workers to other tasks for the 

duration of the pesticide application. 

5. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Is it reasonable for EPA to assume 

that workers can be reassigned for the 

duration of the pesticide application? 

• Are there any burdens to applying 

an entry-restricted area on farms and in 

forests? Are there any other benefits? 

XIII. Display of Basic Pesticide Safety 

Information 

A. Location of Basic Pesticide Safety 

Information Display 

1. Overview. The existing WPS 

requires employers to post a poster 

displaying basic safety information in a 

single location on the establishment. 

EPA proposes to require that the 

pesticide safety information also be 

displayed at the decontamination site(s). 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS 

requires agricultural and handler 

employers to display the pesticide 

safety poster at a central location on the 

establishment (40 CFR 170.135(d) and 

170.235(d)). 

3. Summary of the issues. Farmworker 

organizations recommended additional 

posting locations with the posted 

warning signs [see Unit VIII.] or at 

worker changing areas (Ref. 35) (Ref. 

74). They noted that having the 

pesticide safety poster in multiple 

places where workers are likely to see 

it increases the chances for workers to 

absorb the messages and to know how 

to contact emergency personnel. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA proposes to require that employers 

display pesticide safety information at 

decontamination sites in addition to a 

place on the agricultural establishment 

where workers and handlers are likely 

to pass by or congregate and can be 

readily seen and read. Adding the 

display of pesticide safety information 

to decontamination sites improves 

workers’ and handlers’ access to the 

self-protective and decontamination 

information. EPA believes that 

providing the pesticide safety 

information at the decontamination sites 

will not only remind workers and 

handlers about self protection but will 

also ensure that emergency contact 

information is immediately accessible at 

each decontamination site. It is likely 

that an exposed worker or a colleague 

providing assistance would visit the 

nearest decontamination site. 

Agricultural employers have told EPA 

that they generally have a set of 

materials, sometimes on the back of a 

truck or on a mobile cart, for 

decontamination. Displaying the 

pesticide safety information on such an 

apparatus would not seem to impose 

significant additional burden. The 

current WPS requires employers to 

move the decontamination supplies to 

locations where workers or handlers are 

engaged in WPS activities. Once added, 

the pesticide safety information would 

move along with the decontamination 

supplies, imposing minimal additional 

burden on the employer. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15491 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning the locations to display 

pesticide safety information appears in 

§ 170.11(a)(3) of the proposed rule. 

5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates 

the cost of requiring the basic pesticide 

information display at decontamination 

sites for workers would be $2 million, 

or about $5 per agricultural 

establishment per year. EPA estimates 

the cost of requiring the basic pesticide 

information display at decontamination 

sites for handlers would be $780,000, or 

about $2 per agricultural establishment 

per year. For a complete discussion of 

the costs of the proposals and 

alternatives, see the ‘‘Economic 

Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the 

Worker Protection Standard,’’ Chapter 3 

Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

EPA cannot quantify the benefits 

associated with this proposal. However, 

EPA believes that providing a reminder 

of basic hygiene principles at places 

where workers and handlers wash 

before leaving the treated area to eat and 

use the bathroom would increase the 

number of workers and handlers 

following proper decontamination 

principles. Emergency response 

information would have the maximum 

benefit if it is immediately available 

where workers and handlers would go 

for decontamination supplies. EPA 

believes that displaying pesticide safety 

information at decontamination sites 

would reduce the number of 

occupational pesticide-related illnesses. 

6. Alternative options considered but 

not proposed. Farmworker organizations 

recommended two alternate options in 

addition to the current requirements for 

posting the pesticide safety poster: 

requiring the pesticide safety poster 

with all posted warning signs or 

requiring the pesticide safety poster at 

worker changing sites. Requiring that 

the pesticide safety poster be displayed 

wherever a warning sign is posted 

would impose significant burden on 

employers. The pesticide safety poster is 

much larger than the warning sign, so it 

would be difficult for employers to put 

up and take down the pesticide safety 

poster with the same ease as they 

handle the warning sign. In addition, 

because the poster is much less durable 

than the warning sign, EPA believes that 

employers would have to replace the 

poster periodically when the treated 

area has to be posted for more than a 

few days. EPA expects that employers 

would need to obtain multiple copies of 

the poster and would have to replace 

them frequently. 

The WPS does not require employers 

to provide facilities for workers to 

change clothes. A requirement to place 

the pesticide safety poster at a site that 

may not exist at all establishments 

would not be practical or feasible. 

For the reasons described above, EPA 

decided not to propose requirements for 

employers to display the pesticide 

safety poster with all posted warning 

signs or at worker changing sites. EPA 

believes that it is more important and 

practical for workers to review the 

pesticide safety poster at the site of the 

decontamination supplies, where they 

can be reminded of safety and hygiene 

principles while cleaning themselves 

after working in a treated area. 

7. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• What additional burden would 

employers face if the proposed option to 

require pesticide safety information to 

be displayed at decontamination sites is 

implemented? Would there be benefits 

to employers? 

• Do data exist that show that access 

to information such as that on the 

pesticide safety poster at the same 

location as decontamination supplies 

leads to more workers adopting hygiene 

practices, thereby reducing the number 

of workplace illnesses? 

B. Content of Basic Pesticide Safety 

Information Display 

1. Overview. The existing WPS 

mandates specific content for the 

pesticide safety poster. EPA proposes to 

require additional information so 

workers and handlers can contact the 

state or tribal enforcement agency. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. Under 40 

CFR 170.135(b)(1) through (2) and 

170.235(b)(1) through (2), the pesticide 

safety poster must include the following 

content: 

• Avoid getting on your skin or into 

your body any pesticides that may be on 

plants and soil, in irrigation water, or 

drifting from nearby applications. 

• Wash before eating, drinking, using 

chewing gum or tobacco, or using the 

toilet. 

• Wear work clothing that protects 

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

socks, and a hat or scarf). 

• Wash/shower with soap and water, 

shampoo hair, and put on clean clothes 

after work. 

• Wash work clothes separately from 

other clothes before wearing them again. 

• Wash immediately in the nearest 

clean water if pesticides are spilled or 

sprayed on the body. As soon as 

possible, shower, shampoo, and change 

into clean clothes. 

• Follow directions about keeping out 

of treated or restricted areas. 

• There are federal rules to protect 

workers and handlers, including a 

requirement for safety training. 

The WPS also requires the employer 

to provide contact information for the 

nearest emergency medical care facility 

and to update workers and handlers if 

the information changes. EPA has 

developed a poster that complies with 

the requirements of the regulation 

(except for the site-specific information 

requirements) and makes it available to 

agricultural employers free of charge. 

3. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

The Agency proposes to amend the 

basic pesticide safety content required 

to be displayed on an agricultural 

establishment to clarify the emergency 

medical information section, and to 

include contact information for 

contacting the state or tribal regulatory 

agency. The proposal no longer refers to 

a ‘‘pesticide safety poster.’’ Instead, the 

proposed regulatory text refers to 

‘‘pesticide safety information’’ to allow 

some flexibility in how all the required 

information is displayed. EPA believes 

that most agricultural establishments 

will choose to use EPA’s free pesticide 

safety poster to comply with the WPS 

pesticide safety information; EPA would 

update the poster to include the 

proposed changes to the information. 

However, the information does not have 

to be displayed as a poster as long as the 

display includes the required 

information and meets the requirements 

of the section. 

Finally, the Agency proposes to 

require that the pesticide safety 

information display contain contact 

information for the state or tribal 

regulatory agency for pesticide 

enforcement. EPA believes that workers 

and handlers should have the 

opportunity to ask questions about 

protections offered by the WPS and to 

report pesticide exposure incidents or 

suspected non-compliance that may 

endanger them. 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning the additional required 

content of the pesticide safety 

information display appears in 

§ 170.11(a)(1) of the proposed rule. The 

text concerning requirements when 

there are changes to the pesticide safety 

information appears in § 170.11(a)(2). 

4. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates 

the cost to revise the contents of the 

basic pesticide safety information 

display would be $108,000 annually, or 

about $0.30 per WPS establishment per 

year. EPA included in this estimate the 

cost for employers to purchase the 

poster. However, EPA believes that 

many would obtain the updated poster 

free of charge from the Agency; as a 

result the actual cost of this requirement 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15492 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

may be lower. For a complete 

discussion of the costs of the proposals 

and alternatives, see the ‘‘Economic 

Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the 

Worker Protection Standard,’’ Chapter 3 

Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

5. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• What additional burden would 

employers face if the proposed option to 

require pesticide safety information to 

be displayed at decontamination sites is 

implemented? Would there be benefits 

to employers? 

• Should EPA consider other changes 

to content of the pesticide safety 

information display? If so, what changes 

and why? 

XIV. Decontamination 

Unit XII discussed proposed 

decontamination requirements 

specifically for workers who enter a 

treated area in which an REI is in effect 

as part of a suite of proposed changes 

to the protections for early entry 

workers. This Unit discusses routine 

and emergency decontamination for 

workers and handlers. The proposals in 

this Unit would cover handlers and 

workers who are not entering a treated 

area in which an REI is in effect. 

A. Clarify the Quantity of Water 

Required for Decontamination 

1. Overview. The existing WPS 

requires employers to provide water for 

decontamination. EPA proposes to 

clarify the quantity of water required for 

decontamination from ‘‘enough water 

for routine washing and emergency 

eyeflush’’ to a specific quantity. 

2. Current WPS regulations. The WPS 

requires agricultural employers to 

provide decontamination supplies, 

including ‘‘enough water for routine 

washing and emergency eyeflush,’’ 

when workers are performing activities 

in areas where a pesticide was applied 

or an REI was in effect at any point in 

the last 30 days and come in contact 

with anything that has been treated with 

a pesticide (40 CFR 170.150). The WPS 

also requires handler employers to 

provide decontamination supplies, 

again including ‘‘enough water for 

routine washing, for emergency 

eyeflushing and for washing the entire 

body in case of an emergency,’’ for 

handlers (40 CFR 170.250). Part 170 

does not specify how much would 

constitute enough water to meet the 

decontamination supplies requirement. 

3. Summary of the issues. Agricultural 

employers have reported difficulty in 

ensuring that they provide an adequate 

amount of water because the amount of 

water needed for each worker or handler 

is not stated in the current regulation. 

When EPA implemented the WPS, state 

regulatory agencies requested that the 

EPA clarify the quantity of water 

necessary to satisfy the decontamination 

requirement. In guidance published in 

1993, ‘‘How to Comply with the Worker 

Protection Standard for Agricultural 

Pesticides: What Employers Need to 

Know,’’ EPA recommended that 

employers provide 1 gallon of water per 

worker for routine decontamination and 

3 gallons per handler for routine 

washing and emergency 

decontamination (Ref. 80, p. 25). This 

guidance was developed by experts 

from EPA’s program and enforcement 

offices and state regulatory agencies. 

Further discussion about the amount of 

water required can be found in ‘‘How to 

Comply with the Worker Protection 

Standard for Agricultural Pesticides: 

What Employers Need to Know.’’ 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA proposes to require that employers 

must provide 1 gallon of water per 

worker for routine decontamination and 

3 gallons of water per handler for 

routine washing and emergency 

decontamination. By codifying the 

guidance discussed above, EPA believes 

that employers would have no difficulty 

in determining the amount of water for 

routine and emergency decontamination 

required for their workers and handlers. 

This specificity would assist in 

providing workers and handlers with 

the amount of water necessary for 

routine washing and provide handlers 

with a sufficient amount of water 

should a pesticide emergency occur. 

Employers could be confident that they 

are complying with the regulation and 

keeping their workers and handlers safe 

in the event of an exposure by providing 

adequate supplies. 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning the required quantities of 

decontamination water appears in the 

proposed rule § 170.111(b) for workers 

and § 170.209(b) for handlers. 

5. Cost. EPA estimates the cost of this 

proposal would be negligible because it 

is a codification of existing EPA policy 

interpretations of the WPS. 

6. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Is 1 gallon for routine washing for 

workers and 3 gallons for handler 

emergency decontamination, reasonable 

amounts of water for workers or 

handlers who have been exposed to 

pesticides? If not, why? 

• What amount of water would be 

reasonable, or what other alternative is 

there? 

• Would waterless cleansing agents 

used in lieu of soap, water, and towels 

effectively remove pesticide residues 

from workers’ and handlers’ hands? 

Should EPA consider allowing the 

employer to substitute waterless 

cleansing agents for the currently 

required decontamination supplies? If 

so, why? Please provide data on the 

efficacy of waterless cleansing agents for 

removing pesticide residues. 

B. Eliminate the Substitution of Natural 

Waters for Decontamination Supplies 

1. Overview. The existing WPS 

permits employers to substitute clean, 

natural waters from springs, streams, 

lakes or other sources for contained 

water supplies at decontamination sites 

in specific circumstances. EPA proposes 

to eliminate the option to substitute 

clean, natural waters for the potable 

water required for decontamination. The 

proposal would allow the employer to 

supplement the required water supplies 

with clean, natural waters if necessary. 

2. Current WPS regulations. The WPS 

allows employers to substitute clean 

waters from springs, streams, lakes, or 

other sources for decontamination at 

remote work sites if such water is more 

accessible than the water located at the 

nearest place of vehicular access (40 

CFR 170.150 and 170.250). Generally, 

the WPS requires agricultural and 

handler employers to provide 

decontamination supplies no farther 

than one quarter mile away from where 

workers are working or from where 

handlers are performing handling 

activities. One exception to this 

requirement is that if worker and 

handler activities occur more than one 

quarter mile from the nearest point of 

vehicular access, soap, single-use 

towels, and water may be located at the 

nearest point of vehicular access, but 

the employer may allow workers or 

handlers to use clean water from 

springs, streams, lakes, or other sources 

if more accessible than the 

decontamination supplies. 

3. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

The Agency proposes to eliminate the 

exemption that allows agricultural and 

handler employers to use clean, natural 

bodies of water in lieu of the required 

decontamination supplies. Employers 

would need to ensure that workers and 

handlers have access to sufficient 

quantities of potable water for 

decontamination; however, employers 

would be permitted to supplement the 

required quantities of potable water 

with natural waters in the event of an 

emergency. The Agency believes that 

vehicular access to worker and handler 

sites is common and not likely more 

than a quarter mile distance from the 

worker location. Modern agriculture is 

highly mechanized, and the Agency 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15493 

believes that workers and handlers are 

routinely transported close to their work 

areas by vehicles. 

EPA believes that workers and 

handlers would be better protected by 

ensuring access to the required amount 

of potable water for routine and 

emergency decontamination, and 

allowing the option to supplement those 

supplies with clean, natural waters in 

the event of an emergency. 

4. Costs and benefits. EPA did not 

estimate the cost for this proposal 

because EPA believes that a negligible 

number, if any, employers would be 

impacted by this proposal. However, 

EPA has no data on the number of 

employers that may use this option and 

is seeking data below. 

5. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following: 

• Please provide information on 

situations, if any, in which the proposed 

change would significantly increase the 

burden on agricultural employers and 

offer alternative proposals. 

• Please provide any information on 

the cost associated with the current 

situation and proposed change. 

• Would using natural waters for 

decontamination worsen a worker’s or 

handler’s situation after pesticide 

exposure? 

• Would it be beneficial to use any 

water in the event of a pesticide 

emergency or when decontamination 

supplies cannot be located within one 

quarter mile because of limited 

vehicular access? 

C. Requirements for Ocular 

Decontamination in Case of Exposed 

Pesticide Handlers 

1. Overview. The existing WPS 

requires employers to provide a specific 

amount of water to handlers that they 

can carry for use in the event of an 

ocular pesticide exposure. EPA 

proposes to require employers to 

provide clean, running water at 

permanent (i.e., plumbed and not 

portable) mixing and loading sites for 

handlers to use in the event of an ocular 

pesticide exposure. 

2. Current WPS regulations. The WPS 

requires handlers to carry water for 

eyewashing to use in case of an ocular 

exposure if the pesticide label mandates 

the use of eye protection (40 CFR 

170.250). The handler employer must 

assure that 1 pint of water is available 

for each handler who is performing the 

tasks for which the pesticide label 

requires protective eyewear. 

As discussed in Unit XIV.A., the WPS 

requires employers to provide water 

sufficient for handlers to perform 

routine decontamination in addition to 

the requirement discussed in this 

section to provide water for handlers’ 

eye washing in case of an ocular 

exposure. 

3. Summary of the issues. Farmworker 

Justice provided the Agency with 

information about several incidents of 

accidental ocular exposure (Ref. 36). 

They noted that even when handlers use 

the PPE required on the label, they may 

be accidentally exposed to the pesticide. 

For example, a pesticide may splash 

into a handler’s eye even if he or she 

wears proper PPE. The eyes can suffer 

serious damage if exposed to certain 

pesticides. Farmworker Justice noted 

that the WPS requirement for 1 pint of 

water would not satisfy EPA’s own 

current recommendations in the Label 

Review Manual, which calls for a 

person who suffers ocular pesticide 

exposure to ‘‘hold eye open and rinse 

slowly and gently with water for 15–20 

minutes’’ (Ref. 84, pp. 7–12). In 

addition, the American National 

Standards Institute standard for 

eyeflushing calls for a sufficient 

quantity to rinse eyes continuously for 

15 minutes (ANSI Z358.1–2009). 

Therefore, Farmworker Justice 

recommended that EPA adopt a 

standard for ocular decontamination 

more protective than the WPS’s current 

one pint requirement. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. In 

addition to the 1 pint of water already 

required to be carried by the handler, 

the Agency proposes to require that at 

permanent mixing and loading sites 

handler employers provide clean, 

running water sufficient to provide at a 

minimum of 1.5 liters (0.4 gallons) per 

minute for 15 minutes for handlers to 

use for eye flush purposes in the event 

of an ocular pesticide exposure. EPA 

expects that adopting this standard 

would improve the ability of handlers to 

mitigate damage to their eyes from 

accidental exposure. EPA expects that 

most permanent mixing sites are 

plumbed to facilitate the dilution of 

concentrated pesticides and to load 

application equipment and have the 

potential to provide clean water flowing 

at the appropriate rate to comply with 

this requirement. For those handlers 

who may be exposed while not working 

at the permanent mixing loading site, 

EPA believes the 3 gallons of water 

required for routine decontamination 

would provide 7.5 minutes of rinsing, 

sufficient to clear the eyes immediately 

at which point the handler can continue 

rinsing his or her eyes for the full 15 

minutes at a permanent site. 

The Agency based the proposed 

requirement on OSHA’s standard for 

ocular decontamination. OSHA’s 

requirement for general industry states, 

‘‘where the eyes or body of any person 

may be exposed to injurious corrosive 

materials, suitable facilities for quick 

drenching or flushing of the eyes and 

body shall be provided within the work 

area for immediate emergency use’’ (29 

CFR 1910.151(c)). Based on the OSHA 

standard, the American National 

Standards Institute developed a water 

flow standard to address minimum 

operating requirements for an eye flush. 

These operating standards establish a 

minimum of 1.5 liter (0.4 gallons) per 

minute of flushing fluid, such as water, 

for 15 minutes (ANSI Z358.1–2009) 

(Ref. 85). Some states have required 

handler employers to provide ocular 

decontamination conforming to the 

OSHA standard. For example, Oregon 

implemented the same requirement 

proposed here in 2006 (OSHA 437–004– 

1305 K(5)). In FY 2007, Oregon reported 

23 instances of non-compliance. By FY 

2010, only 5 establishments were cited 

for non-compliance (Ref. 86, p. 6). 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning ocular decontamination for 

handlers appears in § 170.209(d) of the 

proposed rule. 

5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates 

that the cost of this proposal would be 

minimal because mixing pesticides at a 

permanent site generally involves 

substantial quantities of water and EPA 

believes that plumbed water is almost 

always available at those sites. EPA’s 

proposal would not require employers 

to purchase a metered eyewash station; 

any water supply that meets the 

proposed standards would comply. 

6. Alternative options considered. 

EPA considered requiring portable 

eyewash stations at all mixing or 

loading sites as an alternative to the 

proposed option. EPA believes that most 

establishments mix and load at various 

sites and may move from day to day. 

The cost of equipping each potential 

mixing or loading site (permanent and 

non-permanent) with a portable eye 

wash station would be about $14 

million per year for agricultural 

establishments and commercial 

pesticide handling establishments. 

As discussed above and in Unit 

XIV.A., handler employers are required 

to provide 3 gallons of water per 

handler for decontamination. EPA 

believes that if necessary, handlers 

could use this decontamination water 

for about 7 minutes at the recommended 

rate of 1.5 liter (0.4 gallons) per minute, 

which would give them time to get to a 

location with sufficient water to rinse 

their eyes for the recommended amount 

of time. EPA does not intend for the 

routine decontamination water to be 

used for emergency eyeflush on a 

regular basis. However, the Agency 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15494 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

believes that it is appropriate to 

consider the existing availability of 

clean water where the handler may be 

exposed as well as new requirements 

when considering alternatives to the 

current eyewash requirement. EPA 

believes that most handlers will have 

access to either a permanent mixing or 

loading site or to the routine 

decontamination water. EPA believes 

the benefits associated with a 

requirement to have a portable eyewash 

station at each mixing or loading site is 

not reasonable in comparison with the 

cost and alternatives available. 

Therefore, EPA decided not to propose 

a requirement for portable eyewash 

stations at all mixing or loading sites. 

7. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Is it reasonable to require that clean, 

running water be present and flowing at 

a minimum of 1.5 liter (0.4 gallons) per 

minute for 15 minutes at permanent 

mixing and loading stations? If not, 

why? 

• Should EPA consider other ways to 

provide ocular decontamination for 

handlers? If so, please provide specific 

details, including rationale and cost. 

• Do data exist on the relative number 

of mixing and loading activities that 

occur at permanent sites and away from 

permanent sites? 

• Are there other ways in which 

ocular decontamination might 

reasonably be improved at temporary 

mixing and loading sites? 

D. Showers for Handler 

Decontamination 

1. Overview. The existing WPS 

establishes specific requirements for 

routine and emergency handler 

decontamination supplies, but these 

requirements do not include shower 

facilities. EPA considered but is not 

proposing adding a requirement for 

handler employers to provide shower 

facilities. 

2. Current WPS regulations. As 

discussed above in Unit XIV.A., the 

WPS specifies the types and amounts of 

supplies handler employers must 

provide. The WPS does not require 

handler employers to provide shower 

facilities. 

3. Summary of the issues. Farmworker 

organizations have requested that EPA 

require employers to provide showers 

for handlers to facilitate 

decontamination at the end of the work 

day. They suggest that the use of 

showers after pesticide handling 

activities could decrease pesticide 

exposure to handlers. Representatives of 

agricultural employers, the agricultural 

employers, and others from the SBAR 

panel process, noted that in their 

experience even when showers are 

available, handlers do not use them 

(Ref. 18, p. 21) (Ref. 87). Some 

stakeholders reported that many 

workers may be reluctant to shower at 

the workplace because they believe that 

showering immediately after work is 

detrimental to their health (Ref. 88). 

As an alternative to imposing a 

requirement to provide showers, the 

SBREFA SERs suggested that EPA 

expand training for pesticide handlers 

to include how to minimize take-home 

exposure and how to use additional 

personal protective equipment (Ref. 18). 

4. Rationale for not proposing. The 

Agency considered requiring showers 

but decided to not propose it because 

EPA believes that the additional training 

content for handlers (Unit VII.E.) and 

clarified decontamination provisions in 

Unit XIV.A., provide handlers with 

adequate information on how to reduce 

take-home exposure and sufficient 

supplies for routine washing. 

5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates 

that installing a shower on a single 

establishment would cost about 

$105,000. Nationally, this would cost 

about $22.7 billion dollars for 

construction. This estimate does not 

include future costs of maintenance. For 

a complete discussion of the costs of the 

proposals and alternatives, see the 

‘‘Economic Analysis of Proposed 

Revisions to the Worker Protection 

Standard,’’ Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 

1). 

6. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Is it reasonable to assume a 

significant percentage of handlers 

would not use a permanent shower 

facility at a worksite? 

• Would increased handler training, 

clarified amounts of water for routine 

decontamination, and/or the use of 

additional PPE for handlers be sufficient 

to protect handlers and their families 

from occupational and take-home 

pesticide exposure? If not, why? 

• Are there other preventative 

measures that would provide 

comparable protection to handlers and 

their families without incurring the 

same cost as requiring installation of 

shower facilities? If so, please describe 

the preventative measures, estimated 

cost, and implementation. 

• What other alternatives exist? 

XV. Emergency Assistance 

A. Overview. The existing WPS 

requires employers to provide ‘‘prompt’’ 

transportation to an emergency medical 

facility to workers or handlers who may 

have been exposed to pesticides. EPA 

proposes to require employers to make 

transportation to a medical facility 

available to workers and handlers 

within thirty (30) minutes of learning of 

the exposure. EPA also proposes to 

require the employer to provide to the 

worker or handler or to treating medical 

personnel the SDS and pesticide label, 

or all of the pertinent information in an 

alternate form. 

B. Existing WPS Regulations. The 

WPS requires employers to make 

transportation available promptly to 

workers or handlers that have been 

‘‘poisoned or injured by exposure to 

pesticides’’ (40 CFR 170.160 and 

170.260). Employers must provide the 

following information, if available, to 

the exposed person or the treating 

medical personnel: name of the product, 

EPA registration number, active 

ingredient, medical information from 

the label, circumstances of the pesticide 

application (or the handling of the 

pesticide), and circumstances of the 

pesticide exposure. 

C. Summary of the issues. State 

enforcement agents have reported to 

EPA that the vague timeframe has 

prevented them from verifying whether 

a worker was provided transportation to 

the medical facility in conformance 

with the WPS, and recommended that 

EPA adopt a more specific timeframe for 

transportation. They contend that the 

existing requirement is vague and leads 

to various interpretations of the 

timeframe. Without a formal definition 

of ‘‘prompt,’’ compliance and 

enforcement become more difficult for 

inspectors. In addition, varying 

interpretations of ‘‘prompt’’ could lead 

to conflict between employers, 

agricultural workers and handlers, and 

medical personnel about how quickly 

necessary information and 

transportation must be provided in an 

emergency situation. 

Farmworker advocacy organizations 

have noted the difficulty in obtaining 

proper medical treatment for workers 

and handlers without all of the relevant 

information from the label and 

circumstances of the incident. Given the 

difficulty of diagnosing an illness or 

injury related to a pesticide exposure, 

treating physicians need information 

related to the pesticide products 

potentially involved and circumstances 

of the incident to initiate proper 

treatment. In addition, the sooner a 

person exposed to pesticides is 

transported for, and thus receives, 

treatment, the more likely the diagnosis 

and treatment will lead to a successful 

medical outcome. Farmworker advocacy 

organizations recommended that EPA 

require the employer to provide the 

information whether requested or not. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15495 

They also recommended adding an 

option for the employer to satisfy the 

requirement by providing the 

information in the current regulations, a 

copy of the label, or a copy of the SDS. 

D. Details of the Proposal/Rationale. 

EPA proposes to require agricultural 

employers and handler employers to 

provide emergency medical assistance 

within thirty (30) minutes after learning 

that an employee has been poisoned or 

injured by exposure to pesticides as a 

result of his or her employment, 

replacing the current standard of 

‘‘prompt.’’ The emergency medical 

assistance includes both providing the 

required information and making 

transportation to a medical facility 

available to the affected worker or 

handler. Although the intent of the 

proposal is for the injured party to 

receive medical attention as soon as 

possible, this requirement does not 

establish a timeframe for reaching the 

medical facility. 

The proposal would require 

employers to provide to the worker, 

handler, or treating medical personnel 

information on each pesticide to which 

the worker or handler might have been 

exposed. The employer could satisfy 

this requirement by providing copies of 

both the SDS and the pesticide labeling. 

Alternatively, the employer could 

provide all of the following information: 

product name, EPA registration number, 

active ingredient(s), antidote, first aid, 

and any other medical treatment 

information from the label or the SDS. 

The employer would also be required to 

provide to the worker, handler, or 

treating medical personnel the 

circumstances of the pesticide 

application(s) or use(s) and the 

circumstances of the pesticide exposure. 

Pesticide workers and handlers are 

instructed to wash their bodies and 

clothing immediately if they come into 

contact with a pesticide. The existing 

regulation requires agricultural 

employers and commercial pesticide 

handler employers to provide sufficient 

water and soap to workers and handlers 

for routine and emergency 

decontamination. In the event of a more 

serious illness or injury that requires 

immediate medical attention, however, 

it is critical for the worker or handler to 

be evaluated and treated quickly. When 

medical treatment is provided soon after 

the illness or injury, the effects of the 

pesticide exposure can be minimized. 

The longer the illness- or injury-causing 

exposure persists, the more likely the 

worker or handler will suffer more 

severe effects. EPA believes that 

requiring transportation and 

information about the pesticide(s) and 

circumstances of the exposure to be 

provided within thirty minutes after 

learning of the exposure would reduce 

the effects of pesticide exposure and 

improve the ability of the medical 

personnel to provide appropriate 

treatment. 

EPA does not have data on the 

number of requests for information in 

the event of an accidental pesticide 

exposure by exposed persons or treating 

medical personnel. Medical personnel 

need relevant information to treat 

people who may have been exposed to 

pesticides. Treatment protocol varies by 

pesticide and type of exposure; for 

example, the recommended treatment 

for one pesticide may be to induce 

vomiting immediately, while for another 

pesticide this treatment could do more 

harm to the exposed person. Many of 

the recommendations for medical care 

listed in the ‘‘Recognition and 

Management of Pesticide Poisoning’’ 

manual depend on the time between 

initial exposure and medical treatment 

(Ref. 12). Some treatments are not 

effective unless provided within a 

specific timeframe of exposure 

(generally 1 hour). In addition, 

recommended treatments for different 

types of exposure vary and sometimes 

conflict with each other; therefore, it is 

essential that the medical personnel 

have as much information as possible 

about the likely pesticide(s) to which 

the patient may have been exposed in 

order to provide the proper treatment. 

Amending the existing regulation to 

require provision of information 

relevant to the exposure circumstances 

and pesticide’s properties would ensure 

that medical personnel are properly 

informed at the time of beginning 

treatment or soon afterward. With 

timely and proper treatment, many 

acute pesticide exposures may be 

mitigated before they cause more longlasting effects. 

Providing workers transportation to a 

medical facility in the event of a 

workplace injury is the responsibility of 

employers in almost all industries. 

OSHA requires that a worker injured on 

the job receive medical treatment, 

clarifying the requirement to mean 

within 3–4 minutes if the injury is lifethreatening or 15 minutes if it is not lifethreatening (29 CFR 1926.50(a)). OSHA 

requires employers in all industries to 

provide transportation for emergency 

medical assistance if it is not possible to 

use public services, for example, an 

ambulance (29 CFR 1926.50(e)). EPA 

recognizes the differences between 

agriculture and other industries. WPS 

establishments can be very large 

compared to the types of locations 

covered by OSHA standards, for 

example, factories, office buildings, and 

similar self-contained areas. Whereas 

the foreman or manager at a factory is 

likely to be on site or nearby at the time 

of an employee’s injury, an agricultural 

or commercial pesticide handler 

employer could be significantly farther 

away. Based on the physical differences 

between a WPS establishment and 

typical industrial locations covered by 

OSHA, EPA believes it is reasonable to 

allow agricultural employers and 

handler employers a longer timeframe to 

reach an exposed worker or handler to 

provide transportation. 

In developing this proposal, EPA was 

mindful of the demographics of the 

worker and handler populations. Some 

do not have their own vehicle and rely 

on an employer, co-worker, or labor 

contractor to provide transportation to 

and from the agricultural establishment. 

Some may not be able to secure 

transportation to a medical facility 

outside of working hours. The injured 

person may be too compromised to 

safely drive to the medical facility. 

Without a requirement for the employer 

to provide transportation, some workers 

and handlers might be stranded in the 

treated area or might wait longer than 

necessary or advisable to seek medical 

attention. 

The regulatory text concerning 

emergency assistance appears in the 

proposed rule at § 170.9(f) for workers 

and handlers and at § 170.13(k) for 

handlers employed by a commercial 

pesticide handling establishment. 

E. Costs. When compared to current 

practices, the Agency estimates the cost 

of complying with the proposed 

requirements to provide the information 

and to transport exposed workers or 

handlers within thirty minutes of 

learning of the exposure would be 

negligible. The Agency believes that 

many agricultural employers and 

commercial handler employers already 

meet this standard. Under other 

proposed changes, agricultural 

employers and commercial handler 

employers would be required to 

maintain copies of the SDS or pesticide 

label in an office for the workers to 

review. [See Unit IX.] Agricultural 

employers and commercial handler 

employers are also required to maintain 

copies of the application records. 

Providing these documents, copies, or 

information from them, would impose 

minimal additional burden on the 

employer. Agricultural employers and 

commercial handler employers are 

already required to provide 

transportation to a medical treatment 

facility for workers or handlers who are 

exposed to pesticides. Changing the 

timeframe for providing transportation 

from ‘‘prompt’’ to within 30 minutes is 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15496 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

a technical clarification and EPA 

believes it would impose minimal 

burden. For a complete discussion of 

the costs of the proposals and 

alternatives, see the ‘‘Economic 

Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the 

Worker Protection Standard,’’ Chapter 3 

Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

F. Alternative Options Considered but 

Not Proposed. The Agency considered 

two alternative options to the timeframe 

for providing transportation. First, the 

Agency considered replacing ‘‘prompt’’ 

with ‘‘immediate.’’ Using ‘‘immediate’’ 

might convey the urgency of the 

situation and encourage agricultural 

employers and commercial handler 

employers to transport exposed workers 

or handlers as quickly as possible. 

However, this change would not address 

the vagueness in the regulation or 

impose a timeframe in which the 

agricultural employer or commercial 

pesticide handler employer must make 

available the proposed required 

information and transportation to a 

medical facility. Second, the Agency 

considered imposing a timeframe of one 

hour for the agricultural employer or 

commercial pesticide handler employer 

to make transportation available. Based 

on the guidance under OSHA for 

providing medical treatment to an 

injured employee, the Agency believes 

that an hour would be too long to allow 

a worker or handler to wait for 

transportation to a medical treatment 

facility to be made available to worker 

or handler. 

G. Request for Comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Is 30 minutes a reasonable 

timeframe for an agricultural employer 

or commercial handler employer to 

make transportation available to a 

worker or handler who has been 

exposed to pesticides to a medical 

treatment facility? If the timeframe is 

too long or short, please explain why. 

What would be a reasonable alternative? 

• Do medical personnel treating a 

worker or handler for occupational 

pesticide exposure need more 

information than what is proposed to 

evaluate, diagnose, and treat the 

patient? If so, what additional 

information would be necessary? 

• If time is of the essence in 

determining the proper course of 

treatment, should EPA consider 

requiring the agricultural employer to 

report the estimated time of the incident 

in addition to the information proposed 

above? 

XVI. Personal Protective Equipment 

A. Chemical-Resistant PPE 

1. Overview. The existing WPS 

requires employers to provide 

‘‘chemical-resistant’’ PPE in certain 

circumstances but does not provide a 

practical method for evaluating whether 

the material meets the standard. EPA 

proposes to clarify how to determine 

whether PPE is ‘‘chemical-resistant.’’ 

This clarification would ensure that 

compliance with the WPS chemicalresistant garment standard can be 

objectively determined and would 

provide appropriate protection to 

workers or handlers. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. Under 

the WPS, ‘‘chemical-resistant’’ material 

means a ‘‘material that allows no 

measurable movement of the pesticide 

being used through the material during 

use’’ (40 CFR 170.240(c)(1)). 

3. Summary of the issues. State 

agencies have informed the EPA that 

they cannot enforce the current 

standard. It can be difficult to 

determine, without significant and 

costly testing, whether a material is 

permeable to a pesticide. Inspectors 

noted that they cannot verify 

compliance at the time of a field 

inspection. Similarly, employers 

attempting to comply with the 

requirement face difficulty in 

determining whether a garment meets 

the criteria. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

The Agency proposes to redefine 

‘‘chemical-resistant’’ to mean that the 

PPE must be identified by the 

manufacturer as chemical resistant. EPA 

believes that PPE manufacturers will 

only identify items as chemical resistant 

if they provide a significant barrier to 

chemicals. 

Changing from the current standard to 

one that requires the employer to 

provide PPE that the manufacturer calls 

‘‘chemical-resistant’’ would allow 

employers and enforcement personnel a 

clear standard for determining 

compliance with the WPS. 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning chemical-resistant PPE 

appears in § 170.207(b)(1) of the 

proposed rule. 

5. Costs. The estimated cost of this 

clarification is considered to be 

negligible. The EPA believes most 

employers currently purchase garments 

labeled as chemical-resistant for their 

employees. 

6. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following question: 

• Are there alternatives to this 

proposal for determining chemical 

resistance of a garment that are both 

cost-effective and protective? Please 

provide details and any data that may 

apply. 

B. Closed Systems 

1. Overview. The existing WPS 

permits exceptions to the label-specified 

PPE when using a closed system for 

certain handling activities. A closed 

system is an apparatus designed for 

mixing and loading pesticides that 

enables transfer of a pesticide from its 

original container into a new container, 

mix tank, or application equipment, 

while limiting the handler’s exposure to 

the pesticide. But the existing WPS fails 

to provide specific criteria for an 

acceptable closed system, thereby 

limiting the practical availability and 

utility of the exception. EPA proposes to 

establish specific criteria for closed 

systems based on California’s existing 

standard that would ensure protections 

for handlers, bystanders, and the 

environment during mixing and 

loading. EPA expects that this change 

would increase the number of 

establishments that use closed systems 

for pesticide mixing and loading 

activities because employers would 

have a clear description of the 

requirements on which to rely, thereby 

decreasing the potential for exposure. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The 

existing WPS provides only a 

description of a closed system as one 

that ‘‘. . . enclose[s] the pesticide to 

prevent it from contacting handlers or 

other persons.’’ Use of a properly 

functioning closed system that meets 

this description allows handlers to 

substitute the label-required PPE with 

alternative PPE when the system is used 

and maintained in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s written operating 

instructions (40 CFR 170.240(d)(4)). The 

existing description does not adequately 

describe the specific characteristics of a 

closed system. 

3. Summary of the issues. State 

regulators have reported problems with 

the ability to determine compliance 

with WPS requirements for closed 

systems. The current description lacks 

specific criteria for the characteristics 

necessary for a protective enclosed 

system, inhibiting the ability of 

inspectors to ensure that the system is 

in compliance. State regulators have 

asked EPA to establish practical, 

enforceable criteria for closed systems 

that will enable them to better 

determine which types of systems 

qualify for the exception. 

California is the only state with 

specific closed system standards. The 

California Department of Pesticide 

Regulation requires applicators to use a 

closed system when handling products 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15497 

with a signal word of ‘‘Danger’’ or 

‘‘Warning’’ (Ref. 89). The closed system 

standards are required for liquid 

pesticides and may be used, but are not 

required, for other pesticide 

formulations. The definition of a 

‘‘closed system’’ references a ‘‘Director’s 

Memo,’’ which outlines the standards 

for closed systems (Ref. 90). The 

Director’s Memo establishes the 

following criteria: 

1. The liquid pesticide must be 

removed from its original shipping 

container and transferred through 

connecting hoses, pipes, and/or 

couplings that are sufficiently tight to 

prevent exposure of any person to the 

concentrate, use dilution, or rinse 

solution. 

2. All hoses, piping, tanks, and 

connections used in conjunction with a 

closed system must be of a type 

appropriate for the pesticide being used 

and the pressure and vacuum of the 

system. 

3. All sight gauges must be protected 

against breakage. Sight gauges must be 

equipped with valves so the pipes to the 

sight gauge can be shut off in case of 

breakage or leakage. 

4. The closed system must adequately 

measure the pesticide being used. 

Measuring devices must be accurately 

calibrated to the smallest unit in which 

the material is being weighed or 

measured. Pesticide remaining in the 

transfer lines may affect the accuracy of 

measurement and must be considered. 

5. The movement of a pesticide 

concentrate beyond a pump by positive 

pressure must not exceed 25 pounds per 

square inch (psi) of pressure. 

6. A probe must not be removed from 

a container except when: 

a. The container is emptied and the 

inside, as well as the probe, have been 

rinsed in accordance with item 8. 

b. DPR has evaluated the probe and 

determined that, by the nature of its 

construction or design, it eliminates 

significant risk of worker exposure to 

the pesticide when it is withdrawn from 

a partial container. 

c. The pesticide is used without 

dilution and the container has been 

emptied. 

7. Shut-off devices must be installed 

on the exit end of all hoses and at all 

disconnect points to prevent the 

pesticide from leaking when the transfer 

is stopped and the hose is removed or 

disconnected. 

a. If the hose carried pesticide 

concentrate and has not been rinsed in 

accordance with item 8, a dry break 

coupler that will minimize pesticide 

loss to not more than two milliliters per 

disconnect must be installed at the 

disconnect point. 

b. If the hose carried a pesticide use 

dilution or rinse solution, a reversing 

action pump or a similar system that 

will empty the hose may be used as an 

alternative to a shutoff device. 

8. When the pesticide is to be diluted 

for use, the closed system must provide 

for adequate rinsing of containers that 

have held less than 60 gallons of a 

liquid pesticide. Rinsing must be done 

with a medium, such as water, that 

contains no pesticide. 

a. The system must be capable of 

spray-rinsing the inner surfaces of the 

container and the rinse solution must go 

into the pesticide mix tank or applicator 

vehicle via the closed system. The 

system must be capable of rinsing the 

probe, if used, and all hoses, measuring 

devices, etc. 

b. A minimum of 15 psi of pressure 

must be used for rinsing. 

c. The rinsing must be continued until 

a minimum of 10 gallons or one-half of 

the container volume, whichever is less, 

has been used. 

d. The rinse solution must be 

removed from the pesticide container 

concurrently with introduction of the 

rinse medium. 

e. Pesticide containers must be 

protected against excessive pressure 

during the container rinse operation. 

The maximum container pressure must 

not exceed five psi. 

9. Each commercially produced 

closed system or component to be used 

with a closed system must be sold with: 

a. Complete instructions consisting of 

a functional operating manual and a 

decal(s) covering the basic operation. 

The decal(s) must be placed in a 

prominent location on the system. 

b. Specific directions for cleaning and 

maintenance of the system on a 

scheduled basis. 

c. Information on any restrictions or 

limitations relating to the system, such 

as pesticides that are incompatible with 

materials used in the construction of the 

system, types (or sizes) of containers or 

closures that cannot be handled by the 

system, any limits on ability to correct 

or over measurement of a pesticide, or 

special procedures or limitations on the 

ability of the system to deal with partial 

containers. 

Operating Requirements: 

10. The system must be cleaned and 

maintained according to the 

manufacturer’s instructions. If the 

system is not a commercially produced 

system it must be maintained on a 

regular basis. A record of cleaning and 

maintenance must be maintained. 

11. All labeling required personal 

protective equipment (PPE) must be 

present at the work site. Protective 

eyewear must be worn while using a 

closed system that operates under 

pressure. While using a closed system, 

PPE requirements may be reduced or 

modified as provided in Title 3 

California Code of Regulations, section 

6738. 

Information about closed systems 

which have been evaluated and found to 

meet these criteria is available from DPR 

(Ref. 91). 

California’s standard also allows for 

PPE to be modified or substituted when 

using a closed system that meets the 

established criteria. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA proposes to adopt the California 

closed system standards as outlined in 

the Director’s Memo, except where there 

are specific references to Californiaspecific information. The proposed 

criteria are based on research by the 

California Department of Pesticide 

Regulation. California has indicated that 

it is considering changes to the 

Director’s Memo criteria. EPA will 

consider any changes made to 

California’s standard and the supporting 

rationale when developing a final 

standard for closed systems in the WPS. 

In addition to establishing standards 

for the system, the proposal establishes 

requirements for the use of the closed 

system. To be eligible for the exceptions 

to the label-specified PPE requirements 

when a handler uses a closed system, 

EPA proposes to require that the 

handler employer ensure that the 

handler receives training on use of the 

closed system, perform maintenance 

according to the manufacturer’s written 

instructions, and maintain records of all 

maintenance for 2 years. 

The proposed rule would retain the 

following current requirements: (1) 

Label-mandated PPE must be 

immediately available for use in an 

emergency; (2) handlers must use 

protective eyewear for closed systems 

that operate under pressure; and (3) a 

respirator must be worn if required by 

the label. 

EPA believes that the existing WPS 

standard for closed systems, if applied 

strictly, may be difficult to meet and 

could limit the exception from being 

used because it requires that no 

pesticide escape during the transfer. As 

a result, some agricultural 

establishments may be forgoing the WPS 

closed system exception, despite the 

availability of closed systems that can 

be reasonably expected to meet the 

performance criteria. Additionally, 

other establishments may be employing 

systems that they believe qualify as 

closed, yet nevertheless expose handlers 

to elevated risk because the criteria for 

closed systems have not been 

adequately described. EPA is aware of 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15498 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

closed systems currently manufactured 

and available to agricultural and 

handler employers that meet the 

California closed system criteria. 

EPA believes a properly designed and 

functioning closed system provides 

benefits to the pesticide handler, 

bystanders, and the environment. 

Studies show that PPE may be discarded 

if uncomfortable, such as when 

temperatures are high, or may be worn 

when contaminated or damaged, 

reducing its protective value. 

Additionally, PPE can only protect the 

wearer, but pesticide exposure to 

bystanders and the environment can be 

minimized through the use of a closed 

system. Industrial hygiene principles 

detail the use of the ‘‘hierarchy of 

controls’’ to manage chemical exposure. 

The hierarchy includes controlling 

chemical exposures from the source as 

a preferred approach, through 

substitution of a safer chemical or 

process, mechanizing the process, or 

isolating/enclosing the process. The use 

of closed systems fits this latter category 

by enclosing the chemical and 

substantially reducing the potential for 

exposure at the source, thereby reducing 

the potential for subsequent exposure to 

handlers, other people, and the 

environment. 

Closed systems are considered an 

important protection against hazards in 

other industries. For example, health 

care workers working with hazardous 

drugs can experience exposures to those 

drugs that can result in illness. In 2004, 

CDC–NIOSH published an alert to 

healthcare workers, identifying the risks 

of exposure to these drugs (Ref. 92). The 

alert recommended a closed system 

drug transfer device (CSTD) to reduce 

exposure. CDC–NIOSH defines a CSTD 

as a system that ‘‘mechanically prohibits 

the transfer of environmental 

contaminants into the system and the 

escape of hazardous drug or vapor 

concentrations outside the system,’’ 

thereby limiting the occupational 

exposure to a healthcare provider 

(Ref. 92). 

The proposed rule would replace the 

current performance standard with a set 

of specific criteria that a closed system 

would be required to meet. Because it 

will be easier to demonstrate 

compliance with these criteria, EPA 

expects this proposed revision to 

increase the number of establishments 

that use sufficiently protective closed 

systems for pesticide handling tasks 

involving mixing and loading, thereby 

reducing the potential for handlers and 

others to be exposed to pesticides 

during such activities. 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning closed systems appears in 

§ 170.307(d) of the proposed rule. 

5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates 

the cost of the proposed standards for 

closed systems would be $6.9 million 

annually, or about $25 per agricultural 

establishment per year and about $48 

per commercial pesticide handling 

establishment per year. The cost 

estimate is based on conservative 

estimates of the number of 

establishments that currently use closed 

systems. EPA believes that some 

establishments that currently use closed 

systems that do not meet the proposed 

standards would upgrade and some 

would elect not to use a closed system, 

reverting to the label-required PPE. The 

Agency is not aware of sources of 

information that provide estimates of 

the number of establishments that use 

these systems for pesticide handling. 

Therefore, EPA has made assumptions 

about their numbers. The Agency 

believes these assumptions are 

conservative and that the actual cost of 

implementing this clarification of the 

requirements would be significantly 

lower. 

The proposed requirement would not 

require employers to use closed systems 

if they have not already chosen to use 

closed systems in their operation, but 

will allow more flexibility for employers 

to use a broader range of closed systems. 

EPA believes that more closed systems 

will now be able to meet the criteria for 

the exception because it is proposing to 

replace language that implies a 

complete prohibition of exposure with 

more practical criteria that will enable 

more closed systems to meet the 

requirements for the exception. For a 

complete discussion of the costs of the 

proposals and alternatives, see the 

‘‘Economic Analysis of Proposed 

Revisions to the Worker Protection 

Standard,’’ Chapter 3 Cost Analysis 

(Ref. 1). 

6. Alternative options considered but 

not proposed. The Agency considered 

eliminating the exception for closed 

systems based on reports of improper 

uses of the closed system exception. 

However, EPA expects that properly 

defined and employed closed systems 

afford superior protection for handlers, 

other individuals, and the environment. 

In order to support the use of properly 

designed and operated closed system, 

EPA instead proposes to clarify the WPS 

criteria for closed systems. 

7. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Are the proposed standards for 

closed systems reasonable and 

achievable? 

• Are the proposed standards for 

closed systems too specific? If so, please 

describe what aspects are too specific, 

why, and how to achieve sufficient 

protection while reducing the 

specificity. 

• Do data exist on the number of 

establishments that use closed systems, 

the number that do not use closed 

systems because the current standard is 

not clear, and/or the number of 

establishments that use closed systems 

that meet the California criteria? 

• Would people who currently use 

closed systems that do not meet the 

proposed standard upgrade their closed 

system or opt to use the label-required 

PPE? What information would impact 

this decision? 

• What would be the cost to convert 

an existing system that does not meet 

the proposed standard to one that does? 

• Should EPA consider eliminating 

any of the criteria listed in the proposal? 

If so, which criteria and why? 

• What would be the benefits and 

draw backs of the requirement for the 

closed system to triple rinse the 

container? Is the technology available to 

provide this element at a reasonable 

cost? 

• Would it be possible for agricultural 

and handler employers, handlers, and 

inspectors to measure the closed 

system’s PSI while the system is in use? 

If it would not be possible, should EPA 

consider eliminating this element? 

C. Contaminated PPE 

1. Overview. The current WPS 

requires employers either to clean or 

properly dispose of contaminated PPE. 

EPA proposes to require that 

contaminated PPE be rendered unusable 

before disposal. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS 

requires employers either to clean 

contaminated PPE or to dispose of it 

properly (40 CFR 170.240(f)). PPE can 

become contaminated with pesticides 

from routine use or spills, and if reworn, can expose the wearer to those 

pesticide residues. 

3. Summary of the issues. State 

agencies have raised concerns that 

contaminated PPE may be reused if not 

destroyed. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA proposes to require employers to 

render unusable before properly 

disposing of PPE that cannot be 

decontaminated according to the 

manufacturer’s instructions. This would 

protect workers, handlers and others 

from unnecessary exposure resulting 

from the wearing of contaminated 

garments. For example, if absorbent 

coveralls contaminated from overuse or 

soaked in pesticide from a spill are 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15499 

accidentally placed in a laundry bin 

instead of the trash bin, a person in 

need of protective clothing may find the 

discarded garment and attempt to wear 

it. Cutting the garment apart would 

make it less likely that a person would 

attempt to wear it and be exposed to the 

pesticide residues. 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning rendering PPE unusable 

before disposal appears in 

§ 170.207(d)(2) of the proposed rule. 

5. Costs and benefits. The cost of this 

proposal is expected to be negligible, 

because employers are required to 

dispose of contaminated PPE under the 

existing requirement. There is expected 

to be minimal additional burden on the 

employer to render the PPE unusable. 

For a complete discussion of the costs 

of the proposals and alternatives, see the 

‘‘Economic Analysis of Proposed 

Revisions to the Worker Protection 

Standard,’’ Chapter 3 Cost Analysis 

(Ref. 1). 

6. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following question: 

• Are there better ways to mitigate the 

risks associated with reuse of discarded 

PPE? Please provide rationale and data, 

as applicable, with your response. 

D. Eyewear Protection for Open Cockpits 

1. Overview. The existing WPS allows 

pilots applying pesticides from an open 

cockpit aircraft to substitute a visor for 

label-required eye protection. The 

Agency proposes to replace the option 

to use visors in open cockpit aerial 

applications with the option of using a 

helmet with the face shield lowered as 

a substitute for the eye protection 

required on the label. EPA expects this 

proposal would balance the needs for 

adequate eye protection and suitable 

visibility among handlers that apply 

pesticides aerially from open cockpit 

aircraft. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. 40 CFR 

170.240(d)(6)(ii) requires that pilots 

applying pesticides from an open 

cockpit wear PPE in accordance with 

the label but allows pilots to substitute 

a visor for label-required eye protection. 

Depending on the particular pesticide 

product, the label-required eye 

protection might be goggles; a face 

shield; safety glasses with front, brow, 

and temple protection; or a full-face 

respirator. 

3. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

The Agency intended the existing open 

cockpit exception to relax certain PPE 

requirements, but EPA nevertheless 

intended to convey that some covering 

extending over the eyes was necessary. 

While a face shield might be 

characterized as a visor, the term can 

also reasonably be interpreted as the 

brim of a cap that provides the eyes 

shade and protection from rain, but 

little other protection. Such a visor does 

not provide meaningful protection 

against pesticide sprays or spills. This 

protection is especially important for 

pilots applying in an open cockpit 

because they may be exposed to drift 

while making aerial applications. In 

order to assure aerial applicators have 

adequate eye protection, the Agency 

proposes to replace the option to use 

visors in open cockpit aerial 

applications with the option to use a 

helmet with the face shield lowered. 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning eyewear protection for open 

cockpits appears in § 170.307(f)(2) of the 

proposed rule. 

4. Costs and benefits. EPA expects 

this proposal to have negligible costs 

because the pesticide label already 

mandates that employers provide 

specific PPE. This proposal merely 

changes the option for what PPE can be 

substituted for the label-mandated PPE. 

For a complete discussion of the costs 

of the proposals and alternatives, see the 

‘‘Economic Analysis of Proposed 

Revisions to the Worker Protection 

Standard,’’ Chapter 3 Cost Analysis 

(Ref. 1). 

5. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following question: 

• Is the estimate of the cost 

reasonable? Please provide rationale and 

data to support your information. 

E. Respirators: Fit Testing, Training, and 

Medical Evaluation 

1. Overview. The existing WPS 

requires handler employers to ensure 

that handlers’ respirators fit correctly. 

EPA proposes to clarify this requirement 

to expressly include medical evaluation, 

fit testing, and training for respirator 

users. In addition, EPA proposed to 

require that handler employers retain 

records of compliance with these 

requirements. EPA expects that these 

changes will result in fewer incidents of 

exposure and improvements to the 

health of respirator-wearing handlers 

covered by the WPS. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS 

requires handler employers to ensure 

that each handler’s respirator fits 

correctly (40 CFR 170.240(c)(9)). 

However, part 170 does not provide 

specific details on how to ensure that a 

respirator fits properly, conducting 

medical evaluation, periodically 

refitting the handler for respirator use, 

training requirements for proper use of 

respirators, or retaining fit test records. 

3. Summary of the issues. The 

CHPAC, a Federal Advisory Committee, 

and Farmworker Justice noted that 

OSHA’s standards for respirator fit 

testing, training, and medical 

monitoring are absent from part 170 and 

recommended incorporating the OSHA 

requirements (Ref. 74) (Ref. 35, p. 2). 

They expressed concern that the level of 

protection for handlers using respirators 

under the WPS requirements is 

inadequate. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA proposes to require handler 

employers to comply with the respirator 

fit testing, training, and medical 

evaluation requirements set by OSHA at 

29 CFR 1910.134 whenever a respirator 

other than a dust or mist filtering mask 

is required by the labeling. The OSHA 

standard includes a specific standard for 

fitting a user for respirator use, training 

on recognizing when the respirator seal 

may be broken, and what steps to take 

to properly use and maintain 

respirators. OSHA also requires 

respirator users to be medically 

evaluated to ensure the respirator use 

does not cause undue stress on their 

bodies. The adoption of the OSHA 

standard into part 170 would ensure 

that handlers understand how to wear 

respirators properly, are medically fit to 

use respirators, and receive training on 

respirator use. It would also ensure that 

if technology advances lead OSHA to 

amend its standard, the change would 

automatically apply to pesticide uses 

subject to the WPS as well. EPA believes 

this proposal would better protect 

handlers from respiratory hazards. This 

requirement would be limited to 

products covered by the WPS. 

In order for respirators to provide the 

intended protection, they must be fitted 

to the specific user. Fit testing ensures 

that the respirator seals completely on 

the face. Respirator wearers must be 

able to recognize when the seal is 

broken so that they may correct the fit 

or remove themselves from the exposure 

area. 

The respirator wearer’s respiratory 

system can be stressed because intake of 

breath is more difficult while wearing a 

respirator. For example, persons with 

medical limitations may be at risk of 

cardiac problems from the stress of the 

additional effort to inhale. Other 

potential negative impacts for respirator 

wearers include stress on the pulmonary 

system and even claustrophobia (Ref. 

93). These potential negative health 

impacts can be avoided by doing a fit 

test of the respirator and if necessary, a 

medical evaluation. 

In other industries where respirators 

are required for work around hazardous 

chemicals, OSHA requirements ensure 

that users wear them appropriately. 

Because pesticide use in agriculture is 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15500 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

outside of OSHA’s scope [see Unit 

IV.D.], handlers of pesticides who use 

respirators are not protected to the same 

degree as workers in other industries 

although they face similar risks. 

Handlers can be exposed to significant 

inhalation risks during pesticide 

mixing, loading, and application. 

EPA believes incorporation of the 

OSHA standard will provide employers 

and handlers with more specific 

information on what it means to ensure 

that a respirator fits correctly and ensure 

that respirators are maintained properly 

to protect handlers. 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning respirator use requirements 

appears in § 170.207(b)(9) of the 

proposed rule. 

5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates 

the cost to employers of complying with 

the clarification of the WPS respirator 

requirements to reference the OSHA 

standard would be $10.6 million 

annually, or about $54 for agricultural 

establishments per year and $3 for 

commercial pesticide handling 

establishments per year. The cost to 

commercial pesticide handling 

establishments only reflects the cost of 

recordkeeping because EPA assumes 

that they already comply with OSHA’s 

respirator requirements because they 

engage in activities outside of the scope 

of the WPS that are covered by OSHA. 

EPA believes the cost estimates for 

agricultural establishments are very 

conservative because EPA believes that 

many establishment owners already are 

required to comply with OSHA 

requirements related to respirator use 

for other reasons. This proposal clarifies 

the existing requirement, which requires 

employers to ensure that handlers’ PPE 

fits properly and to perform proper 

maintenance. 

EPA cannot quantify the benefits 

associated with this proposal. However, 

EPA believes ensuring that handlers can 

safely use respirators and those 

respirators fit properly would increase 

effectiveness of the protections offered 

by respirators. This would ultimately 

lead to a reduction in occupational 

pesticide-related illnesses. 

6. Alternative options considered but 

not proposed. The Agency considered 

amending 40 CFR part 156, which 

addresses labeling requirements, to 

require respirator fit testing, training, 

and medical evaluation requirements in 

accordance with OSHA standard 29 CFR 

1910.134 on all labeling for pesticide 

products that require respirators other 

than filtering face pieces or dust masks. 

This proposal, however, would go 

beyond the scope of the WPS rule 

amendments, which focuses on 

agricultural pesticide use. Implementing 

this option would require changes to all 

pesticide labeling with respirator 

requirements and would likely take over 

three years to implement, based on 

necessary rulemaking for all labeling 

and the process for realizing changes on 

labeling of products in the field. The 

relabeling process would significantly 

delay protections to handlers. EPA may 

consider whether to take this action 

independently from the changes 

proposed in this proposed rule. 

The Agency also considered the 

option of only establishing these 

requirements on individual WPS 

product labeling, on a product-byproduct basis. Some proportion of the 

products covered by the WPS may 

already have these requirements on 

their labeling. For those products that 

lack the requirements, EPA recognized 

that it may take significantly longer for 

these protections to be added to 

labeling, and so opted to propose the 

revisions in part 170, where adherence 

to the OSHA standard would have the 

legal effect of labeling instructions 

without the need for re-labeling. 

XVII. Monitoring Handler Exposure to 

Cholinesterase-Inhibiting Pesticides 

1. Decision Not to Propose. EPA 

considered proposing cholinesterase 

(ChE) monitoring of handlers to support 

mitigation of handlers’ exposure to ChEinhibiting pesticides. Currently, part 

170 has no requirement to monitor ChE 

levels in workers or handlers. EPA 

believes that its product-specific risk 

assessment and registration process 

described in Unit III establishes 

adequate protections for handlers from 

undue risk of pesticide exposure. 

Additionally, other proposed changes 

proactively address some of the risks to 

handler health that have been identified 

by state-based ChE monitoring 

programs. The Agency does not believe 

that the anticipated benefits of a ChE 

monitoring program would justify the 

costs to handlers and employers and 

would be reactive, catching incidents 

after they occur rather than working to 

stop them from happening. Therefore, 

the Agency is not proposing to add a 

requirement for monitoring ChE 

inhibition in handlers at this time. 

2. Background. ChE refers to a family 

of enzymes that are critical to proper 

nerve function in insects and humans. 

ChE permits the transmission of signals 

across the space between the nerves 

called the synapse. ChE-inhibiting 

pesticides block the transmission of 

these signals, resulting in adverse 

symptoms. Acute poisoning symptoms 

include nausea, dizziness, shortness of 

breath, fatigue, excessive salivation, 

and, in extreme cases, death. Except in 

severe cases, the treatment for persons 

who have been exposed to ChEinhibiting pesticides usually involves 

removal from the work activities that 

result in the exposure. 

Organophosphate (OP) and N-methyl 

carbamate (carbamate) pesticides, which 

are widely used in agriculture, are 

known inhibitors of ChE levels in 

humans. The OPs and carbamate 

pesticides that present the highest acute 

toxicity are in EPA’s Toxicity Categories 

I and II, indicated by the signal words 

‘‘DANGER’’ and ‘‘WARNING’’, 

respectively, on the product’s label. 

Tests for ChE depression exist only for 

these types of pesticides; therefore, the 

development and implementation of a 

monitoring system would only provide 

information related to the use of a small 

subset of products, not a general 

workplace hazard monitoring program. 

An individual’s ChE level can be 

determined with a blood test. There is 

no universal normal range for ChE 

levels because baseline levels vary 

widely between individuals; therefore, 

it is important that an individual’s 

initial baseline level be established 

before exposure to ChE-inhibiting 

pesticides. Comparison of this baseline 

level to the ChE level from the handler 

post-exposure can determine the level of 

inhibition. 

Stakeholders have recommended ChE 

monitoring for handlers. In a 2006 letter 

to the Administrator, Farmworker 

Justice recommended medical 

monitoring of pesticide handlers who 

mix, load or apply Toxicity Category I 

or II OPs or carbamates for 30 hours or 

more in a 30-day period (Ref. 35). 

Some states, including California and 

Washington, have adopted rules to 

require ChE monitoring. EPA reviewed 

California and Washington State’s ChE 

monitoring rules when considering ChE 

monitoring on a national level. 

Established in 1974, the California 

Department of Pesticide Regulation 

program requires monitoring for 

handlers of OPs and carbamate products 

with the signal word ‘‘DANGER’’ or 

‘‘WARNING’’ on their labels (Ref. 94 p. 

Section 6728). For handlers who work 

with the types of pesticides listed above 

for more than 6 days in a 30-day period, 

California’s regulations require that 

employers have the handlers tested to 

establish baseline ChE levels and to 

monitor any change after handling 

activities. Employers must retain 

records of handler activities related to 

these pesticides as well. To avoid the 

expense of sending a handler for blood 

testing, California believes that many 

employers limit handlers’ exposures to 

these pesticides to less than six days in 

a 30-day period. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15501 

Washington State’s Department of 

Labor and Industries established a 

voluntary ChE monitoring system for 

handlers in 2004. Employers must offer 

the option of monitoring to the 

handlers, who may decline after they 

have received training on the hazards 

posed by ChE inhibition and a 

consultation with a health care 

practitioner. In addition, for handlers 

who use Toxicity Category I or II OP or 

carbamate pesticides, employers must: 

• Record the number of hours 

employees spend handling these 

pesticides. 

• Implement a medical monitoring 

program for handlers who could meet or 

exceed the handling threshold of 30 or 

more hours in any consecutive 30-day 

period. 

• Identify a medical provider to 

provide medical monitoring services. 

• Make baseline and periodic ChE 

testing available to employees who 

could meet or exceed the handling 

threshold. 

• Investigate work practices when a 

handler’s red blood cell (RBC) or serum 

ChE level drops more than 20 percent 

below the employee’s personal baseline. 

• Remove employees from handling 

and other exposures to organophosphate 

and N-methyl-carbamate pesticides 

when recommended by the health care 

provider. 

• Provide training on ChE monitoring 

to covered employees. 

• Report employee handling hours to 

the medical provider with each periodic 

test. 

• Maintain medical monitoring and 

other records for seven years (Ref. 95). 

For those handlers who opt for 

monitoring, the rule also requires that 

handlers with red blood cell ChE 

depressions of greater than 30% or 

serum depressions greater than 40% 

from their personal baseline be removed 

from handling the listed pesticides until 

the handler’s ChE levels have returned 

to within 20% of his or her personal 

baseline and that the employer conduct 

a work practice investigation. 

Washington State provides 

reimbursement to agricultural 

employers for testing services and 

related administrative program costs. In 

2009, Washington State reimbursed 61 

employers with $129,000 of costs (Ref. 

96 p. 3). The reimbursement costs 

included baseline testing for 2,060 

handlers and at least one additional test 

for 249 of the handlers who had a 

baseline test (Ref. 96, p. 3). 

Washington State’s Department of 

Labor and Industries ChE monitoring 

Cost Benefit Determination and Small 

Business Impact Statement identified 

the following benefits of ChE 

monitoring: 

• Prevention of illness after overexposure. 

• Increased hazard awareness and 

improve workplace safety related to 

pesticide use. 

• Improved pesticide illness 

diagnosis and reporting. 

• Greater certainty about frequency of 

pesticide over-exposure. 

• Decreased risk of unintended 

exposures to handlers’ families. 

3. Details of decision not to propose. 

After reviewing the experiences of 

Washington State and California, as well 

as the estimated costs of a national ChE 

monitoring program, the Agency has 

decided not to propose establishing a 

ChE monitoring program for handlers. 

EPA believes that the existing risk 

assessments and label-based risk 

mitigation measures, in combination 

with the proposed changes to expand 

handler training and to adopt OSHA 

respirator standards, would be sufficient 

to prevent unreasonable adverse effects 

to handlers working with OPs and 

carbamates. 

The Agency believes that Washington 

State’s efforts have identified the 

primary reasons for ChE inhibition 

among pesticide handlers. In 

Washington State, the Department of 

Labor and Industries conducts follow up 

investigations when monitoring 

indicates ChE inhibition is greater than 

20%. Review of pesticide worker 

protection programs highlighted 

potential exposure scenarios and 

violations of the WPS requirements 

including areas such as 

decontamination, PPE, and respiratory 

protection (Ref. 97). The findings from 

the follow-up suggest that in many cases 

ChE depression was caused by handlers 

not following basic safety and hygiene 

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

meals or bathroom breaks (Ref. 97, pp. 

10–11). Additionally, several handlers, 

who did wear respirators as required by 

labeling, had beards, which 

compromised the seal between the face 

and the respirator and reduced the 

protection intended to be afforded by 

the equipment. Using this information, 

Washington State developed training for 

handlers specifically on 

decontamination and proper use of PPE. 

This proposed rule would address 

Washington State’s findings by 

requiring expanded handler training 

that covers reducing take-home 

exposure, proper use and 

decontamination of PPE, and more 

frequent handler training. [See Unit 

VII.E.] The Agency is also proposing 

requirements for fit testing and training 

on proper respirator use for handlers. 

[See Unit XVI.E.] 

As a result of the reregistration 

process for the OPs and carbamates, 

revised labeling with increased 

protections is replacing the older 

labeling in the field. EPA expects that 

many of the new mitigation measures 

will result in lowered handler exposure. 

Key improvements include 

requirements for closed system mixing 

and loading, additional PPE, and 

reductions to rates of application and 

number of annual applications 

permitted. Moreover, the uses of some 

highly acutely toxic OPs are being 

phased out (Ref. 98). EPA recognizes 

that some products with the most 

current label language have not yet 

reached field users. For example, in the 

first years (2004 and 2005) of the 

Washington State program, many 

applicators were not wearing respirators 

when applying the OP pesticide Lorsban 

via air blast (Ref. 99) (Ref. 100). 

Inspectors learned that applicators were 

still using old product and the 

corresponding labeling, which did not 

require respirator use for handlers. This 

use resulted in higher exposure to the 

pesticide handlers as a result. EPA 

expects that as product labeling with 

additional risk mitigation measures 

reaches the field handlers complying 

with the new requirements would have 

a lower potential for exposure. 

EPA believes that product-specific 

risk mitigation measures combined with 

increased handler protections outlined 

in this proposal would appropriately 

address the elevated potential for ChE 

inhibition in handlers. Moreover, the 

training and PPE elements of the 

proposed rule are expected to have the 

combined effect of providing important 

protective benefits to all pesticide 

handlers through increased knowledge 

of exposure risks and prevention 

strategies, ultimately leading to a 

reduction of pesticide exposures. EPA 

favors this approach over ChE 

monitoring because it prevents handler 

exposure rather than addressing it after 

it occurs. EPA does not believe that the 

cost and burden of implementing a 

national ChE monitoring program, 

which would only identify a problem 

after the exposure has occurred, would 

be justified by the limited benefits 

achieved by removing a handler from 

the treated area once pesticide exposure 

has inhibited ChE levels. 

4. Costs and benefits. In 2003, 

Washington State developed a BenefitCost Determination document to 

estimate the costs of implementing their 

ChE monitoring program. The central 

estimated compliance cost in year one 

was $848,490, and $1,272,487 in year 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15502 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

two (Ref. 101 p. 23). The costs for which 

employers can be reimbursed under 

Washington’s program include medical 

(consultations, follow-up visits and 

procedures, and blood draws), 

recordkeeping to record handling hours 

for monitored handlers, wages for time 

spent in training for ChE monitoring, 

and mileage for travel costs associated 

with evaluations and training. The 

expenses for which employers are 

reimbursed by Washington State 

provide insight as to the costs and 

activities of the employers and handlers 

participating in the ChE program, but do 

not estimate the cost of a national ChE 

monitoring program. 

In the proposal’s ‘‘Economic Analysis 

of Proposed Revisions to the Worker 

Protection Standard,’’ the incremental 

cost of a monitoring program, based 

primarily on California’s and 

Washington’s programs, is estimated to 

be $15.2 million annually, or about $53 

per agricultural establishment per year 

and $120 per commercial pesticide 

handling establishment per year. The 

requirements of a national ChE 

monitoring program have not been 

developed sufficiently to provide a 

precise cost analysis, but it would likely 

include program components such as 

training, recordkeeping, clinical testing, 

and field investigations. The estimated 

costs do not include the states’ costs to 

build infrastructure to support ChE 

monitoring or to cover continued 

laboratory costs such as equipment 

maintenance and administrative 

support. 

For more discussion of the costs of the 

proposal, see the ‘‘Economic Analysis of 

Proposed Revisions to the Worker 

Protection Standard,’’ Chapter 3 Cost 

Analysis (Ref. 1). 

The proposed handler training and 

PPE requirements are proactive and are 

expected to prevent handler exposure 

whereas cholinesterase monitoring 

would only identify a problem after the 

exposure has occurred. As a result, EPA 

concludes that the cost of implementing 

a national cholinesterase monitoring 

program is not justified by its limited 

benefits for a subpopulation of the 

nation’s pesticide handlers. The training 

and PPE elements of the proposed rule, 

however, are expected to have the 

combined effect of providing important 

protective benefits to all pesticide 

handlers through increased knowledge 

of exposure risks and prevention 

strategies, ultimately leading to a 

reduction of pesticide exposures. 

5. Alternative options considered. 

EPA considered restricting the number 

of hours handlers may work with OPs 

and carbamates in a given timeframe 

(for example, no more than 30 hours of 

handling these pesticides over a 30-day 

period). However, EPA is not aware of 

data that would provide a basis for 

establishing this type of proposal. 

6. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically seeks feedback on its 

decision not to propose a requirement 

for mandatory ChE monitoring, 

including comment on the following 

questions: 

• Do you believe the costs and 

burdens of a national ChE monitoring 

program would be justified by the 

protections to handler health? If so, 

please provide justification. 

• Do you agree that it is more 

protective to prevent handler exposure 

than to address it after it occurs? If so, 

why? If not, do you have an alternative 

proposal to address handler exposure? 

• Does other information exist on the 

benefits or challenges of ChE monitoring 

that the Agency has not presented in 

this proposal? If so, please provide. 

XVIII. Exemptions and Exceptions 

A. Immediate Family 

1. Decision not to propose. EPA 

considered eliminating the existing 

exemption for workers and handlers 

under age 16 employed (receiving a 

wage or salary) by immediate family 

members; however, the available 

information may not be sufficient to 

support this option. Accordingly, EPA is 

not proposing to amend the immediate 

family exemption to impose any age 

requirements on establishments that 

qualify for the immediate family 

exemption to the WPS. Although the 

WPS exempts owners and their 

immediate family members from many 

provisions of the rule, EPA provides the 

exemption based upon assurances that 

owners voluntarily provide to 

immediate family members essentially 

the same protections required for 

workers and handlers covered by the 

WPS. [Note: EPA is proposing to expand 

the definition of ‘‘immediate family’’ to 

better reflect the range of familial 

relationships that could occur. See Unit 

XIX.A., for a discussion of the revised 

definition.] 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS 

exempts the owners of agricultural 

establishments from providing certain 

WPS protections to themselves and their 

immediate family members (40 CFR 

170.104(a) and 170.204(a)). Specifically, 

the agricultural establishment owner is 

exempt from complying with the 

following requirements for immediate 

family members performing tasks as 

workers: Sections of the early-entry 

restrictions; providing pesticide safety 

training or other safety information; 

cleaning, storing, and maintaining PPE; 

maintaining decontamination sites and 

supplies; providing notice of and 

specific information about applications; 

and providing emergency assistance. 

Similarly for immediate family members 

performing handler tasks, the 

agricultural establishment owner is 

exempt from the following 

requirements: Providing pesticide safety 

training and other safety information 

such as restrictions during applications, 

knowledge of labeling and site-specific 

information, and safe operation of 

equipment; ensuring proper use, 

cleaning, and maintenance of PPE and 

avoiding heat-related illness while using 

PPE; maintaining decontamination sites 

and supplies; and providing emergency 

assistance. The agricultural 

establishment owner must comply with 

all other sections of the WPS. The 

immediate family includes only the 

spouse, parents, stepparents, foster 

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

children, stepchildren, foster children, 

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

grandparents, grandchildren, brothers, 

sisters, brothers-in-law, and sisters-inlaw of the owner of the agricultural 

establishment. 

In addition, the definitions of workers 

and handlers require that they are 

employed for compensation in order to 

receive protection under the WPS. 

Therefore, any person performing 

worker or handler tasks who does not 

receive a wage or salary is not covered 

by any aspect of the WPS. 

3. Summary of the issues. Stakeholder 

feedback, reports from the GAO, the 

CHPAC and recent research have 

indicated an increased awareness of the 

need to protect all children from 

adverse health effects of pesticide 

exposure (Ref. 20) (Ref. 74) (Ref. 102) 

(Ref. 103). [See Unit V.C. and V.E.] 

During the National Assessment, EPA 

did not seek specific stakeholder 

feedback on the existing immediate 

family exemption and whether it should 

be amended. 

Input from the agricultural 

community indicates that emergency 

assistance and other protections are 

among the reasonable steps an owner of 

an agricultural establishment would 

take to protect family members. 

4. Options considered and not 

proposed. The Agency considered 

narrowing the immediate family 

exemption in two ways: (1) Limiting it 

only to immediate family members of an 

owner of an agricultural establishment 

who are at least 16 years old, and (2) 

modifying the scope of the requirements 

that are exempted by eliminating from 

the list emergency assistance for 

workers and handlers and handler 

monitoring during fumigant application. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15503 

Limiting the exemption to employed 

family members who are at least 16 

years old would not prohibit 

agricultural establishment owners from 

allowing their immediate family 

members under 16 years old to perform 

WPS tasks. The proposed definition of 

‘‘employ’’ specifies salary or wages; 

other forms of compensation are not 

included in the definition. Therefore, 

immediate family members who are 

compensated in other ways besides 

salary or wages, but not ‘‘employed’’ by 

the WPS definition, would continue to 

be exempted from certain specified 

provisions of the WPS. As under the 

current rule, any person, including 

immediate family members under 16 

years old, who does not receive a wage 

or salary would not be covered by any 

provisions of the WPS. See tables 1 

and 2. 

TABLE 1—CONSIDERED CHANGES TO THE WPS IMMEDIATE FAMILY EXEMPTION—MINIMUM AGE, EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE

AND HANDLER MONITORING DURING FUMIGANT APPLICATIONS

If the immediate family members are: Then under the considered changes, the employer: 

• Under 16 years old AND ......................................................................

• Employed on the agricultural establishment to perform WPS tasks 

(receiving a wage or salary).

• Would have to comply with all relevant provisions of the WPS (no 

immediate family exemption) for those immediate family members 

• Would no longer have an exemption from providing emergency assistance to workers and handlers and monitoring handlers during fumigant applications 

EPA acknowledges requests from a 

range of stakeholders to ensure 

protection of all children working with 

or around pesticides. Recent findings 

suggest that working with or around 

pesticides may increase potential risks 

of harm to children’s developing 

systems and that children’s maturity 

and decision-making skills are not fully 

developed. EPA believes that owners of 

agricultural establishments generally 

protect family members independent of 

government regulation. EPA believes 

that owners of agricultural 

establishments who employ only 

members of their immediate families 

have access to a variety of sources of 

information, outside the scope of the 

WPS, on how to provide adequate 

protections from pesticide exposure to 

their family members. Programs such as 

4–H and Future Farmers of America 

provide information to youth. The 

USDA’s Cooperative Extension System, 

based out of land grant universities, 

operates agricultural outreach programs 

in every state. The Cooperative 

Extension System offers formal 

outreach, such as county or state farm 

safety days, and informal outreach and 

advice to individual farmers. The 

American Farm Bureau Federation and 

affiliated state farm bureau operations 

also provide outreach on topics 

including pesticide safety to farmers 

and their families. Finally, some farm 

owners may be certified as pesticide 

applicators. Certified pesticide 

applicators must pass an exam or attend 

a training program at the state level to 

demonstrate they are competent to use 

and manage pesticides safely. In 

addition, certified applicators are 

required to complete continuing 

education, which includes information 

and reminders about using pesticides 

safely and protecting others from 

pesticide exposure. It is not clear from 

the available information that the 

burdens associated with narrowing the 

existing exemption would produce 

commensurate risk reductions. 

Although EPA has not proposed 

changing the existing exemption from 

the requirement to provide certain WPS 

protections to immediate family 

members, EPA is requesting comment 

on this issue. 

EPA also considered eliminating the 

current exemption at § 170.204(a)(i) in 

the case of immediate family members 

who are handling highly toxic 

pesticides or working in enclosed 

fumigated areas. EPA believes that 

owners of agricultural establishments 

generally protect family members 

independent of government regulation. 

It is not clear from the available 

information that the burdens associated 

with narrowing the existing exemption 

would produce commensurate risk 

reductions. Although EPA has not 

proposed eliminating the current 

exemption in the case of immediate 

family members who are handling 

highly toxic pesticides or working in 

enclosed fumigated areas, EPA is 

requesting comment on this issue. 

Lastly, EPA considered eliminating 

the exemption for establishment owners 

to provide emergency assistance for 

immediate family members who are 

workers or handlers. In the event of a 

pesticide poisoning, certain symptoms, 

such as respiratory distress, need to be 

addressed promptly to avoid more 

serious problems, such as heart failure 

or an inability to breathe. Again, the 

Agency recognizes that establishment 

owners working with immediate family 

members have a vested interest in their 

family members’ well being. EPA 

believes that additional regulation is not 

necessary to ensure that immediate 

family members who are workers or 

handlers receive assistance in the event 

of a pesticide-related emergency. It is 

not clear from the available information 

that the burdens associated with 

narrowing the existing exemption 

would produce commensurate risk 

reductions. Although EPA has not 

proposed eliminating the current 

exemption to providing emergency 

assistance to workers and handlers, EPA 

is requesting comment on this issue. 

5. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

immediate family exemptions in the 

WPS. 

• Would this requirement have a 

different impact on small farms than on 

larger establishments? If so, please 

explain the likely impact. 

• Does exempting agricultural 

establishment owners from the 

requirements to provide certain 

protections to immediate family 

members present unreasonable risks to 

family members who are under 16 years 

old? 

• What would be the impact of 

limiting the immediate family 

exemption to family members who are 

at least 16 years old and who are 

employed by the owner? 

• How many agricultural 

establishments would be affected if EPA 

decided to limit the exemption to 

immediate family members at least 16 

years old? 

B. Crop Advisors and Employees 

1. Overview. The existing WPS allows 

exemptions from some requirements for 

crop advisors and their employees. The 

Agency proposes to eliminate 

exemptions from protections for 

employees directly supervised by 

certified or licensed crop advisors. The 

Agency also proposes to eliminate the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15504 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

exemption from the worker 

decontamination and emergency 

assistance provisions for certified or 

licensed crop advisors employed as 

workers on agricultural establishments. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS 

allows crop advisor tasks to be 

conducted during pesticide application 

and during subsequent REIs. 

As outlined in 40 CFR 170.5, crop 

advisor tasks include assessing pest 

numbers or damage, pesticide 

distribution, or the status or 

requirements of agricultural plants, but 

not performing hand labor tasks. When 

performing crop advising tasks after the 

REI has expired or performing hand 

labor tasks, and employed by the 

agricultural establishment, a crop 

advisor is considered a worker under 

the WPS. A person employed by a 

commercial pesticide handling 

establishment performing crop advising 

tasks after expiration of an REI is not 

subject to any provisions of the rule. 

The WPS exempts the employer from 

complying with some handler 

requirements when the employee 

performs crop advising tasks during an 

REI and that is a certified or licensed 

crop advisor or directly supervised by a 

certified or licensed crop advisor. To 

qualify for this exemption, the crop 

advisor certification or licensing 

program must include, at a minimum, 

all information listed under handler 

training, 40 CFR 170.230(c)(4). Under 

the current WPS, the certified crop 

advisor must make specific 

determinations regarding the 

appropriate PPE, decontamination and 

safe method of conduct for those 

working under his or her direct 

supervision. This information, as well 

as information regarding the product, 

method and time of application, REI, 

tasks, and contact information, must be 

conveyed by the certified crop advisor 

to each person under his supervision. 

Currently, the WPS exempts employers 

from complying with worker 

requirements such as providing 

decontamination supplies and 

emergency assistance for certified or 

licensed crop advisors and persons they 

directly supervise. 

3. Summary of the issues. State 

regulatory agencies and their 

representatives have expressed concerns 

with the current crop advisor 

exemptions, noting that those working 

under the supervision of the crop 

advisors may be unaware of the risks 

posed by pesticides. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

The Agency proposes to limit this 

exemption to crop advisors only, 

eliminating from the exemption 

employees directly supervised by 

certified or licensed crop advisors. The 

Agency believes employees who are not 

certified or licensed as crop advisors but 

who are performing crop advising tasks 

may be unable to make appropriate 

judgments regarding personal risk 

because they are not required to receive 

information about the risks of working 

around pesticide-treated areas and how 

to protect themselves from exposure. 

If a person performs crop advising 

activities under the supervision of a 

certified crop advisor, he or she may not 

understand the factors influencing the 

risks well enough to take appropriate 

protective measures or to alert the 

supervising crop advisor to observations 

that could alter the initial decisions 

about the protective measures to be 

taken. 

The Agency also proposes to 

eliminate the exemption for certified or 

licensed crop advisors employed as 

workers on agricultural establishments 

from the worker decontamination and 

emergency assistance provisions. While 

EPA believes this exemption applies to 

a small number of people it is important 

that all workers on agricultural 

establishments have access to 

decontamination supplies and 

emergency assistance. 

The rule would retain the exemption 

for certified or licensed crop advisors to 

enter and perform crop advising tasks 

during an REI. 

The Agency has discussed these 

exemptions with the National Alliance 

of Independent Crop Consultants 

(NAICC). NAICC representatives 

indicated that entry to perform crop 

advising tasks during an REI is a rare 

event, especially for persons who are 

not certified or licensed crop advisors 

(Ref. 104). Overall, the Agency believes 

that the proposed revision would not 

have a significant impact on the 

majority of crop advisors. 

The proposed regulatory text 

concerning the crop advisor exemption 

appears in § 170.301(b) of the proposed 

rule. 

5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates 

the cost of amending the exemption for 

crop advisors would be $1,400, or less 

than $0.01 per establishment. NAICC 

representatives noted that there may be 

some cost to provide the WPS 

protections to currently-exempt 

supervised employees. The Agency 

believes that there are few certified crop 

advisors retained directly by 

agricultural establishments. For a 

discussion of the costs of the proposals 

and alternatives, see the ‘‘Economic 

Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the 

Worker Protection Standard,’’ Chapter 3 

Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

6. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Should EPA consider an alternative 

to this proposal? If so, what alternative 

and why? 

• Should EPA require specific 

training for the employees of crop 

advisors to ensure that they understand 

the risks of entering and working in 

areas treated with pesticides? If so, 

please provide specific information on 

the type of training and anticipated 

benefit to crop advisor employees. Also, 

please comment on whether a crop 

adviser’s employees, who have received 

such training, should be exempt from 

the WPS requirements for provisions for 

decontamination supplies and 

emergency assistance and from 

following the labeling requirements for 

PPE for early entry. 

C. Revise the Exception to the 

Requirement for Workers To Be Fully 

Trained Before Entering PesticideTreated Areas 

1. Overview. For workers who are not 

performing early-entry activities, the 

existing WPS allows employers to delay 

training until before work begins on the 

6th day of entry into a treated area 

providing the full required pesticide 

safety training to workers performing 

WPS-covered activities (referred to as 

the ‘‘grace period’’). During the grace 

period, the current WPS requires 

agricultural employers to provide an 

abbreviated training covering two major 

points: Where pesticides may be 

encountered and how to prevent 

pesticides from entering a worker’s 

body. In order to balance the need for 

workers to receive sufficient 

information to protect themselves and 

the need for agricultural employers to 

have flexibility in employing workers, 

EPA proposes to shorten the grace 

period to two days and to require that 

workers receive training on protecting 

themselves and their families from 

pesticide exposure prior to entering a 

pesticide-treated area during the grace 

period. In essence, this exception to the 

general requirement that all workers be 

fully trained prior to entering a 

pesticide-treated area to perform WPS 

tasks would allow agricultural 

employers who have provided workers 

with certain essential safety information 

to direct those workers to perform WPS 

tasks for no more than 2 days before 

providing them with the full WPS 

pesticide safety training, and require the 

employer to maintain records of the 

information transfer for 2 years. The 

agricultural employer would be required 

to provide each such worker full 

pesticide safety training before allowing 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15505 

the worker to enter a treated area for a 

third day. This proposal would provide 

the agricultural employer with the 

flexibility to choose whether to provide 

workers with full pesticide safety 

training immediately upon employment 

or to utilize the 2 day grace period, 

provided they comply with the 

conditions of the exception. EPA 

expects this change would improve 

workers’ understanding of the risks they 

may face and how to protect themselves 

when they work in areas treated with 

WPS-covered pesticides, while 

maintaining flexibility for agricultural 

employers. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. When 

EPA was developing the 1992 WPS, 

agricultural employers argued that they 

needed a training grace period because 

qualified trainers were not available in 

sufficient numbers to meet the need for 

worker training. To accommodate the 

need for flexibility for agricultural 

employers and in recognition of the 

high turnover in the workforce on some 

establishments, EPA adopted the grace 

period. The 1992 rule allowed 

agricultural employers to direct workers 

to perform work in pesticide-treated 

areas for up to 15 days before the 

employer was required to provide the 

full pesticide safety training outlined in 

§ 170.130 (57 FR 38151; August 21, 

1992). On January 1, 1996, EPA reduced 

the grace period to 5 days (60 FR 21944; 

May 3, 1995). 

Under 40 CFR 170.130(a)(3)(ii), 

agricultural employers may direct 

workers to perform work (except for 

early-entry activities) in areas that, 

within the last 30 days, have been 

treated with a pesticide bearing a label 

requiring compliance with the WPS or 

have been under an REI for such 

pesticide for up to 5 days before the 

employer must provide the full 

pesticide safety training outlined in 40 

CFR 170.130. During the grace period, 

employers must inform workers of the 

following points: 

• Pesticides may be on or in plants, 

soil, irrigation water, or drifting from 

nearby applications; 

• Prevent pesticides from entering 

your body by: 

—Following directions and/or signs 

about keeping out of treated or 

restricted areas. 

— Washing before eating, drinking, 

using chewing gum or tobacco, or 

using the toilet. 

—Wearing work clothing that protects 

the body from pesticide residues. 

—Washing/showering with soap and 

water, shampoo hair, and put on clean 

clothes after work. 

—Washing work clothes separately from 

other clothes before wearing them 

again. 

—Washing immediately in the nearest 

clean water if pesticides are spilled or 

sprayed on the body. As soon as 

possible, shower, shampoo, and 

change into clean clothes. 

• Further training will be provided 

within 5 days. 

See 40 CFR 170.130(c). Before the 6th 

day that workers remain on the 

establishment working in areas that, 

within the last 30 days, have been 

treated with a pesticide bearing a label 

requiring compliance with the WPS or 

have been under an REI for such 

pesticide, the agricultural employer 

must provide the full pesticide safety 

training. 

3. Summary of the issues. 

Stakeholders, including Farmworker 

Justice and Migrant Clinicians Network, 

have repeatedly raised concerns for 

workers entering the pesticide-treated 

treated areas without receiving the full 

pesticide safety training (Ref. 35). They 

noted that the basic safety information 

provided prior to entry into a treated 

area does not describe the hazards 

associated with pesticides, how to 

recognize pesticide poisoning 

symptoms, or how to access emergency 

medical care. The lack of information 

may be of particular concern for workers 

performing tasks in recently treated 

areas or adjacent to an area being treated 

because they may not know what to do 

if they are sprayed or feel sick. 

Stakeholders also noted that a worker 

may be employed for fewer than 5 days 

on each of a series of farms and, as a 

result, may be at risk of significant 

pesticide exposure without ever 

receiving the full pesticide safety 

training. This situation is especially 

likely to occur during harvest periods, 

as workers may move from one farm to 

another as the harvest is completed, 

resulting in potentially large numbers of 

workers exposed to pesticides without 

full safety training. 

Many of the SERs consulted by the 

SBAR panel requested that EPA retain 

the current 5 day grace period (Ref. 18, 

p. 21). They noted that employers have 

many legal obligations related to hiring 

a new employee, and pesticide worker 

safety training is just one element. In 

comments submitted to EPA, SERs 

informed EPA that the grace period 

offered agricultural employers flexibility 

about when to provide full training to 

workers without negatively impacting 

the performing of WPS tasks essential to 

agricultural production. 

OSHA requires that employers 

provide training on potential chemical 

hazards that employees may face in the 

workplace before allowing employees to 

enter the area to begin work. These 

standards require employers to provide 

hazard information to workers before 

they begin any tasks that may expose 

them to a hazardous material or activity, 

rather than allowing them to work for a 

period before receiving the hazard 

information. See, e.g., the training 

requirements for employees that may 

encounter lead, 29 CFR 1962.62(l)(1), 

asbestos, 29 CFR 1926.1127(m)(4), and 

cadmium, 29 CFR 1926.1101(k)(9). 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

The exception would allow agricultural 

employers to postpone providing full 

pesticide training for up to 2 days after 

the worker begins work in WPS-covered 

areas. In order to qualify for the 

exception, agricultural employers would 

be required to provide certain safety 

information, which would incorporate 

both the information currently required 

by the regulation and additional 

content, to workers in a language and 

manner they understand before workers 

perform any WPS tasks in a treated area. 

Agricultural employers would also be 

required to maintain records of the 

information provided to workers for 2 

years. Finally, agricultural employers 

would be required to provide the full 

pesticide safety training to workers 

before sending them into any treated 

area for a third day where within the 

last 30 days a pesticide product bearing 

a label requiring compliance with the 

WPS has been used, or an REI for such 

a pesticide has been in effect. 

EPA believes that if the shortened 

grace period is adopted, it is likely to 

reduce the number of workers that may 

be exposed to pesticides without having 

the benefit of the full safety training. 

EPA proposes to re-characterize the 

grace period as an exception to the 

requirement that employers provide 

workers the full pesticide safety training 

before the worker may enter a pesticidetreated area. EPA believes that the 

shortened grace period and the 

requirement that employers provide 

certain basic safety information to 

workers before they enter a treated area 

(detailed below), and requiring 

recordkeeping would balance the need 

for workers to be informed about risks 

to which they may be exposed and the 

need for agricultural employers to have 

some flexibility regarding pesticide 

safety training. EPA believes recharacterizing the grace period as an 

exception would also make the 

regulation easier to understand. 

In order to utilize the proposed 

exception, agricultural employers would 

need to provide certain safety 

information to the workers in a language 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15506 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

and manner they understand before the 

workers enter any pesticide-treated area. 

The required information would cover 

four areas: (1) Employer responsibilities 

for providing worker protections, (2) 

information about potential hazards in 

the workplace, (3) how to protect 

oneself from pesticide exposure and 

hazards in the workplace, and (4) 

emergency first aid procedures for 

pesticide poisonings or injuries. Under 

the four areas, the full list of topics to 

be conveyed to workers would be: 

Employer Responsibilities for Providing 

Worker Protections 

—Agricultural employers are required to 

provide workers with information and 

protections designed to reduce workrelated pesticide exposures and 

illnesses. This includes providing 

pesticide safety information to 

workers before being directed to work 

in pesticide treated areas if they have 

not received full pesticide safety 

training; providing full pesticide 

safety training to workers before their 

3rd day of work in pesticide treated 

areas; providing pesticide hazard 

information for products used on the 

establishment, decontamination 

supplies, and emergency medical 

assistance, and notifying workers of 

restrictions during applications and 

on entering pesticide treated areas. 

—Agricultural employers must inform 

workers how to recognize and 

understand the meaning of the 

warning sign used for notifying 

workers of restrictions on entering 

pesticide treated areas on the 

establishment. Workers must follow 

employer directions and/or signs 

about keeping out of entry restricted 

or pesticide treated areas. 

—Agricultural employers must not 

allow or direct any worker who has 

not received full pesticide safety 

training and additional early entry 

worker notification to work in any 

area that is currently under an REI. 

Employers must comply with 

minimum age restrictions and 

notification requirements in order to 

direct workers to perform early-entry 

activities. 

—Agricultural employers must not 

allow or direct any worker to mix, 

load, or apply pesticides or assist in 

the application of pesticides unless 

the worker has been trained as a 

handler. 

—Agricultural employers are prohibited 

from intimidating, threatening, 

coercing, or discriminating against 

any worker for the purposes of 

interfering with any attempt to 

comply with the requirements of this 

part, or because the worker has made 

a complaint, testified, assisted, or 

participated in any manner in an 

investigation, proceeding, or hearing 

pursuant to this part. 

Information About Potential Pesticide 

Hazards in the Workplace 

—There are potential sources of 

pesticide exposure on agricultural 

establishments and pesticides and/or 

pesticide residues may be 

encountered during work activities. 

This includes pesticides drifting from 

nearby applications, and that 

pesticide residues may be on or in 

plants, soil, irrigation water, tractors, 

application equipment, or used 

personal protective equipment. 

—Pesticides can cause illness or injury 

if they enter your body. Pesticides can 

enter the body by getting them on 

your skin or in your eyes, by 

swallowing them, or by breathing in 

their vapors. 

—There are potential hazards from 

toxicity and exposure that pesticides 

present to workers, including acute 

and chronic illnesses/effects, delayed 

effects, and sensitization. 

—There are potential hazards to 

children and pregnant women from 

pesticide exposure. 

How to Protect Yourself From Pesticide 

Exposure and Hazards in the Workplace 

—When working near pesticides or in 

pesticide treated areas, wear work 

clothing that protects the body from 

pesticide residues and always wash 

hands before eating, drinking, using 

chewing gum or tobacco, or using the 

toilet. 

—Wash or shower with soap and water, 

shampoo hair, and change into clean 

clothes as soon as possible after 

working near or in pesticide treated 

areas. 

—There are potential hazards from the 

pesticide residues that may be on 

work clothing. Wash work clothes 

before wearing them again, and 

always wash work clothes separately 

from other clothes. 

Emergency First Aid Procedures for 

Pesticide Poisonings or Injuries 

—Pesticides may cause skin rashes or 

hurt your eyes, nose or throat. 

Pesticides can make you feel sick in 

different ways, such as headache or 

dizziness, muscles pain or cramps, 

nausea or vomiting, sweating, 

drooling, fatigue, or trouble breathing. 

—Wash immediately in the nearest 

clean water if pesticides are spilled or 

sprayed on the body and as soon as 

possible, shower, shampoo hair, and 

change into clean clothes. If a 

pesticide gets in your eyes, hold them 

open and rinse with a gentle stream 

of cool water. Rinse eyes for 15 

minutes if possible. 

—If you or someone you work with gets 

sick while working, tell your 

employer right away. If you suspect 

you have been injured or made ill 

from pesticides, get medical help as 

soon as possible. If you have been 

injured from pesticides while 

working, your employer must provide 

emergency transportation to a nearby 

medical facility and provide 

information about the pesticide or 

pesticides that may have made you 

sick. 

After the employer provides the 

workers with the safety information in 

a language and manner they understand, 

the employer must create a record of the 

information provided and provide a 

copy of the record to the worker. The 

record would include the safety 

information conveyed to the worker, an 

affirmation that the worker has been 

provide a copy of the safety information 

sheet and that the information was 

communicated to the worker orally in a 

language the worker understands, the 

worker’s name, signature, date of birth, 

the date the information was provided, 

the employer’s name, and employer’s 

phone number or phone number of the 

establishment. The employer can have 

all workers sign the record and 

acknowledgement before providing 

copies to each worker. 

Finally, EPA is committed to 

protecting vulnerable populations. 

Workers face risk of occupational 

exposure to pesticides. Through this 

proposed change, EPA seeks to mitigate 

the elevated risk associated with 

entering a treated area without training 

on what pesticide risks may be 

encountered in the workplace and how 

to protect oneself from pesticide 

exposure. EPA believes this proposal is 

consistent with the principles of 

environmental justice, providing a 

population that may face 

disproportionate risks of exposure based 

on the nature of their tasks, limited 

understanding of English, low literacy, 

and low education level with 

information in advance of the potential 

for exposure. 

The proposed regulatory text 

establishing a 2 day grace period, 

altering the requirements for training 

under the grace period, and establishing 

a requirement to maintain records for 2 

years appears in § 170.309 of the 

proposed rule. 

5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates 

that replacing the current 5-day grace 

period with the proposed 2-day 

exception to the requirement for 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15507 

employers to provide full pesticide 

safety training to workers before 

directing workers to enter a pesticide 

treated area would cost $2.3 million, or 

about $6 per agricultural establishment. 

This cost estimate does not include 

recordkeeping; the cost of the 

recordkeeping for worker training is 

discussed in Unit VII.B. For a complete 

discussion of the costs of the proposals 

and alternatives, see the ‘‘Economic 

Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the 

Worker Protection Standard,’’ Chapter 3 

Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

EPA could not estimate specific 

benefits associated with this proposal. 

However, EPA believes that providing 

certain safety information to workers 

before they perform WPS tasks and 

shortening the interval before they 

receive full training would decrease the 

number of occupational pesticiderelated illnesses because workers would 

be better informed on how to protect 

themselves before entering a pesticidetreated area. 

6. Alternative options considered but 

not proposed. As an alternative, EPA is 

considering eliminating the grace 

period. Under this option, agricultural 

employers would be required to provide 

all workers with full pesticide training 

before sending them into any treated 

area where within the last 30 days a 

pesticide product bearing a label 

requiring compliance with the WPS has 

been used, or an REI for such a pesticide 

has been in effect. Eliminating the grace 

period would ensure that all workers are 

fully trained on how to protect both 

themselves and their family members 

before entering an area covered by the 

WPS. The estimated cost for eliminating 

the grace period for worker training 

would be $2.8 million, or about $7 per 

establishment. The increased cost comes 

from the employer having to provide 

full pesticide safety training sessions 

every time workers enter the 

establishment to perform WPS tasks, 

rather than waiting and holding a larger 

training session for workers hired over 

a period of a few days. EPA does not 

have sufficient data to compare the 

benefits of providing the pesticide safety 

training before workers enter the treated 

area to ensure that workers are fully 

prepared and aware of the potential 

risks they may encounter in the 

workplace, and the costs that 

agricultural employers might incur if 

the grace period were eliminated. 

Information exists that supports the 

alternative option to eliminate the grace 

period entirely. First, the number of 

trainers may be sufficient. EPA reduced 

the grace period from 15 to 5 days over 

10 years ago in recognition that 

employers had less difficulty finding 

someone to provide pesticide safety 

training to workers. Based on significant 

outreach and support provided by EPA 

to training organizations, such as AFOP, 

sufficient trainers may be available 

nationally to meet the needs of 

agricultural employers without a grace 

period. Second, 90% of workers report 

employment by 1 or 2 establishments a 

year (Ref. 3, p. 23). Employers now may 

deal with less worker turnover and 

therefore may not need to provide 

multiple trainings throughout the year. 

The lower burden on employers makes 

the call for a grace period less 

compelling. Lastly, small business 

representatives advised EPA that they 

generally provide training to workers 

upon employment to comply with other 

regulations or for general orientation 

(Ref. 18). Under the proposal for worker 

pesticide safety training, once a worker 

is trained in a particular year, he or she 

would receive a record of the training to 

show subsequent employers, thereby 

eliminating the need for subsequent 

employers to repeat the training. 

EPA notes that OSHA requires 

employers in almost all industries to 

notify their workers of the hazards that 

may be encountered in the workplace 

before the work begins (29 CFR 

1910.1200(h)). This requirement has 

been in place since 1983. OSHA 

established the standard based on the 

belief that, without adequate knowledge 

of the potential dangers in the 

workplace, workers would not be able to 

take protective measures or avoid 

hazards (52 FR 31852; August 24, 

1987)(59 FR 6126; February 9, 1994) 

(Ref. 63). 

7. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following: 

• Supply of trainers and how quickly 

they can be available. 

• Frequency of hiring new workers 

during the year. 

• Evidence about the frequency of 

illness for workers who receive basic vs. 

full pesticide safety training. 

• Should EPA eliminate the grace 

period? Why or why not? 

• What would be the impact of 

eliminating the grace period on 

agricultural employers, trainers, and/or 

workers? 

• What would be the impact of a 

shorter grace period on agricultural 

employers and trainers? 

• Would retaining a shorter grace 

period as proposed negatively impact 

workers? If so, how? 

• Should EPA retain the current 5 day 

grace period or reduce the grace period 

to 3 or 4 days? If EPA reduces the grace 

period to 3 or 4 days, what would be the 

relative impacts on agricultural 

employers and workers as compared to 

the proposed reduced grace period of 2 

days? 

XIX. General Revisions to the WPS 

A. Improved Definitions 

The Agency proposes to revise 40 CFR 

170.3 by revising certain definitions to 

provide greater clarity, by adding 

several new definitions, and by 

eliminating several unnecessary 

definitions. EPA believes that improved 

definitions would reduce the likelihood 

of alternative interpretations, while 

improving compliance and 

enforceability. 

The Agency believes these proposed 

revisions to the definitions adopt more 

widely used and commonly accepted 

‘‘plain English’’ language, and add 

clarity and consistency to the rule. The 

proposed revisions to the definitions 

also help address regulatory or policy 

issues raised by state regulatory partners 

and other program stakeholders. The 

Agency does not believe the proposed 

revisions to the definitions will add new 

regulatory requirements on the 

regulated community or substantially 

increase regulatory burden. 

The following definitions appear in 

§ 170.5 of the proposed rule. 

1. Revised definitions. The Agency 

proposes to revise the following existing 

definitions: ‘‘agricultural employer,’’ 

‘‘agricultural establishment,’’ 

‘‘agricultural plant,’’ ‘‘commercial 

pesticide handling establishment,’’ 

‘‘crop advisor,’’ ‘‘farm,’’ ‘‘hand labor,’’ 

‘‘handler,’’ ‘‘handler employer,’’ 

‘‘immediate family,’’ ‘‘nursery,’’ and 

‘‘worker.’’ 

The Agency proposes to change the 

existing definition of ‘‘immediate 

family’’ as follows: ‘‘. . . includes only 

spouse, parents, stepparents, foster 

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

children, stepchildren, foster children, 

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

grandparents, grandchildren, brothers, 

sisters, brothers-in-law, and sisters-inlaw.’’ The remaining revisions to the 

existing definitions are simply intended 

to clarify those terms, rather than 

substantively alter them. Substantive 

changes to the immediate family 

exemption considered but not proposed 

are discussed in Unit XVIII.A. 

2. New definitions. The Agency also 

proposes to add the following new 

definitions: ‘‘authorized representative,’’ 

‘‘closed system,’’ ‘‘commercial pesticide 

handler employer,’’ ‘‘commercial 

production,’’ ‘‘enclosed space 

production,’’ ‘‘employ,’’ ‘‘enclosed cab,’’ 

‘‘entry-restricted area,’’ ‘‘forest 

operation,’’ ‘‘labor contractor,’’ ‘‘outdoor 

production,’’ ‘‘personal protective 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15508 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

equipment,’’ ‘‘safety data sheet,’’ ‘‘use,’’ 

and ‘‘worker housing area.’’ 

As an example of the changes to the 

definitions, the Agency proposes to 

define ‘‘employ’’ as the receipt of either 

wages or salary for work. Under the 

current rule, a person is covered by the 

WPS if he or she receives any type of 

compensation. Current interpretations 

of compensation include students 

receiving credits and garden club 

members receiving benefits such as 

coffee and cake at meetings. The 

proposed definition would limit WPS 

coverage to only those who receive pay 

and perform worker or handler tasks 

when a pesticide has been applied or an 

REI in effect on the establishment 

within the past 30 days. 

3. Definitions to be deleted. The 

Agency proposes to delete the definition 

of ‘‘greenhouse’’ because it is no longer 

necessary as a result of the proposed 

addition of ‘‘enclosed space 

production.’’ The agency also proposes 

to delete the definition of ‘‘forest’’ 

because it is being replaced with ‘‘forest 

operation.’’ Additional details regarding 

significant proposed definition changes 

are discussed above. 

4. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• What impact do you expect on 

employers, workers, handlers, or other 

stakeholders as a result of replacing the 

terms ‘‘farms,’’ ‘‘forests,’’ ‘‘nurseries,’’ 

and ‘‘greenhouses’’ with the terms 

‘‘outdoor production’’ and ‘‘enclosed 

space production’’? 

• What are the impacts of revising the 

definition of ‘‘immediate family’’? 

• Should EPA consider including 

cousins in the definition of immediate 

family? Why or why not? 

• What are the impacts of adding a 

definition of ‘‘employ’’? 

• What are the impacts of adding a 

definition of ‘‘authorized 

representative’’? 

• Are there other terms that the 

Agency should consider clarifying, 

redefining, or eliminating from the rule? 

If so, please provide detail about the 

term(s) and rationale for change. 

B. Restructuring of Part 170 

In order to improve clarity and 

implement the principles of using plain 

language in regulations, EPA proposes 

to reorganize the structure of part 170 

and to rename the rule. EPA expects the 

revised part 170 will be easier to read 

and understand, thereby improving 

compliance by worker and handler 

employers. 

1. Existing part 170. Part 170, the 

Worker Protection Standard, is 

organized into three subparts: ‘‘General 

Provisions,’’ ‘‘Standard for Workers,’’ 

and ‘‘Standard for Handlers.’’ Often, 

content that applies to both workers and 

handlers is repeated in two sections. 

The exemptions and exceptions are 

listed throughout the rule. EPA has 

received feedback from states, 

farmworker groups, employers, trainers, 

and other stakeholder groups that part 

170 is difficult to follow (Ref. 44). 

2. Details of the proposed rule. EPA 

proposes to rename the regulation 

‘‘Requirements for Protection of 

Agricultural Workers and Pesticide 

Handlers.’’ The proposal would 

reorganize the rule into four subparts: 

‘‘General Provisions,’’ ‘‘Requirements 

for Protection of Agricultural Workers,’’ 

‘‘Requirements for Protection of 

Pesticide Handlers,’’ and ‘‘Exemptions 

and Exceptions.’’ The ‘‘General 

Provisions’’ subpart would describe 

certain obligations for agricultural 

employers, handler employers, and 

those requirements that apply to both. 

The subparts ‘‘Requirements for 

Protection of Agricultural Workers’’ and 

‘‘Requirements for Protection of 

Pesticide Handlers’’ would provide 

information that supplements the 

general duties and obligations for 

employers and outline the content of the 

training and decontamination supplies 

that the employer must provide for 

workers and handlers respectively. 

Finally, EPA consolidated most of the 

exceptions and exemptions into a 

separate subpart to make them easier to 

find and reference. 

EPA believes that the restructured 

rule will facilitate better understanding 

of the rule by employers and state and 

tribal regulatory agencies. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Is the restructuring clearer and 

easier to read and understand? 

• Are there other ways that part 170 

could be simplified or made clearer? If 

so, please provide suggested language 

and rationale. 

XX. Implementation of this Proposal 

EPA proposes to make the final rule 

effective 60 days after the date of 

publication in the Federal Register; 

however, compliance with certain 

provisions, including the additional 

pesticide safety training content and 

pesticide safety information and new 

signs for posting, would not be required 

until 2 years after the publication date 

of the final rule. The 2 year delay 

between publication of the final rule 

and the effective date of the changes 

would give state and tribal regulators, 

employers, trainers, and other 

stakeholders time to make the necessary 

changes to their daily activities and for 

materials and signs to be developed and 

made available. EPA expects that 

employers would need new signs and 

training materials to transition to new 

requirements. State regulators would 

need to become familiar with the new 

regulation and conduct outreach to the 

regulated community. 

Trainers would have to become 

familiar with the additional training 

content, to ensure that they meet any 

eligibility requirements, and to obtain 

new training materials. EPA recognizes 

that training materials that comply with 

the proposed expanded content must be 

available before the effective date of the 

new training requirements. Therefore, 

EPA has linked the effective date of the 

implementation of the proposed 

additional pesticide safety training 

requirements for workers and handlers 

to an announcement of availability of 

materials that satisfy the new 

requirements in the Federal Register. If 

EPA announces the availability of the 

materials sooner than18 months after 

the effective date of the final rule, then 

the new training requirements would go 

into effect 2 years after the effective date 

of the final rule. If EPA announces the 

availability of materials that comply 

with the proposed requirements more 

than 18 months after the effective date 

of the final rule, then the proposed 

training requirements would not take 

effect until 180 days after the 

announcement of availability publishes 

in the Federal Register. 

To facilitate implementation, EPA 

plans to issue a ‘‘how to comply’’ 

guidance document at the time the final 

rule is published, to develop and 

disseminate new training materials, to 

conduct outreach to all potentially 

affected parties, and to provide 

assistance to states. 

EPA specifically requests comment on 

the following questions: 

• Please provide input on how to 

measure the efficacy of the revised WPS 

once implemented. Describe specific 

data elements and how EPA could use 

them to determine whether the revised 

regulation is effective. 

• What data would help to evaluate 

the impacts (costs) and benefits of the 

rule after implementation? Describe 

specific data elements and how EPA 

could use them to evaluate the costs and 

benefits of the rule. 

• If EPA evaluates the effectiveness 

and/or the impacts and benefits of the 

rule, what timeframe should be used to 

conduct the evaluation, e.g., should EPA 

begin a review after the rule is fully 

implemented or a specific time period 

after full implementation? For how long 

should EPA conduct the evaluation? 

Please provide additional information 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15509 

on methodology that could be used to 

conduct any evaluation. 

XXI. Reference List 

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Office of Pesticide Programs. 2013. Economic 

Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker 

Protection Standard. Washington, DC. 

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

Pesticide Illnesses Associated with Off-Target 

Pesticide Drift from Agricultural 

Applications.’’ Environ Health Perspect 119 

(2011):1162–1169. 

3. U.S. Department of Labor. Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Policy. Office of 

Programmatic Policy. 2005. Findings From 

the National Agricultural Workers Survey 

(NAWS) 2001–2002: A Demographic and 

Employment Profile of United States Farm 

Workers. Research Report No. 9. 

4. S. Rep. No. 92–883 (Part II), 92nd 

Congress, 2nd Session at 43–46 (1972). U.S. 

Code Congressional and Administrative 

News 1972, p. 4063. 

5. Rosenbaum, S and Shin, P. ‘‘Migrant and 

Seasonal Farmworkers: Health Insurance 

Coverage and Access to Care.’’ The Kaiser 

Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. 

May 3, 2005. Pub no. 7314. 

6. Kandel, W. 2008. Profile of Hired 

Farmworkers, A 2008 Update. Economic 

Research Report No. 60. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. Economic Research Service. 

7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Office of Pesticide Programs. 2007. OPP 

Report on Incident Information: The 

Baseline. 

8. Harchelroad, F, et al. ‘‘Treated vs. 

Reported Toxic Exposures: Discrepancies 

Between a Poison Control Center and a 

Member Hospital.’’ Vet Hum Toxicol 32 

(1990): 156–159. 

9. Chafee-Bahamon, C, Caplan, DL and 

Lovejoy, Jr, FH. ‘‘Patterns in Hospitals’ Use 

of a Regional Poison Information Center.’’ 

Am J Public Health 73 (1983): 396–400. 

10. Veltri, JC, McElwee, NE and 

Schumacher, MC. ‘‘Interpretation and uses of 

data collection in poison control centers in 

the United States.’’ Med Toxicol Adverse 

Drug Exp 2 no.6 (1987): 389–397. 

11. Calvert, G M, et al. ‘‘Acute pesticide 

poisoning among agricultural workers in the 

United States, 1998–2005.’’ American J Ind 

Med 51, no. 12 (December 2008): 883–898. 

12. Reigart, JR and Roberts, JR. 1999. 

Recognition and Management of Pesticide 

Poisonings. 5th Ed. U. S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide 

Programs. EPA# 735–R–98–003. 

13. Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration. Inspection Procedures for 

the Hazard Communication Standard, 29 

CFR 1910.1200, 1915.99, 1917.28, 1918.90, 

1926.59, and 1928.21. March 20, 1998. CPL 

02–02–038. 

14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

‘‘Agricultural Worker Protection Standard 40 

CFR Parts 156 & 170 Interpretive Policy, 

Question and Answers Web site.’’ Retrieved 

August 25, 2011. http://www.epa.gov/

pesticides/safety/workers/

wpsinterpolicy.htm. 

15. ARI/EPA General Training Issues 

Workgroup. 2003. Recommendations to the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for 

Improving Farmworker Pesticide Safety 

Training From the ARI/EPA General Training 

Issues Workgroup. 

16. Council for Agricultural Sciences and 

Technology and U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide 

Programs. 2004. Train the Trainer Pilot 

Project Final Report. 

17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Office of Pesticide Programs. 2005. Report on 

the National Assessment of EPA’s Worker 

Safety Program. 

18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Office of Pesticide Programs. 2008. Small 

Business Advocacy Review Panel on EPA 

Planned Revisions to Two Related Rules: 

Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural 

Pesticides (RIN 2070–AJ22); and Certification 

of Pesticide Applicators (RIN 2070–AJ20). 

Washington, DC. 

19. U.S. Government Accounting Office. 

1992. Hired Farmworkers: Health and WellBeing at Risk. Report to Congressional 

Requesters. GAO/HRD–92–46. 

20. U.S. Government Accounting Office. 

2000. Pesticides: Improvements Needed to 

Ensure the Safety of Farmworkers and Their 

Families. Report to Congressional Requesters. 

GAO/RCED–00–40. 

21. Ward, MH, et al. ‘‘Proximity to Crops 

and Residential Exposure to Agricultural 

Herbicides in Iowa.’’ Environ Health Perspect 

114, no. 6 (2006): 893–897. 

22. McCauley, LA, et al. ‘‘Work 

Characteristics and Pesticide Exposures 

Among Migrant Agricultural Families: a 

Community-based Research Approach.’’ 

Environ Health Perspect 109, no. 5 (2001): 

533–538. 

23. McCauley, L A, et al. ‘‘Pesticide 

Exposure and Self Reported Home Hygiene: 

Practices in Agricultural Families.’’ AAOHN 

Journal. 51, no. 3 (2003):113–119. 

24. Rao, P, et al. ‘‘Pesticide Safety 

Behaviors in Latino Farmworker Family 

Households.’’ Am J Ind Med. 49, no. 4 (2006): 

271–280. 

25. Bradman, A, et al. ‘‘Community-Based 

Intervention To Reduce Pesticide Exposure to 

Farmworkers and Potential Take-Home 

Exposure to Their Families.’’ J Expo Sci 

Environ Epidemiol 19, no.1 (2009):179–189. 

26. Natural Resources Defense Council. 

Comments from the Natural Resources 

Defense Council on the Revised Risk 

Assessment Methods for Workers, Children of 

Workers in Agricultural Fields, and 

Pesticides With No Food Uses (EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2009–0889–0002). April 2010. 

27. Human Rights Watch. Fingers to the 

Bone: United States Failure To Protect Child 

Farmworkers. 2000. Washington, DC. 

28. Children’s Health Protection Advisory 

Committee. 1998. Report of the Children’s 

Health Protection Advisory Committee to the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Regarding the Selection of Five Regulations 

for Re-Evaluation. 

29. Calvert, GM, et al. ‘‘Acute Pesticiderelated Illnesses Among Working Youths, 

1988–1999.’’ Am J Public Health 93, no. 4 

(2003): 605–610. 

30. Curl, CL, et al. ‘‘Evaluation of Takehome Organophosphorus Pesticide Exposure 

Among Agricultural Workers and Their 

Children.’’ Environ Health Perspect 110, no. 

12 (2002): A787–A792. 

31. Coronado, GD, et al. ‘‘Agricultural Task 

and Exposure to Organophosphate Pesticides 

Among Farmworkers.’’ Environ Health 

Perspect 112, no. 2 (2004): 142–147. 

32. Sa ́nchez Lizardi, P, O’Rourke, MK and 

Morris, RJ. ‘‘The Effects of Organophosphate 

Pesticide Exposure on Hispanic Children’s 

Cognitive and Behavioral Functioning.’’ J 

Pediatr Psychol 33, no. 1 (2007): 91–101. 

33. Das, R, et al. ‘‘Pesticide-Related Illness 

Among Migrant Farm Workers in the United 

States.’’ Int J Occup Environ Health 7, no. 4 

(2001): 303–312. 

34. Goldman, L, et al. ‘‘Risk Behaviors for 

Pesticide Exposure Among Pregnant Women 

Living in Farmworker Households in Salinas, 

California.’’ Am J Ind Med. 45, no. 6 (2004): 

491–499. 

35. Davis, S., et. al. Letter to U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Administrator Stephen Johnson. On behalf of 

Farmworker Justice et al. December 15, 2006. 

36. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Office of Pesticide Programs. 2007. Compiled 

Comments of the Pesticide Program Dialogue 

Committee on May 2007 Issue Papers. 

Washington, DC. 

37. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Office of Pesticide Programs. 2007. Pesticide 

Program Dialogue Committee Worker Safety 

Regulation Change Subgroup, Summary of 

PREP and PPDC Comments. Washington, DC. 

38. Calabro, K, Bright, K and Kouzekanani, 

K. ‘‘Long-Term Effectiveness of Infection 

Control Training among Fourth Year Medical 

Students.’’ Medical Education Online. 5, no. 

1, (2000): 1–7. http://www.med-ed-online.org 

39. Spradley, Ples. Correspondence to 

Kathy Davis, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency on Pesticide Worker Safety Program 

Enhancement. American Association of 

Pesticide Safety Educators. June 7, 2007. 

40. Glasnapp, J. and Nakamoto, J. 2007. 

Hazard Communications for Agricultural 

Workers. JBS International, Inc. Aguirre 

Division. 

41. Adams, S. ‘‘Improving safety 

instruction and results: Five principles of 

sound training. Professional Safety.’’ 

Professional Safety. December 1, 2000. 

Article available at 

http://www.allbusiness.com/educationtraining/employee-training-assistanceemployee/11442447-1.html. 

42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Office of Pesticide Programs. 2008. Summary 

of Potential SER Written and Oral Comments 

Received in Response to Small Business 

Advocacy Review Panel Outreach Meetings. 

Washington, DC. 

43. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Office of Pesticide Programs. 2010. Worker 

Pesticide Safety Training Verification Card 

Order Report. Washington, DC. 

44. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Office of Pesticide Programs. 2000. The 

National Assessment of the Worker Safety 

Program, Stakeholder Workshop #1. 

45. Dubberly, D. Email correspondence to 

Elizabeth Evans, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Florida Department of 

Agriculture and Consumer Services. July 18, 

2006. 

46. American Association of Pesticide 

Safety Educators. 2006. FL SDA Comments 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15510 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

on EPA’s Plans for Proposed C&T and WPS 

Rule Changes. Washington, DC. 

47. NASDAF Workgroup. National Worker 

Safety Trainer Handbook: Pesticide Safety for 

Agricultural Workers. (Washington, DC: 

National Association of State Departments of 

Agriculture Foundation, 2008). EPA 

Cooperative agreement no. X8–83235401. 

48. Wallerstein, N and Rubenstein, H. 

Teaching about Job Hazards, A Guide for 

Workers and Their Health Providers. 

(Washington, DC, American Public Health 

Association, 1993.) 

49. U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention. The National Institute of 

Occupational Safety and Health. Report to 

Congress on Workers’ Home Contamination 

Study Conducted Under the Workers’ Family 

Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 671a). September 

1995. Publication No. 95–123. 

50. Lu, C, et al. ‘‘Pesticide Exposure of 

Children in an Agricultural Community: 

Evidence of Household Proximity to 

Farmland and Take Home Exposure 

Pathways.’’ Environmental Research 84, no. 

3 (2000):b290–302. 

51. Lambert, W E, et al. ‘‘Variation in 

Organophosphate Pesticide Metabolites in 

Urine of Children Living in Agricultural 

Communities.’’ Environ Health Perspect 113, 

no. 4 (2005): 504–508. 

52. Arcury, T A, et al. ‘‘Pesticide Urinary 

Metabolite Levels of Children in Eastern 

North Carolina Farmworker Households.’’ 

Environ Health Perspect 115, no. 8 (2007): 

1254–1260. 

53. Liebman, A K, et al. ‘‘A Pilot Program 

using Promotoras de Salud to Educate 

Farmworker Families About the Risks from 

Pesticide Exposure.’’ J Agromedicine 12, no. 

2 (2007):33–43. 

54. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

‘‘Children’s Environmental Health Centers 

(CEHCs) Web site.’’ Retrieved April 21, 2011. 

http://www.epa.gov/ncer/childrenscenters/. 

55. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

‘‘Children’s Environmental Health Centers 

(CEHCs): University of California at Berkeley 

Center for Children’s Environmental Health 

Research Web site’’ Retrieved August 5, 2011. 

http://www.epa.gov/ncer/childrenscenters/

berkeley.html. 

56. Bradman, M A, et al. ‘‘Pesticide 

Exposures to Children From California’s 

Central Valley: Results of a Pilot Study.’’ J 

Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 7, no. 2 (1997): 

217–234. 

57. Quandt, S A, et al. ‘‘Agricultural and 

Residential Pesticides in Wipe Samples From 

Farmworker Family Residences in North 

Carolina and Virginia.’’ 112, no. 3 (2004): 

382–387. 

58. Coronado, G D, et al. 

‘‘Organophosphate Pesticide Exposure and 

Work in Pome Fruit: Evidence for the Takehome Pesticide Pathway.’’ Environ Health 

Perspect 114, no. 7 (2006): 999–1006. 

59. Wolgalter, S, Sojourner, J and Brelsford, 

J. ‘‘Comprehension and retention of safety 

pictorials.’’ Ergonomics. 40, no. 5 (1997): 

531–542. 

60. Spencer, J R. November 2, 2001. Health 

and Safety Report: Analysis of the Impact of 

the Federal Worker Protection Standard and 

Recommendations for Improving California’s 

Worker Protection Program Regarding Field 

Posting. California Environmental Protection 

Agency Department of Pesticide Regulation. 

HS–1819. 

61. U.S. Department of Labor. Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Policy. Office of 

Program Economics. 2000. Findings From the 

National Agricultural Workers Survey 

(NAWS) 1997–1998. Research Report No. 8. 

62. Davis, TC, et al. ‘‘Low Literacy Impairs 

Comprehension of Prescription Warning 

Labels.’’ J Gen Intern Med 21, no. 8 (2006): 

847–851. 

63. U.S. General Accounting Office 1992. 

Employers’ Experiences in Complying with 

the Hazard Communication Standard. 

Briefing Report to Congressional Requesters. 

GAO/HRD–92–63BR. 

64. U.S. Department of Labor. 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration. ‘‘State Occupational Safety 

and Health Plans Web site.’’ Retrieved 

September 14, 2011. http://www.osha.gov/

dcsp/osp/index.html. 

65. U.S. Department of Labor. Employment 

and Training Administration. ‘‘The National 

Agricultural Workers Survey Web site.’’ 

Retrieved January 11, 2011. http://

www.doleta.gov/agworker/naws.cfm. 

66. North Carolina Administrative Code, 

Title 2, Chapter 9, Subchapter L, Part 1807. 

2009. 

67. Cotto-Febo, S. ‘‘Portable Central 

Location Project.’’ (Presentation, Presented 

October,3, 2007 at Worker Safety and Health 

Symposium, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Arlington VA. October 3, 2007.) 

68. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance. 2006. Overview of WPS Violations 

During 2006 Inspections. 

69. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance. 2007. Overview of WPS Violations 

during 2007 Inspections. 

70. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance. 2008. Overview of WPS Violations 

during 2008 Inspections. 

71. Calvert, G M, et al. ‘‘Case Report: Three 

Farmworkers Who Gave Birth to Infants With 

Birth Defects Closely Grouped in Time and 

Place—Florida and North Carolina, 2004– 

2005.’’ Environ Health Perspect 115, no. 5 

(2007): 787–791. 

72. Cline, JS. Letter to Jim Jones, Director 

of the Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. On behalf 

of North Carolina Department of Health and 

Human Services. February 2007. 

73. Washington State Department of 

Health. 2010. 2009 Annual Report: Pesticide 

Incident Reporting and Tracking Review 

Panel. 

74. Children’s Health Protection Advisory 

Committee. Letter to Administrator Stephen 

J. Johnson, Administrator, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency: 

Recommendations Regarding Protecting 

Farmworker Children. November 15, 2005. 

75. Krieger, R, et al. ‘‘Gauging Pesticide 

Exposure of Handlers (mixers/loaders/

applicators) and Harvesters in California 

Agriculture.’’ Med Lav 81, no. 6 (1990): 474– 

479. 

76. U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Public Health Service, Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 

National Institute for Occupational Safety 

and Health (NIOSH) Recommendations to 

the U.S. Department of Labor for Changes to 

Hazardous Orders. May 3, 2002. 

77. Casey, BJ, Jones, RM and Hare, T A. 

‘‘The Adolescent Brain.’’ Ann N Y Acad Sci 

March (2008): 111–126. 

78. Farmworker Justice et al. Pesticides In 

the Air—Kids at Risk: Petition to EPA to 

Protect Children From Pesticide Drift. 

October 13, 2009. 

79. Young, M and Rischeitelli, D G. 

‘‘Occupational Risks and Risk Perception 

among Hispanic Adolescents.’’ McGill J Med 

9, no. 1 (2006): 49–53. 

80. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

How To Comply With the Worker Protection 

Standard for Agricultural Pesticides: What 

Employers Need To Know. Revised 2005. 

81. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

2007. USDA Comments for the PPDC Worker 

Safety Regulation Change Subgroup. 

Washington, DC. 

82. Freeman Adcock, R, McAllister, R and 

Kelly, A. Letter to Kathy Davis, Certification 

and Worker Protection Branch, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency; Comments 

on Position Papers Relating to Worker 

Protection Standards (WPS). Pesticide Policy 

Coalition. August 31, 2007. 

83. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Transmittal of Meeting Minutes of the FIFRA 

Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting Held 

December 2–5, 2008 on the Scientific Issues 

Associated with Worker Reentry Exposure 

Assessment. February 19, 2009. 

84. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Office of Pesticide Programs. Updated August 

2010. Label Review Manual Chapter 7: 

Precautionary Statements. 

85. American National Standards Institute. 

American National Standard for Emergency 

Eyewash and Shower Equipment. ANSI 

Z358.1–1990. 

86. Cooke, G, et al. 2011. Oregon OSHA 

Pesticide Emphasis Program Annual Report: 

Federal Fiscal Year 2010. Oregon Department 

of Consumer and Business Services. 

Information Management Division. 

87. Matoian, R. Letter to Joe Hogue, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency: Small 

Business Representative comments on WPS. 

July 14, 2008. 

88. Arcury, T A, et al. ‘‘Farmworker reports 

of pesticide safety and sanitation in the work 

environment.’’ Am J Ind Med 39, no. 5 

(2001): 487–498. 

89. California Department of Pesticide 

Regulation. California Code of Regulations. 

Title 3. Food and Agriculture. Division 6. 

Pesticides and Pest Control Operations; 

Section 6746. 2012. 

90. California Department of Pesticide 

Regulation. California Code of Regulations. 

Title 3. Food and Agriculture. Division 6. 

Pesticides and Pest Control Operations; 

Section 6000. 2012. 

91. California Department of Pesticide 

Regulation. Worker Health and Safety 

Branch. Closed Systems Director’s Memo. 

January 2, 1998. 

92. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention. National Institute for 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15511 

Occupational Safety and Health. 2004. 

NIOSH Alert: Preventing Occupational 

Exposures to Antioplastic and Other 

Hazardous Drugs in Health Care Settings. 

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication Number 2004– 

165. 

93. Minnesota Department of Health. 

‘‘Medical Screening Web site: Physiologic 

effects of respirator use.’’ Retrieved 

November 17, 2010. Calvert, G M and 

Higgins, S A. ‘‘Using Surveillance Data to 

Promote Occupational Health and Safety 

Policies and Practices at the State Level: a 

Case Study.’’ Am J Ind Med 53, no. 2 (2010): 

188–193. 

94. California Department of Pesticide 

Regulation. California Code of Regulations. 

Title 3. Food and Agriculture. Division 6. 

Pesticides and Pest Control Operations; 

Section 6720–6746. 

95. Washington State Department of Labor 

and Industries. ‘‘Cholinesterase Monitoring 

Web site.’’ Retrieved March 15, 2011. 

http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/Topics/AtoZ/

Cholinesterase/. 

96. Washington State Department of Labor 

and Industries. Division of Occupational 

Safety and Health. 2009. Cholinesterase 

Monitoring of Pesticide Handlers in 

Agriculture: 2009 Report. 

97. Washington State Department of Labor 

and Industries. Division of Occupational 

Safety and Health. January 2007. 

Cholinesterase Monitoring of Pesticide 

Handlers in Agriculture: Report to the 

Legislature. 

98. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Office of Pesticide Programs. ‘‘Pesticide 

Reregistration Status for Organophosphates 

Web site.’’ Retrieved May 10, 2011. http://

www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/

status_op.htm. 

99. Washington State Department of 

Health. Pesticide Incident Reporting and 

Tracking Review Panel 2005 Annual Report. 

December 2005. 

100. Washington State Department of 

Health. Pesticide Incident Reporting and 

Tracking Review Panel Annual Report. May 

2007. 

101. Washington State Department of Labor 

and Industries. 2003. Benefit-Cost 

Determination: Cholinesterase Monitoring in 

Agriculture. WAC 296–307–148. 

102. Association of Farmworker 

Opportunity Programs. 2011. Dangerous 

Exposure: Farmworker Children and 

Pesticides. Health and Safety Programs 

Annual Report, Vol. 1. 

103. Eskenazi, B, Bradman, A and 

Castorina, R. ‘‘Exposures of Children to 

Organophosphate Pesticides and their 

Potential Adverse Health Effects.’’ Environ 

Health Perspect Environ Health Perspect 107, 

Suppl. 3 (1999): 409–419. 

104. Jones, A and Smith, L. Letter to Kevin 

Keaney, Branch Chief, Certification & Worker 

Protection Branch, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Comments regarding 

Issue Paper, ‘‘Making the Regulatory 

Requirements for Certified Crop Advisors, 

Crop Advisor Employees & Aerial Apps.’’ On 

behalf of National Alliance of Independent 

Crop Consultants, Certified Crop Advisors. 

2006. 

105. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. Agricultural Worker Protection 

Standard Training and Notification 

(Proposed Rule). EPA ICR No. 2491.01 and 

OMB Control No. 2070—NEW. 2013. 

106. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. Agricultural Worker Protection 

Standard Training and Notification. EPA ICR 

number 1759.07 and OMB Control No. 2070– 

0148. 2013. 

XXII. FIFRA Review Requirements 

Under FIFRA section 25(a), EPA has 

submitted a draft of the proposed rule 

to the Secretary of the Department of 

Agriculture and the appropriate 

Congressional Committees. Their 

comments on this proposed rule and 

EPA’s responses are located in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

The Science Advisory Panel waived 

its review of this proposal on February 

7, 2013. 

XXIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review; and, Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735; October 4, 1993), this action is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because 

it may raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this 

proposed rulemaking to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 (76 FR 3821; January 21, 

2011), and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the public 

docket for this action. 

Each of the WPS provisions is 

intended to do one of the following: (1) 

Inform farm workers and pesticide 

handlers about the hazards and risks 

from pesticides they use or with which 

they come into contact in the 

workplace, (2) protect workers and 

handlers from occupational exposure to 

pesticides and the potential adverse 

effects, or (3) mitigate the potential 

adverse effects of unavoidable pesticide 

exposure, including accidents. Within 

these categories, EPA evaluated the 

costs and benefits of alternative 

requirements and is proposing a set of 

requirements that, in combination, is 

expected to achieve substantial benefits 

at minimum cost. In addition, EPA 

prepared an analysis of the potential 

costs and benefits associated with this 

proposed action, titled ‘‘Economic 

Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the 

Worker Protection Standard’’ (Ref. 1). A 

copy of the analysis is available in the 

docket for this action and is briefly 

summarized here. 

EPA estimates the incremental cost of 

the proposed revisions to be between 

about $62.1 million and $72.9 million 

annually. These costs are almost 

entirely borne by farms that hire labor 

and use pesticides, which account for 

about 25 percent of all crop farms in the 

United States. Commercial pesticide 

handling establishments, which contract 

to apply pesticides on farms, may see an 

incremental cost of $170 to $190 per 

year per firm. The cost to individual 

farms will depend on the number and 

type of employees employed. EPA 

estimates that larger farms will incur 

costs of $340 to $400 per year. Smaller 

operations are estimated to incur costs 

between $130 and $150 per year, which 

amounts to less than 0.1 percent of 

average annual revenue. 

The incremental cost to employ a 

worker is estimated to be less than $5 

per year, which would not be expected 

to have an impact on employment. The 

incremental cost to employ a pesticide 

handler is estimated to be about $60 per 

year, which represents 0.3 percent of the 

total cost of a part-time employee, a 

marginal increase that would not be 

expected to have an impact on job 

availability. 

The benefits of the proposed rule 

would accrue to agricultural workers, 

pesticide handlers and, indirectly due to 

reduced take-home pesticide exposure, 

to their families. The revised rule is 

expected to substantially mitigate the 

potential for adverse health effects (both 

acute and chronic) for these workers 

and handlers from occupational 

exposures to pesticides. 

It is difficult to quantify a specific 

level of risk and project the risk 

reduction that will result from this 

rulemaking, because workers and 

handlers are potentially exposed to a 

wide range of pesticides with different 

toxicities and risks; however, the 

proposed changes to the WPS are 

designed to reduce occupational 

exposure to all pesticides. EPA believes 

there is sufficient evidence in the peerreviewed literature to suggest reducing 

pesticide exposure would result in a 

benefit to public health through reduced 

acute and chronic illness. 

Overall, the weight of evidence 

suggests that the proposed requirements 

would result in long-term health 

benefits to agricultural workers and 

pesticide handlers. EPA is not able to 

estimate the dollar value of the benefits 

that accrue from reducing chronic 

exposure to pesticides but there are 

well-documented associations between 

pesticide exposure and certain cancer 

and non-cancer chronic health effects in 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15512 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

the peer-reviewed literature. The 

proposed requirements provide benefits 

to the 2.3 million workers and pesticide 

handlers, not only by reducing their 

daily risk of pesticide exposures but 

also by improving quality of life 

throughout their lives, resulting in a 

lower cost of healthcare and a healthier 

society. Many of the changes to current 

WPS requirements specifically mitigate 

the potential for workers to transport 

pesticide residues home to their 

families. Thus, the proposed 

requirements are expected to reduce 

children’s exposure to pesticides. The 

agency believes the unquantified 

benefits to children of workers and 

handlers are great, and reducing 

exposure to pesticides could translate 

into fewer sick days, fewer days missed 

of school, improved capacity to learn, 

and better long-term health. Parents and 

caregivers reap benefits by having 

healthier families, fewer missed 

workdays, and better quality of life, as 

well. 

EPA does estimate a value of avoided 

acute incidents as a result of the 

proposed rule, although this estimate is 

biased downward by an unknown 

degree for several reasons. First, 

pesticide incidents, like many illnesses 

and accidents, are underreported 

because sufferers may not seek medical 

care, cases may not be correctly 

diagnosed, and correctly diagnosed 

cases may not be filed with the central 

reporting database. Second, our 

approach only measures avoided 

medical costs and lost wages, not the 

willingness to pay to avoid possible 

symptoms due to pesticide exposure, 

which could be substantially higher. 

Just the small amount EPA is able to 

monetize accrues to be between $1.2 

million and $2.8 million annually. The 

effect of underreporting can be 

significant. If only 25% of poisonings 

are reported (within the range of 

estimates in the literature), the 

quantified estimated benefits of the rule 

would be about $11.4 million annually. 

This conservative estimate only 

includes the avoided costs in medical 

care and lost productivity to workers 

and handlers. It does not include 

quantification of the reduction in 

chronic effects of pesticide exposure to 

workers and handlers, reduced effects of 

exposure including developmental 

impacts, to children and pregnant 

workers and handlers, or willingness to 

pay to avoid symptoms of pesticide 

exposure. 

Because the proposed changes to the 

requirements for protection of workers 

and handlers apply to many different 

pesticides in many different situations, 

EPA is not able to quantify the benefits 

expected to accrue from reducing 

chronic exposure to pesticides; 

however, well-documented associations 

between pesticide exposure and certain 

cancer and non-cancer chronic health 

effects exist in peer-reviewed literature. 

EPA conducted a ‘‘break even’’ analysis 

to demonstrate the potential benefits 

that would result from reducing a very 

small number of chronic illnesses that 

have well-documented associations 

with pesticide exposure. Under this 

analysis, avoiding only 53 total cases of 

non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, prostate 

cancer, Parkinson’s disease, lung cancer, 

bronchitis, and asthma (under 0.8% of 

total cases among workers) would 

bridge the gap between the estimated 

benefits from reducing acute incidents 

and the cost of the rule, about $63.7 

million. Overall, the weight of evidence 

suggests that the proposed requirements 

would result in long term health 

benefits to agricultural workers and 

pesticide handlers, not only by reducing 

their daily risk of pesticide exposures, 

but also by improving quality of life 

throughout their lives, resulting in a 

lower cost of health care and a healthier 

society. 

In addition, changes to the current 

WPS requirements, namely improved 

training on reducing pesticide residues 

brought from the treated area to the 

home on workers and handlers’ clothing 

and bodies and establishing a minimum 

age for handlers and early entry 

workers, other than those covered by the 

immediate family exemption, 

specifically mitigate the potential for 

children to be exposed to pesticides 

directly and indirectly. The 

unquantified benefit to adolescent 

workers and handlers, as well as 

children of workers and handlers is 

great; reducing exposure to pesticides 

could translate into fewer sick days, 

fewer days missed of school, improved 

capacity to learn, and better long-term 

health. Parents and caregivers reap 

benefits by having healthier families, 

fewer missed workdays, and better 

quality of life. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule have 

been submitted for approval to OMB 

under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

EPA has prepared an Information 

Collection Request (ICR) document to 

replace the existing approved ICR. The 

new ICR document, which is titled 

‘‘Agricultural Worker Protection 

Standard Training and Notification 

(Proposed Rule)’’ and is identified by 

EPA ICR No. 2491.01 and OMB Control 

No. 2070–NEW, has been placed in the 

docket for this proposed rule (Ref. 105). 

Responses to the proposed amendments 

would be mandatory. 

The information activities related to 

the current WPS requirements are 

already approved by OMB in an ICR 

entitled, ‘‘Worker Protection Standard 

Training and Notification’’ (EPA ICR 

No. 1759; OMB Control No. 2070–0148) 

(Ref 106). The proposed rule 

replacement ICR addresses the 

information collection requirements 

contained in the current regulations as 

well as in the amendments identified in 

this proposed rule. The amendments 

include: 

• Increasing the amount of training 

handlers and workers receive. 

• Establishing a minimum age for 

pesticide handlers and workers engaged 

in early-entry activities. 

• Increasing recordkeeping 

responsibilities of the agricultural 

employers and handler employers. 

The replacement ICR addresses 

adjustments to the estimated number of 

respondents, time for activities, and 

wage rates related to the current 

regulatory requirements as approved 

under OMB Control No. 2070–0148. In 

addition, the replacement ICR addresses 

program changes related to the proposed 

amendments, including modifications to 

restrictions in field entry activities 

during restricted entry intervals; 

increased hazard communications; 

increased training (for both workers and 

handlers); provisions for information 

during emergency assistance; and 

recordkeeping for respirator 

requirements and for workers 

performing early entry activities. The 

estimated annual burden approved by 

OMB under OMB Control No. 2070– 

0148 is 1,776,131 hours. The total 

estimated annual respondent burden 

being proposed in the replacement ICR 

is 8,316,993 hours, a net increase of 

6,540,862 hours. 

The estimated burden represents the 

total to comply with the full WPS, 

including all proposed revisions and 

those that are unchanged by this 

proposal. This differs from the 

estimated incremental cost of the 

proposal, which only considers the net 

cost of the proposed revisions. 

The burdens of the various activities 

range from 30 seconds per respondent 

for workers to provide 

acknowledgements to their employers to 

an hour per respondent for handler 

training. This estimate includes thirdparty WPS training and notification 

requirements. Burden is defined at 5 

CFR 1320.3(b). 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15513 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

Any comments on the Agency’s need 

for information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, should be directed 

to the public docket for this proposed 

rule, under Docket ID Number EPA– 

HQ–OPP–2011–0184. See ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice 

for where to submit comments to EPA. 

In addition, please submit a copy of 

your comments on the ICR directly to 

OMB at the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, 

Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 

days after March 19, 2014, a comment 

to OMB is best assured of having the full 

effect if OMB receives it by April 18, 

2014. The final will address any 

comments received regarding the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

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

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. EPA estimates 

the rule will affect over 300,000 small 

farms, nurseries, and greenhouses, and 

several hundred small commercial 

entities that are contracted to apply 

pesticides. EPA expects the impacts to 

be less than 0.1% of the annual value 

of sales or revenues for the average 

small entity. EPA calculates the impact 

of the rule as the percent of sales 

revenue. Only the very smallest farms, 

with average sales of less than $4,500 

per year, may face impacts above one 

percent of sales. The number of entities 

that may be impacted in excess of one 

percent of sales could be over 40,000, 

given the number of small-small 

establishments. However, this is likely 

an overestimate of the number of farms 

impacted as it does not account for the 

nearly 5,000 small-small farms in 

California that would face impacts well 

below the national average. Please refer 

to the Economic Assessment, Table 5.4– 

3. ‘‘Small Business Impacts, WPS Farms 

making pesticide applications’’ for 

further details of the assessment. 

Small entities include small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of the proposed rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined in accordance 

with the RFA as: 

1. A small business as defined by the 

Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. The 

SBA’s definitions typically are based 

upon either a sales or an employment 

level, depending on the nature of the 

industry. 

2. A small governmental jurisdiction 

that is a government of a city, county, 

town, school district or special district 

with a population of less than 50,000. 

3. A small organization that is any 

not-for-profit enterprise that is 

independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field. 

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, 

5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., the Agency hereby 

certifies that this action will not have a 

significant adverse economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The factual basis for the Agency’s 

determination is presented in the small 

entity impact analysis prepared as part 

of the economic analysis for this 

proposed rule and a copy of which is 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking (Ref. 18). The following is a 

brief summary of the factual basis for 

this certification. 

Although not required by the RFA to 

convene a Small Business Advocacy 

Review (SBAR) Panel for this particular 

proposed rule because EPA has 

ultimately determined that this proposal 

would not have a significant economic 

impacts on a substantial number of 

small entities, EPA convened a SBAR 

Panel to obtain advice and 

recommendations from small entities 

representatives potentially subject to the 

proposed rule’s requirements. EPA’s 

subsequent small business analysis 

demonstrates that there will not be a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Nevertheless, 

a Panel consisting of the following four 

individuals was convened: 

• EPA’s Small Business Advocacy 

Chairperson, 

• Director of the Field and External 

Affairs Division of EPA’s Office of 

Pesticide Programs, 

• Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

within the Office of Management and 

Budget, and 

• Acting Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

of the Small Business Administration. 

The Panel was convened to consider 

revisions to two related rules, which 

were being revised by EPA’s Office of 

Pesticide Programs: Worker Protection 

Standard for Agricultural Pesticides; 

and Certification of Pesticide 

Applicators. 

The Worker Protection Standard 

applies to the following agricultural 

establishments engaged in the 

production of agricultural commodities: 

farms, forests, nurseries, and 

greenhouses. 

Since many agricultural 

establishments are small entities, the 

WPS would potentially impact a large 

number of small entities. After extensive 

research from several sources, including 

the National Agricultural Statistics 

Service, state pesticide usage data, the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, and internet 

research, EPA assembled a list of 

industries that could be affected by the 

regulation. EPA then reviewed 

qualifications for small and large 

entities. The number of entities by 

industry is listed in the Final Report of 

the SBAR Panel for the two rules (Ref. 

18). 

In January 2008, EPA began an 

informal outreach process to potential 

Small Entity Representatives (SERs, 

representatives of the small entities who 

may be subject to the requirements of 

the proposed rule) as part of the preSBAR panel planning process. SERs 

participate in the process to ensure that 

EPA hears the concerns and suggestions 

of small entities. EPA contacted States, 

agricultural extension agents, and 

organizations known to represent 

affected small business, such as grower 

associations, and various pest control 

industry associations to ask them to 

submit the names of potential SERs. 

EPA looked for representatives from 

differing types of businesses involved in 

pesticide application and/or different 

crops or agricultural commodities. EPA 

also sought to have representatives from 

a number of geographic areas of the 

nation. 

In February 2008, EPA sent an email 

to the 20 potential SERs identified by 

that point and provided background on 

the proposed changes and a description 

of the SBAR Panel Process. EPA held an 

informal outreach meeting on June 30, 

2008. The SBAR Panel convened on 

September 4, 2008. The Panel decided 

to add one additional SER, for a total of 

21, prior to the Panel meeting with the 

SERs. The Panel held a formal panel 

outreach meeting/teleconference with 

SERs on September 25, 2008. Two 

weeks before the panel outreach 

meeting EPA sent materials to each of 

the SERs via email. A list of all 

materials shared with the SERs before 

the outreach meeting is contained in the 

pre-proposed rule portion of the docket 

for this action. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15514 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

The outreach meeting was held to 

solicit feedback from the SERs on their 

suggestions for the upcoming 

rulemaking. EPA asked the SERs to 

provide feedback on ideas under 

consideration for the proposed 

rulemaking and to respond to questions 

regarding their experience with the 

implementation of the current WPS. 

Specifically, the Panel asked the SERs to 

provide any alternate solutions to the 

potential proposals presented by EPA 

that would provide flexibility or would 

decrease the economic impact on small 

entities while still accomplishing the 

goal of improved safety. The Agency 

received written comments from SERs 

which are Appendix B to the Panel’s 

Report. 

The Panel evaluated the assembled 

materials and small entity comments 

and prepared a report for the Agency’s 

consideration titled: ‘‘Small Business 

Advocacy Review Panel on EPA’s 

Planned Revision to Two Related Rules: 

Worker Protection Standard for 

Agricultural Pesticides; and 

Certification of Pesticide Applicators.’’ 

A copy of the Panel report is included 

in the docket for this proposed rule. 

The SBAR Panel recommended that 

as part of the proposal for revising the 

Worker Protection Standard in 40 CFR 

part 170, EPA specifically request 

comments on the following regulatory 

flexibility options: 

a. Oral notifications. The Panel 

recommended that EPA permit oral 

notifications without posted 

notifications for those pesticide 

applications with REIs of 48 hours or 

less. EPA is proposing and also 

requesting comments on allowing oral 

notification for products with REIs of 48 

hours or less, unless the pesticide label 

specifically requires both oral and 

posted notification. 

b. Annual training. The Panel 

recommended that EPA consider ways 

to reduce the burden of annual training 

for workers and handlers on entities 

with fewer than 10 employees if they 

maintain written documentation that: 

(1) There has been no worker turnover, 

(2) no new or different pesticides have 

been applied, and (3) all workers and 

handlers were previously trained on the 

establishment. EPA is proposing annual 

training for all workers and handlers 

regardless of the number of employees 

and requesting comment on this 

recommendation. 

c. Grace period. The Panel 

recommended that EPA consider 

programmatic flexibilities for small 

entities related to the grace period 

before employers must be trained. For 

example, consider collaboration 

between the Agency and states to 

increase the use of training verification 

programs to reduce the need for 

unnecessary retraining and use of the 

grace period. EPA is proposing a 2 day 

grace period and training verification 

records. EPA is also requesting 

comments on making mandatory the 

current optional training verification 

program and flexibility for small 

entities. 

d. Shower facilities. The Panel 

recommended that EPA limit 

consideration of shower facilities to 

establishments with permanent mixingloading sites. EPA is not proposing to 

require showers on any establishment. 

EPA is requesting comments from the 

public on an alternative requirement for 

employers to provide showers at 

permanent mixing-loading sites. 

The Agency invites comments on all 

aspects of the proposal and its impacts 

on small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

Title II of UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, 

establishes requirements for Federal 

agencies to assess the effects of their 

regulatory actions on State, local, and 

tribal governments and the private 

sector. This proposed rule does not 

contain a federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures of $100 million or 

more for state, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or the 

private sector in any 1 year. The total 

estimated cost of the proposed rule is 

between $65 million and $75 million 

per year, with most requirements on 

agricultural employers, who would bear 

most of the cost. Thus, this proposed 

rule is not subject to the requirements 

of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. This 

proposed rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It would not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). 

Although this action does not have 

federalism implications, EPA worked 

extensively with state partners when 

considering revisions to the existing 

regulations. As discussed in Unit V.B., 

EPA has solicited feedback from states 

in a number of ways. The two primary 

avenues through which EPA sought 

state comments were the National 

Assessment of EPA’s Pesticide Worker 

Safety Program (National Assessment) 

and the Pesticide Program Dialogue 

Committee workgroup on proposed 

changes to the Worker Protection 

Standard and Certification Rule. 

The Agency initiated the National 

Assessment of EPA’s Pesticide Worker 

Safety Program (National Assessment) 

in 2000. Through this process, EPA 

convened stakeholder meetings in 

Texas, California, and Florida. States 

participated substantially throughout 

the National Assessment. State 

regulators served on workgroups related 

to specific areas of change (pesticide 

safety training, hazard communication, 

and train-the-trainer programs). States 

provided feedback to EPA about the 

strengths and weaknesses of the rule as 

implemented and made suggestions for 

improving the protections and 

enforceability of the WPS. 

Recommendations from States and other 

stakeholders were included in the 

‘‘Report on the National Assessment of 

EPA’s Pesticide Worker Safety Program’’ 

(Ref. 17). 

In 2006, during the initial stages of 

the framing of this proposal, EPA’s 

Federal Advisory Committee, the 

Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee 

(PPDC), formed a workgroup to provide 

feedback to EPA on different areas for 

change. The workgroup had over 70 

members representing a wide range of 

stakeholders, including State 

representatives. EPA shared with the 

workgroup suggestions for regulatory 

change identified through the National 

Assessment and solicited comments. 

The workgroup convened for a series of 

meetings and conference calls to get 

more information on specific parts of 

the regulation and provided its thoughts 

to the Agency. States provided 

comments individually and through the 

Association of American Pesticide 

Control Officials. Comments from the 

PPDC workgroup members have been 

compiled into a single document and 

posted in the docket. 

In the spirit of the Order, and 

consistent with EPA policy to promote 

communications between the Agency 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed rule from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). The proposed rule would not 

regulate tribal governments directly; 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15515 

agricultural employers are the directly 

affected entities. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997) because it is not economically 

significant as defined by Executive 

Order 12866. However, EPA believes 

that the environmental health or safety 

risks addressed in this proposed rule 

have a disproportionate effect on 

children. 

Children face the risk of pesticide 

exposure from work in pesticide-treated 

areas, from the use of pesticides near 

their homes, and from residues of 

pesticides brought home by family 

members after a day of working with 

pesticides or in pesticide-treated areas. 

The proposed rule is intended to reduce 

these exposures and risks. By 

establishing a minimum age for certain 

pesticide-related activities in 

agriculture, children would receive less 

exposure to pesticides that may lead to 

chronic or acute pesticide-related 

illness. Another proposal to reduce risk 

to children is training workers and 

handlers on the risks presented by takehome pesticide exposure and how best 

to reduce it. 

Like the Department of Labor’s 

regulations that implement the FLSA, 

the proposed rule seeks to regulate the 

ages at which children can work in 

agriculture, at least for certain activities. 

The proposed rule would establish a 

minimum age of 16 for pesticide 

handlers and for early-entry workers, 

except those working on an 

establishment owned by an immediate 

family member. Since children in 

agriculture are at such great risk, EPA 

feels that they warrant special 

consideration in light of the Executive 

Order on children’s health. EPA expects 

that many of the proposed changes 

would mitigate or eliminate many risks 

faced by youths. 

The public is invited to submit 

comments or identify peer-reviewed 

studies and data that assess effects of 

early life exposure to pesticides. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355; May 22, 

2001), because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. The 

revisions to part 170 are intended to 

improve the standards of protection 

offered to agricultural workers, and do 

not affect the use of oil, coal, or 

electricity. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA, Public 

Law 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

EPA considered adopting the 

American National Standards Institute 

Standard for eye flushing in the event of 

ocular contamination, which calls for a 

minimum of 1.5 liter (0.4 gallons) per 

minute of flushing fluid, such as water, 

for 15 minutes (ANSI Z358.1–2009). 

EPA adopted this standard only at 

permanent mixing loading sites on 

agricultural establishments, rather than 

for all handler eye flush 

decontamination because the Agency 

believes it would be impractical for 

employers to achieve at non-permanent 

sites. EPA is requesting comments on 

the incorporation of this standard into 

the regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule would not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. In 

fact, the population of agricultural 

workers and handlers that the rule seeks 

to protect is comprised primarily of 

minority and low-income individuals. 

As reviewed in Unit IV. A., the 

farmworker community, due to 

occupation, economic status, health, 

language and other sociodemographic 

characteristics, faces an increased risk of 

pesticide exposure which this 

rulemaking seeks to reduce through 

improving communication and 

protections. 

The Agency engaged with 

stakeholders from affected communities 

extensively in the development of this 

rulemaking, in order to obtain 

meaningful involvement of all parties. 

EPA believes that the proposed changes 

would improve the health of 

agricultural workers and handlers by, 

among other things, increasing the 

frequency of training, enhancing 

training content to include ways to 

minimize pesticide exposure to children 

and in the home, adding posting of 

treated areas near worker and handler 

housing to prevent accidental entry, and 

establishing a minimum age for 

pesticide handlers and early-entry 

workers. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 170 

Environmental protection, Pesticides, 

Agricultural worker, Pesticide handler, 

Employer, Farms, Forests, Nurseries, 

Greenhouses, Worker protection 

standard. 

Dated: February 20, 2014. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR 

chapter I, subchapter E, part 170 is 

revised to read as follows: 

PART 170—WORKER PROTECTION 

STANDARD 

Sec. 

Subpart A—General Provisions 

170.1 Scope and purpose. 

170.3 Applicability of this part. 

170.5 Definitions. 

170.7 Effective date. 

170.9 Agricultural employer duties. 

170.11 Pesticide information requirements 

on agricultural establishments. 

170.13 Commercial pesticide handler 

employer duties. 

170.15 Prohibited actions. 

170.17 Violations of this part. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15516 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Subpart B—Requirements for Protection of 

Agricultural Workers 

170.101 Training requirements for workers. 

170.103 Establishment-specific information 

for workers. 

170.105 Entry restrictions associated with 

pesticide applications. 

170.107 Worker entry restrictions after 

pesticide applications. 

170.109 Oral and posted notification of 

worker entry restrictions. 

170.111 Worker decontamination supplies. 

Subpart C—Requirements for Protection of 

Agricultural Pesticide Handlers 

170.201 Training requirements for handlers. 

170.203 Knowledge of labeling, applicationspecific, and establishment-specific 

information for handlers. 

170.205 Requirements during applications 

to protect handlers, workers, and other 

persons. 

170.207 Personal protective equipment. 

170.209 Handler decontamination supplies. 

Subpart D—Exemptions and Exceptions 

170.301 Exemptions. 

170.303 Exceptions for entry by workers 

during restricted-entry intervals. 

170.305 Agricultural employer 

responsibilities to protect workers 

entering treated areas during a restrictedentry interval. 

170.307 Exceptions to personal protective 

equipment requirements specified on 

pesticide product labeling. 

170.309 Exception to training requirements 

for workers. 

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

Subpart A—General Provisions 

§ 170.1 Scope and purpose. 

This regulation is intended to reduce 

the risks of illness or injury to workers 

and handlers resulting from 

occupational exposures to pesticides 

used in the production of agricultural 

plants on agricultural establishments. It 

requires agricultural employers and 

commercial pesticide handler 

employers to provide specific 

information and protections to workers 

and handlers when pesticides are used 

on agricultural establishments in the 

production of agricultural plants. It also 

requires pesticide handlers to wear the 

label-specified clothing and personal 

protective equipment when performing 

pesticide handler activities, and to take 

measures to protect workers and other 

persons during pesticide applications. 

§ 170.3 Applicability of this part. 

(a) This regulation applies whenever 

a pesticide product bearing a label 

requiring compliance with this part is 

used in a manner directly related to the 

production of agricultural plants on an 

agricultural establishment that employs 

workers or handlers. 

(b) This regulation does not apply 

when a pesticide product bearing a label 

requiring compliance with this part is 

used on an agricultural establishment in 

any of the following circumstances: 

(1) As part of government-sponsored 

public pest control programs of which 

the owner, agricultural employer and 

handler employer have no control, such 

as mosquito abatement and 

Mediterranean fruit fly eradication 

programs. 

(2) On plants other than agricultural 

plants, which may include plants in 

home fruit and vegetable gardens and 

home greenhouses, and permanent 

plantings for ornamental purposes, such 

as plants that are in ornamental gardens, 

parks, public or private landscaping, 

lawns or other grounds that are 

intended only for aesthetic purposes or 

climatic modification. 

(3) For control of vertebrate pests, 

unless directly related to the production 

of an agricultural plant. 

(4) As attractants or repellents in 

traps. 

(5) On the harvested portions of 

agricultural plants or on harvested 

timber. 

(6) For research uses of unregistered 

pesticides. 

(7) On pasture and rangeland where 

the forage will not be harvested for hay. 

(8) In a manner not directly related to 

the production of agricultural plants, 

including, but not limited to structural 

pest control and control of vegetation in 

non-crop areas. 

§ 170.5 Definitions. 

Terms used in this part have the same 

meanings they have in the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act, as amended. In addition, the 

following terms, when used in this part, 

shall have the following meanings: 

Agricultural employer means any 

person who is an owner of, or is 

responsible for the management or 

condition of an agricultural 

establishment, and who employs any 

worker or handler. 

Agricultural establishment means any 

farm, forest operation, or nursery 

engaged in the outdoor or enclosed 

space production of agricultural plants. 

Agricultural plant means any plant, or 

part thereof, grown, maintained, or 

otherwise produced for commercial 

production. 

Authorized representative means a 

person designated by the worker or 

handler, orally or in writing, to request 

and obtain any information that the 

employer is required to provide upon 

request to the worker or handler. 

Chemigation means the application of 

pesticides through irrigation systems. 

Closed system means a system for 

mixing or loading pesticides that 

encloses the pesticide during removal of 

the pesticide from its original container 

and transfer, mixing, or loading of the 

pesticide product, mixtures or dilutions, 

and any rinse solution, if applicable, 

into a new container or application 

equipment, in such a manner that 

prevents the pesticide and any pesticide 

mixture or use dilution from contacting 

handlers or other persons before, during 

and after the transfer, except for 

negligible release associated with 

normal operation of the system. 

Commercial pesticide handler 

employer means any person, other than 

an agricultural employer, who employs 

any handler to perform handler 

activities on an agricultural 

establishment. 

Commercial pesticide handling 

establishment means any enterprise, 

other than an agricultural establishment, 

that provides pesticide handler or crop 

advising services to agricultural 

establishments. 

Commercial production means 

growing, maintaining or otherwise 

producing agricultural plants for sale or 

trade, for research or experimental 

purposes, or for use in their entirety in 

another location. Commercial 

production includes producing 

agricultural plants for use by the 

agricultural employer or agricultural 

establishment instead of purchasing the 

agricultural plants. 

Crop advisor means any person who 

is assessing pest numbers, damage, 

pesticide distribution, or the status or 

requirements of agricultural plants. 

Early entry means entry by a worker 

into a treated area on the agricultural 

establishment after a pesticide 

application is complete, but before any 

restricted-entry interval for the pesticide 

has expired. 

Employ means to obtain, directly or 

through a labor contractor, the services 

of a person in exchange for a salary or 

wages, including piece-rate wages, 

without regard to who may pay or who 

may receive the salary or wages. It 

includes obtaining the services of a selfemployed person, an independent 

contractor, or a person compensated by 

a third party. 

Enclosed cab means a cab with a 

nonporous barrier that totally surrounds 

the occupant(s) of the cab and prevents 

dermal contact with pesticides that are 

being applied outside of the cab. 

Enclosed space production means 

production of an agricultural plant in a 

structure or space that is covered in 

whole or in part and that is large enough 

to permit a person to enter. 

Entry-restricted area means the area 

from which workers or other persons 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15517 

must be excluded during and after the 

pesticide application. 

Farm means any agricultural 

establishment, other than a nursery or 

forest operation, engaged in the outdoor 

or enclosed production of agricultural 

plants. 

Forest operation means an 

agricultural establishment engaged in 

the outdoor production of any 

agricultural plant to produce any wood 

fiber or timber products. 

Fumigant means any pesticide 

product that is a vapor or gas, or forms 

a vapor or gas upon application, and 

whose pesticidal action is achieved 

through the gaseous or vapor state. 

Hand labor means any agricultural 

activity performed by hand or with 

hand tools that cause a worker to have 

substantial contact with plants, plant 

parts, or soil and other surfaces that may 

contain pesticide residues. 

Handler means any person, including 

a self-employed person, who is 

employed by an agricultural employer 

or commercial pesticide handler 

employer and performs any of the 

following activities: 

(1) Mixing, loading, or applying 

pesticides; 

(2) Disposing of pesticides; 

(3) Handling opened containers of 

pesticides; emptying, triple-rinsing, or 

cleaning pesticide containers according 

to pesticide product labeling 

instructions; or disposing of pesticide 

containers that have not been cleaned. 

The term does not include any person 

who is only handling unopened 

pesticide containers or pesticide 

containers that have been emptied or 

cleaned according to pesticide product 

labeling instructions; 

(4) Acting as a flagger; 

(5) Cleaning, adjusting, handling, or 

repairing the parts of mixing, loading, or 

application equipment that may contain 

pesticide residues; 

(6) Assisting with the application of 

pesticides; 

(7) Entering an enclosed space after 

the application of a pesticide and before 

the inhalation exposure level listed in 

the labeling has been reached or one of 

the ventilation criteria established by 

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

met to operate ventilation equipment, 

monitor air levels, or adjust or remove 

coverings used in fumigation; 

(8) Entering a treated area outdoors 

after application of any soil fumigant 

during the label-specified entry 

restricted period to adjust or remove 

coverings used in fumigation, such as 

tarpaulins; 

(9) Performing tasks as a crop advisor 

during any pesticide application or 

restricted-entry interval, or before the 

inhalation exposure level listed in the 

pesticide product labeling has been 

reached or one of the ventilation criteria 

established by § 170.105(b)(3) or the 

pesticide product labeling has been met. 

Handler employer means any person 

who is self-employed as a handler or 

who employs any handler. 

Immediate family is limited to the 

spouse, parents, stepparents, foster 

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

children, stepchildren, foster children, 

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

grandparents, grandchildren, brothers, 

sisters, brothers-in-law, and sisters-inlaw. 

Labor contractor means a person who 

employs workers or handlers to perform 

tasks on an agricultural establishment 

for an agricultural employer or a 

commercial pesticide handler employer. 

Nursery means any agricultural 

establishment engaged in the outdoor or 

enclosed space production of any 

agricultural plant to produce cut flowers 

or foliage, ferns, plants, or seedlings that 

will be used in part or their entirety in 

another location. Such plants include, 

but are not limited to, flowering and 

foliage plants or trees; tree seedlings; 

live Christmas trees; vegetable, fruit, 

and ornamental transplants; and turf 

grass produced for sod. 

Outdoor production means 

production of an agricultural plant in an 

outside open space or area that is not 

enclosed or covered in any way. 

Owner means any person who has a 

present possessory interest (e.g., fee, 

leasehold, rental, or other) in an 

agricultural establishment. A person 

who has both leased such agricultural 

establishment to another person and 

granted that same person the right and 

full authority to manage and govern the 

use of such agricultural establishment is 

not an owner for purposes of this part. 

Personal protective equipment means 

devices and apparel that are worn to 

protect the body from contact with 

pesticides or pesticide residues, 

including, but not limited to, coveralls, 

chemical-resistant suits, chemicalresistant gloves, chemical-resistant 

footwear, respirators, chemical-resistant 

aprons, chemical-resistant headgear, 

and protective eyewear. 

Restricted-entry interval means the 

time after the end of a pesticide 

application during which entry into the 

treated area is restricted. 

Safety data sheet has the same 

meaning as the definition at 29 CFR 

1900.1200(c). 

Treated area means any area to which 

a pesticide is being directed or has been 

directed. 

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

any of the following— 

(1) Pre-application activities, 

including, but not limited to: 

(i) Arranging for the application of the 

pesticide; 

(ii) Mixing and loading the pesticide; 

(iii) Making necessary preparations 

for the application of the pesticide, 

including responsibilities related to 

worker notification, training of workers 

or handlers, providing decontamination 

supplies, providing pesticide 

information, use and care of personal 

protective equipment, providing 

emergency assistance, and heat stress 

management. 

(2) Application of the pesticide. 

(3) Post-application activities 

intended to reduce the risks of illness 

and injury resulting from handlers’ and 

workers’ occupational exposures to 

pesticide residues during and after the 

restricted-entry interval, including 

responsibilities related to worker 

notification, training of workers or early 

entry workers, providing 

decontamination supplies, providing 

pesticide information, use and care of 

personal protective equipment, 

providing emergency assistance, and 

heat stress management. 

(4) Other pesticide-related activities, 

including, but not limited to, 

transporting or storing pesticides that 

have been opened, cleaning equipment, 

and disposing of excess pesticides, 

spray mix, equipment wash waters, 

pesticide containers, and other 

pesticide-containing materials. 

Worker means any person, including 

a self-employed person, who is 

employed and performs activities 

directly relating to the production of 

agricultural plants on an agricultural 

establishment. 

Worker housing area means any place 

or area of land on or near an agricultural 

establishment where housing or space 

for housing is provided for workers or 

handlers by an agricultural employer, 

owner, labor contractor, or any other 

person responsible for the recruitment 

or employment of agricultural workers. 

§ 170.7 Effective date. 

The effective date for this part shall be 

[effective date 60 calendar days after the 

promulgated rule is transmitted for 

Congressional review per FIFRA 

25(a)(4)]. 

§ 170.9 Agricultural employer duties. 

Agricultural employers must: 

(a) Ensure that any pesticide applied 

on an agricultural establishment is used 

in a manner consistent with the 

pesticide product labeling, including 

the requirements of this part. 

(b) Ensure that each worker and 

handler subject to this part receives the 

protections required by this part. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15518 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(c) Ensure that any handler, and any 

worker performing early entry activities, 

is at least 16 years old. 

(d) Provide to each person, including 

labor contractors, who supervises any 

workers or handlers, information and 

directions sufficient to ensure that each 

worker and handler receives the 

protections required by this part. Such 

information and directions must specify 

the tasks for which the supervisor is 

responsible in order to comply with the 

provisions of this part. 

(e) Require each person, including 

labor contractors, who supervises any 

workers or handlers, to provide 

sufficient information and directions to 

each worker and handler to ensure that 

they can comply with the provisions of 

this part. 

(f) Provide emergency assistance. If 

there is reason to believe that a person 

who is or has been employed by an 

agricultural establishment to perform 

tasks related to the production of 

agricultural plants, has been poisoned 

or injured by exposure to pesticides as 

a result of his or her employment on the 

agricultural establishment, the 

agricultural employer must do all of the 

following, within 30 minutes after 

learning of the possible poisoning or 

injury: 

(1) Make available to that person 

transportation from the agricultural 

establishment, including any worker 

housing area on the establishment, to an 

operating emergency medical facility. 

(2) Provide to that person or treating 

medical personnel all of the following 

information for each pesticide product 

to which that person might have been 

exposed: 

(i) Copies of the applicable safety data 

sheet and the label for the pesticide 

product, or alternatively, a copy of the 

applicable safety data sheet for the 

product and the product name, EPA 

registration number, active ingredients, 

antidote, and first aid and medical 

treatment information from the 

pesticide product labeling. 

(ii) The circumstances of application 

or use of the pesticide on the 

agricultural establishment. 

(iii) The circumstances that could 

have resulted in exposure to the 

pesticide. 

(g) Ensure that workers or other 

persons employed by the agricultural 

establishment do not clean, repair, or 

adjust pesticide application equipment, 

unless trained as a handler under 

§ 170.201. Before allowing any person 

not directly employed by the 

agricultural establishment to clean, 

repair, or adjust equipment that has 

been used to mix, load, transfer, or 

apply pesticides, the agricultural 

employer must provide all of the 

following information to such persons: 

(1) That pesticide application 

equipment may be contaminated with 

pesticides. 

(2) The potentially harmful effects of 

exposure to pesticides. 

(3) Procedures for handling pesticide 

application equipment and for limiting 

exposure to pesticide residues. 

(4) Personal hygiene practices and 

decontamination procedures for 

preventing pesticide exposures and 

removing pesticide residues. 

(h) Provide pesticide information in 

accordance with § 170.11 if workers or 

handlers are on the establishment and 

within the last 30 days a pesticide 

product bearing a label requiring 

compliance with this part has been 

used, or a restricted-entry interval for 

such pesticide has been in effect on the 

establishment. 

(i) Ensure that before a handler uses 

any equipment for mixing, loading, 

transferring, or applying pesticides, the 

handler is instructed in the safe 

operation of such equipment. 

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

equipment used for mixing, loading, 

transferring, or applying pesticides is 

inspected for leaks, clogging, and worn 

or damaged parts, and any damaged 

equipment is repaired or replaced. 

(k) Ensure that whenever handlers 

employed by a commercial pesticide 

handler establishment will be on an 

agricultural establishment, the handler 

employer is provided information about, 

or is aware of, the specific location and 

description of any entry restricted areas, 

or treated areas where a restricted-entry 

interval is in effect, and any restrictions 

on entering those areas. 

§ 170.11 Pesticide information 

requirements on agricultural 

establishments. 

(a) Pesticide Safety Information. 

Whenever pesticide information is 

required to be provided under 

§ 170.9(h), pesticide safety information 

must be displayed on the agricultural 

establishment in accordance with this 

paragraph (a). 

(1) Content. The pesticide safety 

information must be conveyed in a 

manner that workers and handlers can 

understand and must include all of the 

following points: 

(i) Avoid getting on the skin or into 

the body any pesticides that may be on 

or in plants, soil, irrigation water, 

tractors, and other equipment, on used 

personal protective equipment, or 

drifting from nearby applications. 

(ii) Wash before eating, drinking, 

using chewing gum or tobacco, or using 

the toilet. 

(iii) Wear work clothing that protects 

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

socks, and a hat or scarf). 

(iv) Wash or shower with soap and 

water, shampoo hair, and put on clean 

clothes after work. 

(v) Wash work clothes separately from 

other clothes before wearing them again. 

(vi) Wash immediately in the nearest 

clean water if pesticides are spilled or 

sprayed on the body. As soon as 

possible, shower, shampoo hair, and 

change into clean clothes. 

(vii) Follow directions about keeping 

out of treated or entry-restricted areas. 

(viii) The name, address, and 

telephone number of the nearest 

operating emergency medical care 

facility. 

(ix) After [date 2 years after effective 

date of the final rule specified in 

§ 170.7], the pesticide safety information 

must also include the name, address, 

and telephone number of the state or 

tribal lead agency responsible for 

pesticide enforcement, and instructions 

to employees to seek medical attention 

as soon as possible if they believe they 

have been poisoned or injured by 

pesticides. 

(2) Changes to pesticide safety 

information. If there are any changes to 

the information in §§ 170.11(a)(1)(viii) 

or 170.11(a)(1)(ix), the agricultural 

employer must promptly update the 

pesticide safety information display. 

(3) Location. The pesticide safety 

information must be displayed at a 

place on the agricultural establishment 

where workers and handlers are likely 

to pass by or congregate and it can be 

readily seen and read. The pesticide 

safety information must also be 

displayed anywhere that 

decontamination supplies must be 

provided on the agricultural 

establishment pursuant to §§ 170.111 or 

170.209. 

(4) Accessibility. Workers and 

handlers must be allowed access to the 

pesticide safety information at all times 

when the information is required to be 

displayed. 

(5) Legibility. The pesticide safety 

information must remain legible at all 

times when the information is required 

to be displayed. 

(b) Keeping and providing 

information about pesticides used on 

the agricultural establishment—(1) 

Content and timing. Whenever pesticide 

information is required to be provided 

under § 170.9(h), the agricultural 

employer must maintain copies of the 

pesticide product labeling and the safety 

data sheet for the pesticide product(s) 

applied and record all of the following 

information no later than the end of the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15519 

work day that the application takes 

place: 

(i) The name, EPA registration 

number, and active ingredient(s) of the 

pesticide product applied. 

(ii) The crop or site treated and the 

location and description of the treated 

area. 

(iii) The date(s) and times the 

application started and ended. 

(iv) The end date and duration of the 

restricted-entry interval. 

(2) Record Retention and 

Accessibility. The agricultural employer 

must maintain the pesticide information 

described in § 170.11(b)(1) on the 

agricultural establishment for 2 years 

after the date of expiration of any 

restricted-entry interval, and make the 

information available to any worker(s), 

handler(s), or their authorized 

representative(s) upon request during 

normal work hours. 

§ 170.13 Commercial pesticide handler 

employer duties. 

Commercial pesticide handler 

employers must: 

(a) Ensure that any pesticide applied 

on an agricultural establishment is used 

in a manner consistent with the 

pesticide product labeling, including 

the requirements of this part. 

(b) Ensure each handler subject to this 

part receives the protections required by 

this part. 

(c) Ensure that any handler is at least 

16 years old. 

(d) Provide to each person, including 

labor contractors, who supervises any 

handlers, information and directions 

sufficient to ensure that each handler 

receives the protections required by this 

part. Such information and directions 

must specify the tasks for which the 

supervisor is responsible in order to 

comply with the provisions of this part. 

(e) Require each person, including 

labor contractors, who supervises any 

handlers, to provide sufficient 

information and directions to each 

handler to ensure that the handler can 

comply with the provisions of this part. 

(f) Ensure that before any handler uses 

any equipment for mixing, loading, 

transferring, or applying pesticides, the 

handler is instructed in the safe 

operation of such equipment. 

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

equipment used for mixing, loading, 

transferring, or applying pesticides is 

inspected for leaks, obstructions, and 

worn or damaged parts, and any 

damaged equipment is repaired or is 

replaced. 

(h) Ensure that whenever a handler 

who is employed by a commercial 

pesticide handling establishment will be 

on an agricultural establishment, the 

handler is provided information about, 

or is aware of, the specific location and 

description of any entry restricted areas, 

or treated areas where a restricted-entry 

interval is in effect, and the restrictions 

on entering those areas. 

(i) Provide the agricultural employer 

all of the following information before 

the application of any pesticide on an 

agricultural establishment: 

(1) Specific location(s) and 

description of the area(s) to be treated. 

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

end times of application. 

(3) Product name, EPA registration 

number, and active ingredient(s). 

(4) Restricted-entry interval. 

(5) Whether posting and oral 

notification are required under 

§ 170.109. 

(6) Any restrictions or use directions 

on the pesticide product labeling that 

must be followed for protection of 

workers, handlers, or other persons 

during or after application. 

(j) Ensure if there are any changes to 

the information provided in § 170.13(i), 

that the agricultural employer is 

provided updated information within 2 

hours after completing the application. 

Changes to the estimated application 

end time of less than 1 hour do not 

require notification. 

(k) Provide emergency assistance. If 

there is reason to believe that a person 

who is or has been employed by the 

commercial pesticide handling 

establishment to perform tasks related to 

the production of agricultural plants, 

has been poisoned or injured by 

exposure to pesticides as a result of that 

employment, the commercial pesticide 

handler employer must do all of the 

following, within 30 minutes after 

learning of the possible poisoning or 

injury: 

(1) Make available to that person 

transportation from the commercial 

pesticide handling establishment, or any 

agricultural establishment on which that 

person may be working, to an operating 

emergency medical facility. 

(2) Provide to that person or treating 

medical personnel all of the following 

information for each pesticide product 

to which that person might have been 

exposed: 

(i) Copies of the applicable safety data 

sheet and the label for the pesticide 

product, or alternatively, a copy of the 

applicable safety data sheet for the 

pesticide product and the product 

name, EPA registration number, active 

ingredients, antidote, and first aid and 

medical treatment information listed on 

the pesticide product labeling. 

(ii) The circumstances of application 

or use of the pesticide(s). 

(iii) The circumstances that could 

have resulted in exposure to the 

pesticide(s). 

(l) Ensure that persons employed by 

the commercial pesticide handling 

establishment do not clean, repair, or 

adjust pesticide application equipment, 

unless trained as a handler under 

§ 170.201. Before allowing any person 

not directly employed by the 

commercial pesticide handling 

establishment to clean, repair, or adjust 

equipment that has been used to mix, 

load, transfer, or apply pesticides, the 

commercial pesticide handler employer 

must provide all of the following 

information to such persons: 

(1) That pesticide application 

equipment may be contaminated with 

pesticides. 

(2) The potentially harmful effects of 

exposure to pesticides. 

(3) Procedures for handling pesticide 

application equipment and for limiting 

exposure to pesticide residues. 

(4) Personal hygiene practices and 

decontamination procedures for 

preventing pesticide exposures and 

removing pesticide residues. 

§ 170.15 Prohibited actions. 

No agricultural employer, commercial 

pesticide handler employer, or other 

person involved in the use of a pesticide 

to which this part applies, shall 

intimidate, threaten, coerce, or 

discriminate against any worker or 

handler for attempting to comply with 

this part, or because the worker or 

handler has made a complaint, testified, 

assisted, or participated in any manner 

in an investigation, proceeding, or 

hearing concerning compliance with 

this part. Any such intimidation, threat, 

coercion, or discrimination violates 

FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(G), 7 U.S.C. 

136j(a)(2)(G). 

§ 170.17 Violations of this part. 

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

is unlawful for any person ‘‘to use any 

registered pesticide in a manner 

inconsistent with its labeling.’’ When 

this part is referenced on a label, users 

must comply with all of its 

requirements, except those that are 

inconsistent with product-specific 

instructions on the pesticide product 

labeling. 

(b) A person who has a duty under 

this part, as referenced on the pesticide 

product labeling, and who fails to 

perform that duty, violates FIFRA 

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

civil penalty under section 14. A person 

who knowingly violates section 

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

criminal sanctions. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15520 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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

that a person is liable for a penalty 

under FIFRA if another person 

employed by or acting for that person 

violates any provision of FIFRA. The 

term ‘‘acting for’’ includes both 

employment and contractual 

relationships, including, but not limited 

to, labor contractors. 

(d) The requirements of this part, 

including the decontamination 

requirements, must not, for the purposes 

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

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

of statutory authority to prescribe or 

enforce standards or regulations 

affecting the general sanitary hazards 

addressed by the OSHA Field Sanitation 

Standard, 29 CFR 1928.110, or other 

agricultural non-pesticide hazards. 

Subpart B—Requirements for 

Protection of Agricultural Workers 

§ 170.101 Training requirements for 

workers. 

(a) General requirement. Before any 

worker performs any task in a treated 

area on an agricultural establishment 

where within the last 30 days a 

pesticide product bearing a label 

requiring compliance with this part has 

been used, or a restricted-entry interval 

for such pesticide has been in effect, the 

agricultural employer must ensure that 

each worker has been trained in 

accordance with this section within the 

last 12 months, except as provided in 

paragraph (b) of this section and in 

§ 170.309 of this part. 

(b) Exceptions. The following workers 

need not be trained under this section: 

(1) A worker who is currently 

certified as an applicator of restricted 

use pesticides under part 171 of this 

chapter. 

(2) A worker who has satisfied the 

handler training requirements of 

§ 170.201. 

(3) A worker who is certified or 

licensed as a crop advisor by a program 

acknowledged as appropriate in writing 

by EPA or the state or tribal agency 

responsible for pesticide enforcement, 

provided that a requirement for such 

certification or licensing is pesticide 

safety training that includes all the 

topics set out in § 170.201(c)(2) and (3). 

(c) Training programs. (1) Pesticide 

safety training must be presented to 

workers either orally from written 

materials or audio-visually, at a location 

that is reasonably free from distraction 

and conducive to training. All training 

materials must be EPA-approved. The 

training must be presented in a manner 

that the workers can understand, such 

as through a translator. A person that 

meets the trainer requirements of 

§ 170.101(c)(4) must be present during 

the entire training program to conduct 

the training and must respond to 

workers’ questions. 

(2) The training must include, at a 

minimum, all of the following topics: 

(i) Agricultural employers are 

required to provide workers with 

information and protections designed to 

reduce work-related pesticide exposures 

and illnesses. This includes providing 

pesticide safety training, pesticide safety 

and application information, 

decontamination supplies, and 

emergency medical assistance, and 

notifying workers of restrictions during 

applications and on entering pesticide 

treated areas. 

(ii) How to recognize and understand 

the meaning of the field warning sign 

used for notifying workers of 

restrictions on entering pesticide treated 

areas on the establishment. 

(iii) How to follow directions and/or 

signs about keeping out of entryrestricted or pesticide treated areas. 

(iv) Where and in what form 

pesticides may be encountered during 

work activities and potential sources of 

pesticide exposure on the agricultural 

establishment. This includes that 

pesticide residues may be on or in 

plants, soil, irrigation water, tractors, 

application equipment, or used personal 

protective equipment and that 

pesticides may drift through the air from 

nearby applications. 

(v) Potential hazards from toxicity and 

exposure that pesticides present to 

workers and their families, including 

acute and chronic effects, delayed 

effects, and sensitization. 

(vi) Potential hazards from 

chemigation and drift. 

(vii) Routes through which pesticides 

can enter the body. 

(viii) Signs and symptoms of common 

types of pesticide poisoning. 

(ix) Emergency first aid for pesticide 

injuries or poisonings. 

(x) Routine and emergency 

decontamination procedures, including 

emergency eye flushing techniques. 

(xi) Wash immediately in the nearest 

clean water if pesticides are spilled or 

sprayed on the body and as soon as 

possible, shower, shampoo hair, and 

change into clean clothes. 

(xii) How and when to obtain 

emergency medical care. 

(xiii) When working near pesticides or 

in pesticide treated areas, wear work 

clothing that protects the body from 

pesticide residues and wash hands 

before eating, drinking, using chewing 

gum or tobacco, or using the toilet. 

(xiv) Wash or shower with soap and 

water, shampoo hair, and change into 

clean clothes as soon as possible after 

working near or in pesticide treated 

areas. 

(xv) Potential hazards from pesticide 

residues on clothing. 

(xvi) Wash work clothes before 

wearing again. 

(xvii) Wash work clothes separately 

from other clothes. 

(xviii) Do not take pesticides or 

pesticide containers used at work to 

your home. 

(3) After [date 2 years after effective 

date of the final rule specified in 

§ 170.7] if EPA has announced 

availability of training materials that 

comply with the requirements of 

§ 170.101(c)(2)(i)–(xviii) and 

§ 170.101(c)(3)(i)–(ix) in the Federal 

Register by [date 18 months after 

effective date specified in § 170.7], or 

180 days after EPA announces 

availability of training materials that 

comply with the requirements of 

§ 170.101(c)(2)(i)–(xviii) and 

§ 170.101(c)(3)(i)–(ix) in the Federal 

Register if announced after [date 18 

months after effective date specified in 

§ 170.7], the training must also include 

all of the following: 

(i) Agricultural employers are 

required to provide workers with 

pesticide hazard information. 

(ii) Agricultural employers must not 

allow or direct any worker to mix, load 

or apply pesticides or assist in the 

application of pesticides unless the 

worker has been trained as a handler. 

(iii) There are minimum age 

restrictions and notification 

requirements for early entry activities. 

(iv) Potential hazards to children and 

pregnant women from pesticide 

exposure. 

(v) Keep children and nonworking 

family members away from pesticide 

treated areas. 

(vi) Remove work boots or shoes 

before entering home. 

(vii) After working near or in 

pesticide treated areas, remove work 

clothes and wash or shower before 

physical contact with children or family 

members. 

(viii) How to report suspected 

pesticide use violations to the state or 

tribal agency responsible for pesticide 

enforcement. 

(ix) Agricultural employers are 

prohibited from intimidating, 

threatening, coercing, or discriminating 

against any worker for attempting to 

comply with the requirements of this 

part, or because the worker has made a 

complaint, testified, assisted, or 

participated in any manner in an 

investigation, proceeding, or hearing 

pursuant to this part. 

(4) The person who conducts the 

training must meet one of the following: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15521 

(i) Be designated as a trainer of 

certified applicators by EPA or the state 

or tribal agency responsible for pesticide 

enforcement. 

(ii) Have completed an EPA-approved 

pesticide safety train-the-trainer 

program for trainers of workers. 

(iii) Until [date 2 years after effective 

date of the final rule specified in 

§ 170.7], a certified applicator of 

restricted use pesticides under part 171 

may conduct worker training. 

(d) Recordkeeping. (1) For each 

worker required to be trained under 

paragraph (a), the agricultural employer 

must maintain on the agricultural 

establishment, for 2 years from the date 

of the training, a record including all of 

the following: 

(i) The trained worker’s printed name 

and signature. 

(ii) The trained worker’s date of birth. 

(iii) The date of the training. 

(iv) Information identifying which 

EPA-approved training materials were 

used. 

(v) The trainer’s name and 

documentation showing that the trainer 

met the requirements of § 170.101(c)(4) 

at the time of training. 

(vi) The agricultural employer’s name. 

(2) For each worker trained, the 

agricultural employer must provide to 

the worker a record of the training that 

contains the information required under 

§ 170.101(d)(1). 

§ 170.103 Establishment-specific 

information for workers. 

(a) Requirement. Before any worker 

performs any task in a treated area on 

an agricultural establishment where 

within the last 30 days a pesticide 

product bearing a label requiring 

compliance with this part has been 

used, or a restricted-entry interval for 

such pesticide has been in effect, the 

agricultural employer must ensure that 

the worker has been informed of 

establishment-specific information in 

accordance with this section. The 

establishment-specific information must 

be provided orally, in a manner the 

worker can understand. 

(b) Content. The establishmentspecific information must include all of 

the following: 

(1) The location of pesticide safety 

information required by § 170.11(a). 

(2) The location of pesticide 

application and hazard information 

required by § 170.11(b). 

(3) The location of decontamination 

supplies required by § 170.111. 

§ 170.105 Entry restrictions associated 

with pesticide applications. 

(a) Outdoor production pesticide 

applications. During any outdoor 

production pesticide application 

described in column A of Table 1 of this 

paragraph, the agricultural employer 

must not allow or direct any worker or 

other person, other than an 

appropriately trained and equipped 

handler, to enter or to remain in the 

entry-restricted area specified in column 

B of Table 1 of this paragraph. After the 

application is complete, the area subject 

to the label-specified restricted-entry 

interval and the post-application entry 

restrictions specified in § 170.107 is the 

treated area. 

TABLE 1—ENTRY-RESTRICTED AREAS DURING OUTDOOR PRODUCTION PESTICIDE APPLICATIONS

A. During application of a pesticide: B. Workers and other persons, other than appropriately trained and 

equipped handlers, are prohibited in: 

(1)(a) Applied: 

(i) Aerially, or 

(ii) In an upward direction, or 

(iii) Using a spray pressure greater than 150 psi, or 

Treated area plus 100 feet around the treated area within the boundaries of the agricultural establishment. 

(b) Applied as a: 

(i) Fumigant, or 

(ii) Smoke, or 

(iii) Mist, or 

(iv) Fog, or 

(v) Aerosol. 

(2)(a) Applied downward using: 

(i) A height of greater than 12 inches from the planting medium, or 

(ii) A fine spray (droplet median diameter of 101–200 microns), or 

(iii) A spray pressure greater than 40 psi and less than 150 psi. 

Treated area plus 25 feet around the treated area, within the boundaries of the agricultural establishment. 

(b) Not as in (1) or (2)(a) of this table but for which a respiratory protection device is required for application by the product label. 

(3) Applied otherwise ................................................................................ Treated area. 

(b) Enclosed space production 

pesticide applications. (1) During any 

enclosed space production pesticide 

application described in column A of 

Table 2 under paragraph (b)(4) of this 

section, the agricultural employer must 

not allow or direct any worker or other 

person, other than an appropriately 

trained and equipped handler, to enter 

or to remain in the entry-restricted area 

specified in column B of Table 2 during 

the application and until the time 

specified in column C of Table 2 has 

expired. 

(2) After the time specified in column 

C of Table 2 under paragraph (b)(4) of 

this section has expired, the area subject 

to the label-specified restricted-entry 

interval and the post-application entry 

restrictions specified in § 170.107 is the 

area specified in column D of Table 2 

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

(3) When column C of Table 2 under 

paragraph (b)(4) of this section specifies 

that ventilation criteria must be met, 

ventilation must continue until the air 

concentration is measured to be equal to 

or less than the inhalation exposure 

level the labeling requires to be 

achieved. If no inhalation exposure 

level is listed on the labeling, 

ventilation must continue until after one 

of the following conditions is met: 

(i) Ten air exchanges are completed. 

(ii) Two hours of ventilation using 

fans or other mechanical ventilating 

systems. 

(iii) Four hours of ventilation using 

vents, windows, or other passive 

ventilation. 

(iv) Eleven hours with no ventilation 

followed by 1 hour of mechanical 

ventilation. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15522 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(v) Eleven hours with no ventilation 

followed by 2 hours of passive 

ventilation. 

(vi) Twenty-four hours with no 

ventilation. 

(4) The following Table 2 applies to 

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

section. 

TABLE 2—ENTRY-RESTRICTED AREAS DURING ENCLOSED SPACE PRODUCTION PESTICIDE APPLICATIONS

A. When a pesticide is applied: 

B. Workers and other persons, 

other than appropriately trained 

and equipped handlers, are prohibited in: 

C. Until: 

D. After the expiration of time 

specified in column C, the area 

subject to the restricted-entry interval is: 

(1) As a fumigant. .......................... Entire enclosed space plus any 

adjacent structure or area that 

cannot be sealed off from the 

treated area.

The ventilation criteria of paragraph (b)(3) of this section are 

met.

No post-application entry restrictions required by § 170.107 

after criteria in column C are 

met. 

(2) As a 

(i) Smoke, or 

(ii) Mist, or 

(iii) Fog, or 

(iv) Aerosol. 

Entire enclosed space .................. The ventilation criteria of paragraph (b)(3) of this section are 

met.

Entire enclosed space. 

(3) Not in (1) or (2) of this table, 

and for which a respiratory protection device is required for application by the product label. 

Entire enclosed space .................. The ventilation criteria of paragraph (b)(3) of this section are 

met.

Treated area. 

(4) Not in (1), (2), or (3) of this 

table, and: 

(i) From a height of greater 

than 12 in. from the planting 

medium, or 

Treated area plus 25 feet in all directions of the treated area, but 

not outside the enclosed space.

Application is complete ................. Treated area. 

(ii) As a fine spray (droplet median 

diameter of 101–200 microns), 

or 

(iii) Using a spray pressure greater 

than 40 psi. 

(5) Otherwise. ................................ Treated area ................................. Application is complete ................. Treated area. 

§ 170.107 Worker entry restrictions after 

pesticide applications. 

(a) After the application of any 

pesticide in outdoor production on an 

agricultural establishment, the 

agricultural employer must not allow or 

direct any worker to enter or to remain 

in the treated area before the restrictedentry interval specified on the pesticide 

labeling has expired and all treated area 

warning signs have been removed, 

except for early entry activities 

permitted by § 170.303. 

(b) After the application of any 

pesticide in enclosed space production, 

the agricultural employer must not 

allow or direct any worker to enter or 

to remain in the areas specified in 

column D in Table 2 under 

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

labeling has expired and all treated area 

warning signs have been removed, 

except for early entry activities 

permitted by § 170.303. 

(c) When two or more pesticides are 

applied at the same time, the applicable 

restricted-entry interval is the longest of 

the applicable restricted-entry intervals. 

§ 170.109 Oral and posted notification of 

worker entry restrictions. 

(a) General Requirement. The 

agricultural employer must notify 

workers of all entry restrictions required 

by §§ 170.105 and 170.107 in 

accordance with this section. 

(1) Type of notification required—(i) 

Outdoor production applications. If a 

pesticide with product labeling that 

requires a restricted-entry interval 

greater than 48 hours is applied in 

outdoor production, the agricultural 

employer must notify workers of the 

application by posting warning signs in 

accordance with paragraph (b) of this 

section. If the product labeling of the 

pesticide requires a restricted-entry 

interval equal to or less than 48 hours, 

the agricultural employer must notify 

workers of the application either by 

posting warning signs in accordance 

with paragraph (b) of this section or by 

providing workers with an oral warning 

in accordance with paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(ii) Enclosed space production 

applications. If a pesticide with product 

labeling that requires a restricted-entry 

interval greater than 4 hours is applied 

in enclosed space production, the 

agricultural employer must notify 

workers of the application by posting 

warning signs in accordance with 

paragraph (b) of this section. If the 

product labeling of the pesticide 

requires a restricted-entry interval equal 

to or less than 4 hours, the agricultural 

employer must notify workers of the 

application either by posting warning 

signs in accordance with paragraph (b) 

of this section or by providing workers 

with an oral warning in accordance with 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(iii) Double notification. If the 

pesticide product labeling has a 

statement requiring both the posting of 

treated areas and oral notification to 

workers, the agricultural employer must 

post signs in accordance with paragraph 

(b) of this section and must also provide 

oral notification of the application to the 

worker in accordance with paragraph (c) 

of this section. 

(2) Exceptions. Notification need not 

be given to a worker if the agricultural 

employer can ensure that one of the 

following is met: 

(i) From the start of the application in 

enclosed space production until the end 

of the application and during any 

restricted-entry interval, no workers will 

enter the entire enclosed space. 

(ii) The only worker(s) for which 

notification is required were also 

involved in the application of the 

pesticide as handlers, and they are 

aware of all information required by 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section. 

(iii) From the start of the application 

in outdoor production until the end of 

the application and during any 

restricted-entry interval, no worker(s) 

will enter, work in, remain in, or pass 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15523 

through on foot the treated area or any 

area within 1/4 mile of the treated area 

on the agricultural establishment. 

(b) Requirements for posted warning 

signs. When posting is required, the 

agricultural employer must, unless 

otherwise prescribed by the label, 

ensure that the warning sign(s) 

conforms to the requirements of this 

paragraph. When several contiguous 

areas are to be treated with pesticides on 

a rotating or sequential basis, the entire 

area may be posted. Worker entry, other 

than entry permitted by § 170.303 of this 

part, is prohibited for the entire area 

while the signs are posted. 

(1) General. The warning signs must 

meet all of the following requirements: 

(i) Be one of the three sizes specified 

in this paragraph (b) and comply with 

the posting placement and spacing 

requirements applicable to that sign 

size. 

(ii) Be posted prior to but no earlier 

than 24 hours before the scheduled 

application of the pesticide. 

(iii) Remain posted throughout the 

application and any restricted-entry 

interval. 

(iv) Be removed or covered within 3 

days after the end of the application or 

any restricted-entry interval, whichever 

is later, but under no circumstances 

shall the signs remain posted and 

uncovered when worker entry is 

permitted, other than entry permitted by 

§ 170.303 of this part. 

(v) Remain visible and legible during 

the time they are required to be posted. 

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

have a white background. The words 

‘‘DANGER’’ and ‘‘PELIGRO,’’ plus 

‘‘PESTICIDES’’ and ‘‘PESTICIDAS,’’ 

must be at the top of the sign, and the 

words ‘‘Entry Restricted’’ and ‘‘Entrada 

Restringida’’ must be at the bottom of 

the sign. Letters for all words must be 

clearly legible. An octagon containing 

an upraised hand on the left and a stern 

face on the right must be near the center 

of the sign. The inside of the octagon 

must be red, except that the hand and 

a large portion of the face must be in 

white. The length of the hand must be 

at least twice the height of the smallest 

letters. The length of the face must be 

only slightly smaller than the hand. 

Additional information such as the 

name of the pesticide and the date of 

application may appear on the warning 

sign if it does not detract from the size 

and appearance of the sign or change 

the meaning of the required 

information. An example of a warning 

sign meeting these requirements, other 

than the size and color requirements, 

follows: 

(ii) The agricultural employer may 

replace the Spanish portion of the 

warning sign with an alternative nonEnglish language if that alternative 

language is the language read by the 

largest group of workers at that 

agricultural establishment who do not 

read English. The alternative language 

sign must be in the same format as the 

original sign and conform to all other 

requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of 

this section. 

(iii) Until [date 2 years after effective 

date of the final rule specified in 

§ 170.7], a warning sign meeting the 

following requirements may be 

substituted for the warning sign 

specified in paragraph (b)(i) of this 

section. The warning sign must have a 

background color that contrasts with 

red. The words ‘‘DANGER’’ and 

‘‘PELIGRO,’’ plus ‘‘PESTICIDES’’ and 

‘‘PESTICIDAS,’’ shall be at the top of the 

sign, and the words ‘‘KEEP OUT’’ and 

‘‘NO ENTRE’’ shall be at the bottom of 

the sign. Letters for all words must be 

clearly legible. A circle containing an 

upraised hand on the left and a stern 

face on the right must be near the center 

of the sign. The inside of the circle must 

be red, except that the hand and a large 

portion of the face must be in a shade 

that contrasts with red. The length of 

the hand must be at least twice the 

height of the smallest letters. The length 

of the face must be only slightly smaller 

than the hand. Additional information 

such as the name of the pesticide and 

the date of application may appear on 

the warning sign if it does not detract 

from the appearance of the sign or 

change the meaning of the required 

information. An example of a warning 

sign meeting these requirements, other 

than the size and color requirements, 

follows: 

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

sign must be at least 14 inches by 16 

inches with letters at least 1 inch in 

height. 

(ii) When posting treated areas in 

outdoor production using the standard 

sign, the signs must be visible from all 

reasonably expected points of worker 

entry to the treated area, including at 

least each access road, each border with 

any worker housing area within 100 feet 

of the treated area, and each footpath 

and other walking route that enters the 

treated area. Where there are no 

reasonably expected points of worker 

entry, signs must be posted in the 

corners of the treated area or in any 

other location affording maximum 

visibility. 

(iii) When posting treated areas in 

enclosed space production using the 

standard sign, the signs must be posted 

so they are visible from all reasonably 

expected points of worker entry to the 

treated area including each aisle or 

other walking route that enters the 

treated area. Where there are no 

reasonably expected points of worker 

entry to the treated area, signs must be 

posted in the corners of the treated area 

or in any other location affording 

maximum visibility. 

(iv) If a smaller warning sign is used 

with ‘‘DANGER’’ and ‘‘PELIGRO’’ in 

letters at least 7/8 inch in height and the 

remaining letters at least 1/2 inch in 

height and a red octagon at least 3 

inches in diameter containing an 

upraised hand and a stern face, the signs 

must be posted no farther than 50 feet 

apart around the perimeter of the treated 

area in addition to the locations 

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

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


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP19MR14.002</GPH> EP19MR14.003</GPH>
15524 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(v) If a smaller sign is used with 

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

least 7/16 inch in height and the 

remaining letters at least 1/4 inch in 

height and a red octagon at least one 

and a half inches in diameter containing 

an upraised hand and a stern face, the 

signs must be posted no farther than 25 

feet apart around the perimeter of the 

treated area in addition to the locations 

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

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

(vi) A sign with ‘‘DANGER’’ and 

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

inch in height or with any words in 

letters less than 1/4 inch in height or a 

red octagon smaller than one and a half 

inches in diameter containing an 

upraised hand and a stern face is not 

permitted. 

(c) Oral warnings—(1) Requirement. 

The agricultural employer must provide 

oral warnings to workers in a manner 

that the workers can understand. If a 

worker is on the premises when an 

application will occur, the warning 

must be given before the application 

begins. Otherwise, the warning must be 

given at the beginning of the worker’s 

first work period during which the 

application is taking place or the 

restricted-entry interval for the pesticide 

is in effect. The warning must include 

all of the following: 

(i) The location(s) and description of 

the entry-restricted area(s) and the 

treated area(s). 

(ii) The dates and times during which 

entry is restricted. 

(iii) Instructions not to enter the 

entry-restricted area during application, 

and not to enter the treated area until 

the restricted-entry interval has expired. 

§ 170.111 Worker decontamination 

supplies. 

(a) Requirement. The agricultural 

employer must provide 

decontamination supplies in accordance 

with this section for any worker on an 

agricultural establishment who is 

performing an activity in an area where 

a pesticide was applied and who 

contacts anything that has been treated 

with the pesticide, including, but not 

limited to, soil, water, and plants. 

(b) General conditions. The 

decontamination supplies required in 

paragraph (a) of this section must 

include 1 gallon of water per worker for 

routine washing and emergency eye 

flushing, soap, and single-use towels. 

The supplies must meet all of the 

following requirements: 

(1) Water. At all times when this part 

requires agricultural employers to make 

water available to workers, the 

agricultural employer must ensure that 

it is of a quality and temperature that 

will not cause illness or injury when it 

contacts the skin or eyes or if it is 

swallowed. When water stored in a tank 

is to be used for mixing pesticides, it 

must not be used for decontamination or 

eye flushing, unless the tank is 

equipped with properly functioning 

valves or other mechanisms that prevent 

movement of pesticides into the tank, 

such as anti-backflow siphon devices, 

one-way or check valves, or an air gap 

sufficient to prevent contamination. 

(2) Soap and single-use towels. The 

agricultural employer must provide 

soap and single-use towels for drying in 

quantities sufficient to meet the 

workers’ needs. Hand sanitizing gels 

and liquids or wet towelettes do not 

meet the requirement for soap. Wet 

towelettes do not meet the requirement 

for single-use towels. 

(c) Timing. (1) If any pesticide with a 

restricted-entry interval greater than 4 

hours was applied, the decontamination 

supplies must be provided from the 

time workers first enter the treated area 

until at least 30 days after the restrictedentry interval expires. 

(2) If the only pesticides applied in 

the treated area are products with a 

restricted-entry interval of 4 hours or 

less, the decontamination supplies must 

be provided from the time workers first 

enter the treated area until at least 7 

days after the restricted-entry interval 

expires. 

(d) Location. (1) The decontamination 

supplies must be located together and 

be reasonably accessible to and not 

more than 1/4 mile from where workers 

are working. 

(2) Where workers are working more 

than 1/4 mile from the nearest place of 

vehicular access, the soap, single-use 

towels, clean change of clothing, and 

water may be at the nearest place of 

vehicular access. 

(3) The decontamination supplies 

must be outside any treated area. 

Subpart C—Requirements for 

Protection of Agricultural Pesticide 

Handlers 

§ 170.201 Training requirements for 

handlers. 

(a) General requirement. Before any 

handler performs any handler activity 

involving a pesticide product bearing a 

label requiring compliance with this 

part, the handler employer must ensure 

that the handler has been trained in 

accordance with this section within the 

last 12 months, except as provided in 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

(b) Exceptions. The following persons 

need not be trained under this section: 

(1) A handler who is currently 

certified as an applicator of restricted 

use pesticides under part 171 of this 

chapter. 

(2) A handler who is certified or 

licensed as a crop advisor by a program 

acknowledged as appropriate in writing 

by EPA or the state or tribal agency 

responsible for pesticide enforcement, 

provided that a requirement for such 

certification or licensing is pesticide 

safety training that includes all the 

topics set out in § 170.201(c)(2) and (3). 

(c) Training programs. (1) Pesticide 

safety training must be presented to 

handlers either orally from written 

materials or audio-visually, at a location 

that is reasonably free from distraction 

and conducive to training. All training 

materials must be EPA-approved. The 

training must be presented in a manner 

that the handlers can understand, such 

as through a translator. A person that 

meets the handler trainer requirements 

of § 170.201(c)(4) must be present 

during the entire training program to 

conduct the training and must respond 

to handlers’ questions. 

(2) The pesticide safety training 

materials must include, at a minimum, 

all of the following: 

(i) All the topics required by 

§ 170.101(c)(2). 

(ii) Information on proper application 

and use of pesticides. 

(iii) Handlers must follow all 

pesticide labeling and use directions. 

(iv) Format and meaning of all 

information contained on pesticide 

labels and in labeling. 

(v) Need for and appropriate use and 

removal of all personal protective 

equipment. 

(vi) How to recognize, prevent, and 

provide first aid treatment for heatrelated illness. 

(vii) Safety requirements for handling, 

transporting, storing, and disposing of 

pesticides, including general procedures 

for spill cleanup. 

(viii) Environmental concerns, such as 

drift, runoff, and wildlife hazards. 

(ix) Handlers must not apply 

pesticides in a manner that results in 

contact with workers or other persons. 

(x) Handler employers are required to 

provide handlers with information and 

protections designed to reduce workrelated pesticide exposures and 

illnesses. This includes providing, 

cleaning, maintaining, storing, and 

ensuring proper use of all required 

personal protective equipment; 

providing decontamination supplies; 

and providing specific information 

about pesticide use and labeling 

information. 

(3) After [date 2 years after effective 

date of final rule specified in § 170.7] if 

EPA has announced availability of 

training materials that comply with the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15525 

requirements of § 170.201(c)(2)(i)–(x) 

and § 170.201(c)(3)(i)–(iv) in the Federal 

Register by [date 18 months after 

effective date specified in § 170.7], or 

180 days after EPA announces 

availability of training materials that 

comply with the requirements of 

§ 170.201(c)(2)(i)–(x) and 

§ 170.201(c)(3)(i)–(iv) in the Federal 

Register if announced after [date 18 

months after effective date specified in 

§ 170.7], the training materials must also 

include all of the following: 

(i) Handlers must cease or suspend a 

pesticide application if workers or other 

persons are in the treated area or the 

entry-restricted area. 

(ii) Handlers must be at least 16 years 

of age. 

(iii) Handler employers must ensure 

handlers have received respirator fittesting, training and medical evaluation 

if they are required to wear a respirator. 

(iv) Handler employers must post 

treated areas as required by this rule. 

(v) All the topics specified in 

§ 170.101(c)(3). 

(4) The person who conducts the 

training must meet one of the following: 

(i) Be certified as an applicator of 

restricted use pesticides under part 171 

of this chapter. 

(ii) Be designated as a trainer of 

certified applicators or pesticide 

handlers by EPA or the state or tribal 

agency responsible for pesticide 

enforcement. 

(iii) Have completed an EPAapproved pesticide safety train-thetrainer program for handler trainers. 

(d) Recordkeeping. (1) Handler 

employers must maintain records of 

training for handlers employed by their 

establishment for 2 years from the date 

of the training. The records must be 

maintained on the establishment and 

must include all of the following 

information: 

(i) The trained handler’s printed name 

and signature. 

(ii) The trained handler’s date of birth. 

(iii) The date of the training. 

(iv) Information identifying which 

EPA-approved training materials were 

used. 

(v) The trainer’s name and 

documentation showing that the trainer 

met the requirements of § 170.201(c)(4) 

at the time of training. 

(vi) The handler employer’s name. 

(2) For each handler trained, the 

handler employer must provide a record 

of the training to the handler that 

contains the information required under 

§ 170.201(d)(1). 

§ 170.203 Knowledge of labeling, 

application-specific, and establishmentspecific information for handlers. 

(a) Knowledge of labeling and 

application-specific information. (1) 

The handler employer must ensure that 

before any handler performs any 

handler activity involving a pesticide 

product bearing a label requiring 

compliance with this part, the handler 

either has read the pesticide product 

labeling or has been informed in a 

manner the handler can understand of 

all labeling requirements and use 

directions necessary for proper use of 

the pesticide. 

(2) The handler employer must ensure 

that the handler has access to the 

product labeling at all times during 

handler activities. 

(3) The handler employer must ensure 

that the handler is aware of 

requirements for any entry-restricted 

areas as described in § 170.105. 

(b) Knowledge of establishmentspecific information—(1) Requirement. 

Before any handler performs any 

pesticide handler activity on an 

agricultural establishment where within 

the last 30 days a pesticide product 

bearing a label requiring compliance 

with this part has been used, or a 

restricted-entry interval for such 

pesticide has been in effect, the handler 

employer must ensure that the handler 

has been informed of establishmentspecific information in accordance with 

this paragraph (b). The establishmentspecific information must be provided 

orally, in a manner the handler can 

understand. 

(2) Content. The establishmentspecific information must include all of 

the following: 

(i) The location of pesticide safety 

information required by § 170.11(a). 

(ii) The location of pesticide 

application and hazard information 

required by § 170.11(b). 

(iii) The location of decontamination 

supplies required by § 170.209. 

§ 170.205 Requirements during 

applications to protect handlers, workers, 

and other persons. 

(a) Contact with workers and other 

persons. The handler employer and the 

handler must ensure that no pesticide is 

applied so as to contact, directly or 

through drift, any worker or other 

person, other than an appropriately 

trained and equipped handler located 

on the establishment. 

(b) Suspending applications. After 

[date 2 years after effective date of final 

rule specified in § 170.7], the handler 

performing the application must 

immediately stop or suspend a pesticide 

application if any worker or other 

person, other than an appropriately 

trained and equipped handler, is in the 

treated area or entry-restricted area. 

(c) Handlers using highly toxic 

pesticides. The handler employer must 

ensure that any handler who is 

performing any handler activity with a 

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

the pesticide product label is monitored 

visually or by voice communication at 

least every 2 hours. 

(d) Fumigant applications in enclosed 

space production. The handler 

employer must ensure all of the 

following: 

(1) That any handler who enters an 

entry-restricted area described in Table 

2 of § 170.105, maintains continuous 

visual or voice contact with another 

handler stationed immediately outside 

of the enclosed space. 

(2) That the handler stationed outside 

the enclosed space has immediate 

access to and uses the personal 

protective equipment required by the 

fumigant labeling for handlers, in the 

event that entry becomes necessary for 

rescue. 

§ 170.207 Personal protective equipment. 

(a) Handler responsibilities. Any 

person who performs handler activities 

involving a pesticide product bearing a 

label requiring compliance with this 

part must use the clothing and personal 

protective equipment specified on the 

pesticide product labeling for use of the 

product. 

(b) Employer responsibilities for 

providing personal protective 

equipment. The handler employer must 

provide to the handler the personal 

protective equipment required by 

pesticide product labeling in accordance 

with this section. The handler employer 

must ensure that the personal protective 

equipment is clean and in proper 

operating condition. For the purposes of 

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

shoes, and socks are not considered 

personal protective equipment, even 

though pesticide labeling may require 

such work clothing to be worn. 

(1) When ‘‘chemical-resistant’’ 

personal protective equipment is 

specified by the pesticide product 

labeling to be worn, it must be made of 

material that the manufacturer has 

declared, in writing, to be chemical 

resistant. 

(2) When ‘‘waterproof’’ personal 

protective equipment is specified by the 

pesticide product labeling to be worn, it 

must be made of material that allows no 

measurable movement of water or 

aqueous solutions through the material 

during ordinary conditions of use. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15526 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(3) When a ‘‘chemical-resistant suit’’ 

is specified by the pesticide product 

labeling to be worn, it must be a loosefitting, one- or two-piece chemicalresistant garment that covers, at a 

minimum, the entire body except head, 

hands, and feet. 

(4) When ‘‘coveralls’’ are specified by 

the pesticide product labeling to be 

worn, they must be loose-fitting, one- or 

two-piece garments that cover, at a 

minimum, the entire body except head, 

hands, and feet. 

(5) Gloves must be the type specified 

on the pesticide product labeling. 

(i) Gloves made of leather, cotton, or 

other absorbent materials may not be 

worn while performing handler 

activities unless gloves made of these 

materials are listed as acceptable for 

such use on the pesticide product 

labeling. 

(ii) Separable glove liners may be 

worn beneath chemical-resistant gloves, 

unless the pesticide product labeling 

specifically prohibits their use. 

Separable glove liners are defined as 

separate glove-like hand coverings, 

made of lightweight material, with or 

without fingers. Work gloves made from 

lightweight cotton or poly-type material 

are considered to be glove liners if worn 

beneath chemical-resistant gloves. 

Separable glove liners may not extend 

outside the chemical-resistant gloves 

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

absorbent lining materials are 

prohibited. 

(iii) If used, separable glove liners 

must be discarded immediately after a 

total of no more than 10 hours of use or 

within 24 hours of when first put on, 

whichever comes first. The liners must 

be replaced immediately if directly 

contacted by pesticide. Used glove 

liners must not be reused. Contaminated 

liners must be disposed of in 

accordance with any federal, state, or 

local regulations. 

(6) When ‘‘chemical-resistant 

footwear’’ is specified by the pesticide 

product labeling to be worn, one of the 

following types of footwear must be 

worn: 

(i) Chemical-resistant shoes. 

(ii) Chemical-resistant boots. 

(iii) Chemical-resistant shoe coverings 

worn over shoes or boots. 

(7) When ‘‘protective eyewear’’ is 

specified by the pesticide product 

labeling to be worn, one of the following 

types of eyewear must be worn: 

(i) Goggles. 

(ii) Face shield. 

(iii) Safety glasses with front, brow, 

and temple protection. 

(iv) Full-face respirator. 

(8) When a ‘‘chemical-resistant 

apron’’ is specified by the pesticide 

product labeling to be worn, an apron 

that covers the front of the body from 

mid-chest to the knees must be worn. 

(9) The respirator specified by the 

pesticide product labeling must be used. 

Whenever a respirator other than a dust/ 

mist filtering respirator is required by 

the pesticide product labeling, the 

handler employer must ensure that the 

requirements of paragraphs (b)(9)(i) 

through (iii) of this section are met 

before the handler performs any 

pesticide handler activity where the 

respirator is required to be worn. The 

handler employer must maintain for 2 

years, on the establishment, records 

documenting the completion of the 

requirements of paragraphs (b)(9)(i) 

through (iii) of this section. 

(i) Handler employers must provide 

handlers with fit-testing using the 

respirator specified on the pesticide 

product labeling in a manner that 

conforms to the provisions of 29 CFR 

1910.134. 

(ii) Handler employers must provide 

handlers with training in the use of the 

respirator specified on the pesticide 

product labeling in a manner that 

conforms to the provisions of 29 CFR 

1910.134. 

(iii) Handler employers must provide 

handlers with a medical evaluation by 

a physician or other licensed health care 

professional that conforms to the 

provisions of 29 CFR 1910.134 to ensure 

the handler’s physical ability to safely 

wear the respirator specified on the 

pesticide product labeling. 

(10) When ‘‘chemical-resistant 

headgear’’ is specified by the pesticide 

product labeling, it must be either a 

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

(c) Use of personal protective 

equipment. (1) The handler employer 

must ensure that personal protective 

equipment is used correctly for its 

intended purpose and is used according 

to the manufacturer’s instructions. 

(2) The handler employer must ensure 

that, before each day of use, all personal 

protective equipment is inspected for 

leaks, holes, tears, or worn places, and 

any damaged equipment is repaired or 

discarded. 

(d) Cleaning and maintenance. (1) 

The handler employer must ensure that 

all personal protective equipment is 

cleaned according to the manufacturer’s 

instructions or pesticide product 

labeling instructions before each day of 

reuse. In the absence of any such 

instructions, it must be washed 

thoroughly in detergent and hot water. 

(2) If any personal protective 

equipment cannot be cleaned properly, 

the handler employer must render the 

personal protective equipment unusable 

and dispose of it in accordance with any 

applicable federal, state, and local 

regulations. Coveralls or other absorbent 

materials that have been drenched or 

heavily contaminated with a pesticide 

that has the signal word ‘‘DANGER’’ or 

‘‘WARNING’’ on the label must not be 

reused. 

(3) The handler employer must ensure 

that contaminated personal protective 

equipment is kept separately and 

washed separately from any other 

clothing or laundry. 

(4) The handler employer must ensure 

that all washed personal protective 

equipment is dried thoroughly before 

being stored or reused. 

(5) The handler employer must ensure 

that all clean personal protective 

equipment is stored separately from 

personal clothing and apart from 

pesticide-contaminated areas. 

(6) The handler employer must ensure 

that when dust/mist filtering respirators 

are used, they are replaced when one of 

the following conditions is met: 

(i) When breathing resistance becomes 

excessive. 

(ii) When the filter element has 

physical damage or tears. 

(iii) According to manufacturer’s 

recommendations or pesticide product 

labeling, whichever is more frequent. 

(iv) In the absence of any other 

instructions or indications of service 

life, at the end of 8 hours of cumulative 

use. 

(7) The handler employer must ensure 

that when gas- or vapor-removing 

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

replaced before further respirator use 

when one of the following conditions is 

met: 

(i) At the first indication of odor, 

taste, or irritation. 

(ii) When breathing resistance 

becomes excessive. 

(iii) According to manufacturer’s 

recommendations or pesticide product 

labeling instructions, whichever is more 

frequent. 

(iv) In the absence of any other 

instructions or indications of service 

life, at the end of 8 hours of cumulative 

use. 

(8) The handler employer must inform 

any person who cleans or launders 

personal protective equipment of all the 

following: 

(i) That such equipment may be 

contaminated with pesticides. 

(ii) The potentially harmful effects of 

exposure to pesticides. 

(iii) The correct way(s) to clean 

personal protective equipment and to 

protect themselves when handling such 

equipment. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15527 

(iv) Proper decontamination and 

personal hygiene practices. 

(9) The handler employer must ensure 

that handlers have a place(s) away from 

pesticide storage and pesticide use areas 

where they may do all of the following: 

(i) Store personal clothing not in use. 

(ii) Put on personal protective 

equipment at the start of any exposure 

period. 

(iii) Remove personal protective 

equipment at the end of any exposure 

period. 

(10) The handler employer must not 

allow or direct any handler to wear 

home or to take home personal 

protective equipment contaminated 

with pesticides. 

(e) Heat-related illness. Where a 

pesticide label requires the use of 

personal protective equipment for a 

handler activity, the handler employer 

must take appropriate measures to 

prevent heat-related illness. 

§ 170.209 Handler decontamination 

supplies. 

(a) Requirement. The handler 

employer must provide 

decontamination supplies in accordance 

with this section for any handler that is 

performing any handler activity or 

removing personal protective equipment 

at the place for changing required by 

§ 170.207(d)(9). 

(b) General conditions. The 

decontamination supplies required in 

paragraph (a) of this section must 

include: at least 3 gallons of water per 

handler for routine hand washing, 

emergency eye flushing, and washing 

the entire body in case of an emergency; 

soap; single-use towels; and clean 

clothing for use in an emergency. The 

decontamination supplies must meet all 

of the following requirements: 

(1) Water. At all times when this 

section requires handler employers to 

make water available to handlers, the 

handler employer must ensure that it is 

of a quality and temperature that will 

not cause illness or injury when it 

contacts the skin or eyes or if it is 

swallowed. When water stored in a tank 

is to be used for mixing pesticides, it 

must not be used for decontamination or 

eye flushing, unless the tank is 

equipped with properly functioning 

valves or other mechanisms that prevent 

movement of pesticides into the tank, 

such as anti-backflow siphon devices, 

one-way or check valves, or an air gap 

sufficient to prevent contamination. 

(2) Soap and single-use towels. The 

handler employer must provide soap 

and single-use towels for drying in 

quantities sufficient to meet the 

handlers’ needs. Hand sanitizing gels 

and liquids or wet towelettes do not 

meet the requirement for soap. Wet 

towelettes do not meet the requirement 

for single-use towels. 

(3) Clean change of clothing. The 

handler employer must provide one 

clean change of clothing, such as 

coveralls, for use in an emergency. 

(c) Location. The decontamination 

supplies must be located together 

outside of any treated area, and be 

reasonably accessible to and not more 

than 1/4 mile from each handler during 

the handler activity. 

(1) Exception for mixing sites. For 

mixing activities, decontamination 

supplies must be at the mixing site. 

(2) Exception for pilots. 

Decontamination supplies for a pilot 

who is applying pesticides aerially must 

be in the aircraft or at the aircraft 

loading site. 

(3) Exception for handling pesticides 

in remote areas. Where handler 

activities are performed more than 1/4 

mile from the nearest place of vehicular 

access, the soap, single-use towels, 

clean change of clothing, and water may 

be at the nearest place of vehicular 

access. 

(4) Exception for treated areas. The 

decontamination supplies must be 

outside any treated area or area subject 

to a restricted-entry interval, unless all 

of the following conditions are met: 

(i) The soap, single-use towels, and 

clean change of clothing are protected 

from pesticide contamination in closed 

containers. 

(ii) The water is protected from 

pesticide contamination in closed 

containers. 

(d) Emergency eyeflushing. If the 

product label requires protective 

eyewear for handlers, the following 

requirements apply. 

(1) To provide for emergency 

eyeflushing, the handler employer must 

provide at least 1 pint of water per 

handler in portable containers that are 

immediately available to each handler 

who is performing activities for which 

the pesticide labeling requires 

protective eyewear. 

(2) A system capable of delivering at 

least 1.5 liters (0.4 gallons) of water per 

minute for 15 minutes must be provided 

at all permanent pesticide mixing and 

loading sites when the label requires 

protective eyewear for mixing, loading, 

or applying. 

Subpart D—Exemptions and 

Exceptions 

§ 170.301 Exemptions. 

(a) Exemption for owners of 

agricultural establishments and their 

immediate families. (1) On any 

agricultural establishment that is wholly 

owned by an individual, or where all of 

the owners of the establishment are 

members of the same immediate family, 

the owner(s) of the establishment are 

not required to provide the protections 

of the following provisions to 

themselves or members of their 

immediate family when they are 

performing handling tasks or tasks 

related to the production of agricultural 

plants that would otherwise be covered 

by this part on their own agricultural 

establishment. 

(i) § 170.9(c). 

(ii) § 170.9(f) through (j). 

(iii) § 170.11. 

(iv) § 170.101. 

(v) § 170.103. 

(vi) § 170.109. 

(vii) § 170.111 and 170.209. 

(viii) § 170.201. 

(ix) § 170.203. 

(x) § 170.205(c) and (d). 

(xi) § 170.207(c) through (e). 

(xii) § 170.305(a) through (c) and (e) 

through (k). 

(2) The owners of agricultural 

establishments must provide all of the 

applicable protections required by this 

part for any employees or other persons 

on the establishment that are not 

members of their immediate family. 

(b) Certified crop advisors. The 

requirements of §§ 170.9(e), 170.203(a), 

170.207 and 170.209 of this part do not 

apply to certified crop advisors 

provided the application is complete 

and all of the following conditions are 

met: 

(1) The crop advisor is certified or 

licensed as a crop advisor by a program 

acknowledged as appropriate in writing 

by EPA or a state or tribal agency 

responsible for pesticide enforcement. 

(2) The certification or licensing 

program requires pesticide safety 

training that includes all the 

information in § 170.201(c)(2) and (3). 

(3) The crop advisor who enters a 

treated area during a restricted-entry 

interval only performs crop advising 

tasks while in the treated area. 

§ 170.303 Exceptions for entry by workers 

during restricted-entry intervals. 

An agricultural employer may direct 

workers to enter treated areas where a 

restricted-entry interval is in effect to 

perform certain activities as provided in 

this section, and provided that the 

agricultural employer ensures that the 

worker is at least 16 years old and all 

of the applicable conditions of this 

section and § 170.305 of this part are 

met. 

(a) Exception for activities with no 

contact. A worker may enter a treated 

area during a restricted-entry interval if 

the agricultural employer ensures that 

all of the following conditions are met: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15528 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(1) The worker will have no contact 

with anything that has been treated with 

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

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

plants. This exception does not allow 

workers to perform any activities that 

involve contact with treated surfaces 

even if workers are wearing personal 

protective equipment. 

(2) No such entry is allowed until any 

inhalation exposure level listed in the 

pesticide product labeling has been 

reached or any ventilation criteria 

required by § 170.105(b)(3) or the 

pesticide product labeling have been 

met. 

(b) Exception for short-term activities. 

A worker may enter a treated area 

during a restricted-entry interval for 

short-term activities, if the agricultural 

employer ensures that all of the 

following requirements are met: 

(1) No hand labor activity is 

performed. 

(2) The time in treated areas where a 

restricted-entry interval is in effect does 

not exceed 1 hour in any 24-hour period 

for any worker. 

(3) No such entry is allowed during 

the first 4 hours after the application 

ends. 

(4) No such entry is allowed until any 

inhalation exposure level listed in the 

pesticide product labeling has been 

reached or any ventilation criteria 

required by § 170.105(b)(3) or the 

pesticide product labeling have been 

met. 

(c) Exception for an agricultural 

emergency. (1) An agricultural 

emergency means a sudden occurrence 

or set of circumstances which the 

agricultural employer could not have 

anticipated and over which the 

agricultural employer has no control, 

and which requires entry into a treated 

area during a restricted-entry interval, 

when no alternative practices would 

prevent or mitigate a substantial 

economic loss. A substantial economic 

loss means a loss in profitability greater 

than that which would be expected 

based on the experience and 

fluctuations of crop yields in previous 

years. Only losses caused by the 

agricultural emergency specific to the 

affected site and geographic area are 

considered. Losses resulting from 

mismanagement cannot be included 

when determining whether a loss is 

substantial. 

(2) A worker may enter a treated area 

where a restricted-entry interval is in 

effect in an agricultural emergency to 

perform tasks necessary to mitigate the 

effects of the agricultural emergency, 

including hand labor tasks, if the 

agricultural employer ensures that all 

the following criteria are met: 

(i) EPA, the state department of 

agriculture, or the state or tribal agency 

responsible for pesticide enforcement 

declares the existence of circumstances 

that could cause an agricultural 

emergency on that agricultural 

establishment. 

(ii) The agricultural employer 

determines that the agricultural 

establishment is subject to the 

circumstances that result in an 

agricultural emergency meeting the 

criteria of paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section. 

(iii) If the labeling of any pesticide 

product applied to the treated area 

requires workers to be notified of the 

location of treated areas by both posting 

and oral notification, then the 

agricultural employer must ensure that 

no individual worker spends more than 

4 hours out of any 24-hour period in 

treated areas where such a restrictedentry interval is in effect. 

(d) Exceptions for limited contact and 

irrigation activities. A worker may enter 

a treated area during a restricted-entry 

interval for limited contact or irrigation 

activities, if the agricultural employer 

ensures that all of the following 

requirements are met: 

(1) No hand labor activity is 

performed. 

(2) No worker is allowed in the 

treated area for more than 8 hours in a 

24-hour period. 

(3) No entry is allowed during the first 

4 hours after the application ends. 

(4) No such entry is allowed until any 

inhalation exposure level listed in the 

pesticide product labeling has been 

reached or any ventilation criteria 

required by § 170.105(b)(3) or the 

pesticide product labeling have been 

met. 

(5) The task is one that, if not 

performed before the restricted-entry 

interval expires, would cause 

substantial economic loss, and there are 

no alternative tasks that would prevent 

substantial loss. 

(6) With the exception of irrigation 

tasks, the need for the task could not 

have been foreseen. 

(7) The worker has no contact with 

pesticide-treated surfaces other than 

minimal contact with feet, lower legs, 

hands, and forearms. 

(8) The label of the product that was 

applied does not require both posting 

and oral notification. 

§ 170.305 Agricultural employer 

responsibilities to protect workers entering 

treated areas during a restricted-entry 

interval. 

If an agricultural employer directs a 

worker to perform activities in a treated 

area where a restricted-entry interval is 

in effect, all of the following 

requirements must be met: 

(a) Prior to early entry, the 

agricultural employer must inform each 

early entry worker with the information 

in paragraphs (a)(1) through (9) of this 

section. The information must be 

provided orally in a manner that the 

worker can understand. 

(1) Date of the entry. 

(2) Location of early entry area. 

(3) Pesticide(s) applied. 

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

(5) Which exception in § 170.303 is 

the basis for the early entry, and a 

description of tasks that may be 

performed under the exception. 

(6) Whether contact with treated 

surfaces is permitted under the 

exception. 

(7) Amount of time the worker is 

allowed to remain in the treated area. 

(8) Personal protective equipment 

required by the pesticide product 

labeling for early entry. 

(9) Location of the pesticide safety 

information and the location of the 

decontamination supplies required by 

§§ 170.11(a)(1) and 170.111(d). 

(b) The agricultural employer must 

maintain on the agricultural 

establishment for 2 years a record of the 

information provided to early entry 

workers under paragraph (a) of this 

section, along with the printed name, 

date of birth, and signature of each early 

entry worker who received the 

information. 

(c) Prior to early entry, the 

agricultural employer must ensure that 

each worker either has read the 

pesticide product labeling or has been 

informed, in a manner that the worker 

can understand, of all labeling 

requirements and statements related to 

human hazards or precautions, first aid, 

and user safety. 

(d) The agricultural employer must 

ensure that each worker who enters a 

treated area during a restricted-entry 

interval is provided the personal 

protective equipment specified in the 

pesticide product labeling for early 

entry workers. The agricultural 

employer must ensure that the worker 

uses the personal protective equipment 

as intended according to manufacturer’s 

instructions and follows any other 

requirements on the pesticide product 

labeling regarding early entry. Personal 

protective equipment must conform to 

the standards in § 170.207(b)(1) through 

(8). 

(e) The agricultural employer must 

maintain the personal protective 

equipment in accordance with 

§ 170.207(d)(1) through (8). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15529 

(f) The agricultural employer must 

ensure that no worker is allowed or 

directed to wear personal protective 

equipment, without implementing 

measures sufficient to prevent heatrelated illness and that each worker is 

instructed in the prevention, 

recognition, and first aid treatment of 

heat-related illness. 

(g) The agricultural employer must 

not allow or direct any worker to wear 

home or to take home employerprovided personal protective equipment 

contaminated with pesticides. 

(h) During any early entry activity, the 

agricultural employer must provide 

decontamination supplies in accordance 

with § 170.209, except the 

decontamination supplies must be 

outside any area being treated with 

pesticides or subject to a restricted-entry 

interval, unless the decontamination 

supplies would otherwise not be 

reasonably accessible to those workers. 

(i) If the pesticide product labeling of 

the product applied requires protective 

eyewear, the agricultural employer must 

provide at least 1 pint of water per 

worker in portable containers that are 

immediately available to each worker 

who is performing early entry activities 

for emergency eyeflushing. 

(j) At the end of any early entry 

activities the agricultural employer must 

provide, at the site where the workers 

remove personal protective equipment, 

soap, single-use towels and at least 3 

gallons of water per worker so that the 

workers may wash thoroughly. 

§ 170.307 Exceptions to personal 

protective equipment requirements 

specified on pesticide product labeling. 

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

coveralls, and any requirement for an 

additional layer of clothing beneath the 

coveralls is waived. 

(2) A chemical-resistant suit may be 

substituted for coveralls and a chemicalresistant apron. 

(b) Boots. If chemical-resistant 

footwear with sufficient durability and 

a tread appropriate for wear in rough 

terrain is not obtainable, then leather 

boots may be worn in such terrain. 

(c) Gloves. If chemical-resistant gloves 

with sufficient durability and 

suppleness are not obtainable, then 

during activities with plants with sharp 

thorns, leather gloves may be worn over 

chemical-resistant glove liners. 

However, once leather gloves are worn 

for this use, thereafter they must be 

worn only with chemical-resistant liners 

and they must not be worn for any other 

use. 

(d) Closed systems. (1) When 

pesticides are being mixed or loaded 

using a closed system as defined in 

§ 170.5 that meets all of the criteria in 

paragraph (d)(2) of this section, and the 

handler employer meets the 

requirements of paragraph (d)(3) of this 

section, the following exceptions to 

labeling-specified personal protective 

equipment are permitted: 

(i) Handlers using a closed system to 

mix or load pesticides with a signal 

word of ‘‘DANGER’’ or ‘‘WARNING’’ 

may substitute a long-sleeved shirt, long 

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

any protective gloves specified on the 

labeling for handlers for the labelingspecified personal protective 

equipment. 

(ii) Handlers using a closed system to 

mix or load pesticides other than those 

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

section may substitute protective 

eyewear, long-sleeved shirt, long pants, 

and shoes and socks for the labelingspecified personal protective 

equipment. 

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

of this section apply only where the 

closed system meets all of the following 

criteria: 

(i) The pesticide must be removed 

from its original shipping container and 

transferred through connecting hoses 

pipes, and/or couplings that are 

sufficiently tight to prevent exposure of 

any person to the concentrate, use 

dilution, or rinse solution. 

(ii) All hoses, piping, tanks, and 

connections used in conjunction with a 

closed system must be of a type 

appropriate for the pesticide being used 

and, the pressure and vacuum of the 

system. 

(iii) All sight gauges must be 

protected against breakage. Sight gauges 

must be equipped with valves so the 

pipes to the sight gauge can be shut off 

in case of breakage or leakage. 

(iv) The closed system must 

adequately measure the pesticide being 

used. Measuring devices must be 

accurately calibrated to the smallest unit 

in which the material is being weighed 

or measured. 

(v) The movement of a pesticide 

concentrate beyond a pump by positive 

pressure must not exceed 25 pounds per 

square inch (psi) of pressure. 

(vi) A probe must not be removed 

from a container except when the 

pesticide is used without dilution and 

the container has been emptied or the 

container is emptied and the inside, as 

well as the probe, have been rinsed in 

accordance with § 170.307(d)(2)(viii). 

(vii) Shut-off devices must be 

installed on the exit end of all hoses and 

at all disconnect points to prevent the 

pesticide from leaking when the transfer 

is stopped and the hose is removed or 

disconnected. If the hose carried 

pesticide concentrate and has not been 

rinsed in accordance with 

§ 170.307(d)(2)(viii), a dry break coupler 

that will minimize pesticide loss to not 

more than two milliliters per disconnect 

must be installed at the disconnect 

point. If the hose carried a pesticide use 

dilution or rinse solution, a reversing 

action pump or a similar system that 

will empty the hose may be used as an 

alternative to a shutoff device. 

(viii) When the pesticide is to be 

diluted for use, the closed system must 

provide for adequate rinsing of 

containers that have held less than 60 

gallons of a liquid pesticide. Rinsing 

must be done with a medium, such as 

water, that contains no pesticide. The 

system must be capable of spray-rinsing 

the inner surfaces of the container and 

the rinse solution must go into the 

pesticide mix tank or applicator vehicle 

via the closed system. The system must 

be capable of rinsing the probe, if used, 

and all hoses, measuring devices, etc. A 

minimum of 15 psi of pressure must be 

used for rinsing. The rinsing must be 

continued until minimum of 10 gallons 

or one-half of the container volume, 

whichever is less, has been used. The 

rinse solution must be removed from the 

pesticide container concurrently with 

introduction of the rinse medium. 

Pesticide containers must be protected 

against excessive pressure during the 

container rinse operation. The 

maximum container pressure must not 

exceed five psi. 

(ix) Each commercially produced 

closed system or component to be used 

with a closed system must be sold with 

complete instructions consisting of a 

functional operating manual and a 

decal(s) covering the basic operation. 

The decal(s) must be placed in a 

prominent location on the system. The 

system must include specific directions 

for cleaning and maintenance of the 

system on a scheduled basis and 

information on any restrictions or 

limitations relating to the system, such 

as pesticides that are incompatible with 

materials used in the construction of the 

system, types (or sizes) of containers or 

closures that cannot be handled by the 

system, any limits on ability to correct 

or over measurement of a pesticide, or 

special procedures or limitations on the 

ability of the system to deal with partial 

containers 

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

of this section apply only where the 

handler employer has satisfied the 

requirements of § 170.13 and all of the 

following conditions: 

(i) The written operating instructions 

for the closed system must be available 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
15530 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

at the mixing or loading site and must 

be made available to any handlers who 

use the system and for inspection by 

authorized officials. 

(ii) The handler employer must assure 

that any handler operating the closed 

system is trained in its use and operates 

the closed system in accordance with 

the manufacturer’s written operating 

instructions. 

(iii) The closed system must be 

cleaned and maintained as specified in 

the manufacturer’s written operating 

instructions and as needed to make sure 

the system functions properly. If the 

system is not a commercially produced 

system it must be maintained on a 

regular basis. 

(iv) A record of the cleaning and 

maintenance must be maintained on the 

establishment for 2 years. 

(v) All personal protective equipment 

specified in the pesticide product 

labeling is immediately available to the 

handler for use in an emergency. 

(vi) The handler employer ensures 

that protective eyewear is worn when 

using closed systems operating under 

pressure. 

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

applies a pesticide from inside an 

enclosed cab, and if the conditions 

listed in paragraph (e)(2) of this section 

are met, handlers may substitute a longsleeved shirt, long pants, shoes, and 

socks for the labeling-specified personal 

protective equipment. 

(2) All of the applicator personal 

protective equipment required by the 

pesticide product labeling must be 

immediately available and stored in an 

enclosed container, such as a plastic 

bag, to prevent contamination. Handlers 

must wear chemical-resistant gloves in 

addition to any personal protective 

equipment required by the pesticide 

product labeling for applicators, if they 

exit the cab within a treated area during 

application or when a restricted-entry 

interval is in effect. Once personal 

protective equipment is worn in a 

treated area, it must be removed before 

reentering the cab. 

(f) Aerial applications—(1) Use of 

gloves. Chemical-resistant gloves must 

be worn when entering or leaving an 

aircraft that may be contaminated by 

pesticide residues. In the cockpit, the 

gloves must be kept in an enclosed 

container, such as a plastic bag, to 

prevent contamination of the inside of 

the cockpit. 

(2) Open cockpit. Handlers occupying 

an open cockpit must use the personal 

protective equipment specified in the 

pesticide product labeling for use 

during application, except that 

chemical-resistant footwear need not be 

worn. A helmet may be substituted for 

chemical-resistant headgear. A helmet 

with a face shield lowered to cover the 

face may be substituted for protective 

eyewear. 

(3) Enclosed cockpit. Handlers 

occupying an enclosed cockpit may 

substitute a long-sleeved shirt, long 

pants, shoes, and socks for labelingspecified personal protective 

equipment. 

(g) 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 handler activities, 

provided that all of the following 

conditions are met: 

(1) The application has been complete 

for at least 4 hours. 

(2) No such entry is allowed until any 

inhalation exposure level listed in the 

pesticide product labeling has been 

reached or any ventilation criteria 

required by § 170.105(b)(3) or the 

pesticide product labeling have been 

met. 

§ 170.309 Exception to training 

requirements for workers. 

An agricultural employer may allow 

or direct a worker to perform tasks in a 

treated area on an agricultural 

establishment for up to two days 

without training the worker in 

accordance with § 170.101 provided the 

agricultural employer ensures all of the 

conditions of this section are met. 

(a) The worker is trained in 

accordance with § 170.101 before the 

third day of working in a treated area on 

the establishment. 

(b) The worker will not enter a treated 

area on the agricultural establishment 

while any restricted-entry interval is in 

effect. 

(c) The worker is provided with a 

copy of a pesticide information sheet 

that contains all of the points and 

information listed in § 170.309(e)(1) 

through (15) prior to conducting any 

tasks in a treated area, and that same 

information is communicated to the 

worker orally in a manner the worker 

understands. 

(d) The agricultural employer must 

maintain on the agricultural 

establishment for a period of 2 years a 

record of the information provided to 

the worker under § 170.309(c), along 

with the printed name of the worker, 

date of birth, the date the information 

was provided, the employer’s name, and 

employer’s phone number or phone 

number of the establishment, and 

signature of the worker affirming that he 

or she has been provided a copy of the 

information sheet required by 

§ 170.309(c), has had the information 

communicated to him or her orally in a 

manner the worker understands, and 

has understood the information. 

(e) Pesticide information sheets 

required by § 170.309(c) must convey 

the following points and information: 

(1) Agricultural employers are 

required to provide workers with 

information and protections designed to 

reduce work-related pesticide exposures 

and illnesses, including the following: 

(i) Employers are required to provide 

pesticide safety information to workers 

before being asked to work in pesticide 

treated areas if they have not received 

full pesticide safety training. 

(ii) Employers are required to provide 

the full pesticide safety training to 

workers before their third day of work 

in pesticide treated areas. 

(iii) Employers are required to provide 

pesticide safety information, pesticide 

hazard information for products used on 

the establishment, decontamination 

supplies, emergency medical assistance, 

and notification to workers of 

restrictions during applications and on 

entering pesticide treated areas. 

(2) Agricultural employers must 

inform workers how to recognize and 

understand the meaning of the posted 

warning signs used for notifying 

workers of restrictions on entering 

pesticide treated areas on the 

establishment. Workers must follow 

employer directions and/or signs about 

keeping out of entry restricted or 

pesticide treated areas. 

(3) Agricultural employers must not 

allow or direct any worker who has not 

received full pesticide safety training 

and additional early entry worker 

training to work in any area that is 

currently under a restricted-entry 

interval. Employers must comply with 

minimum age restrictions and 

notification requirements in order to 

direct workers to perform early-entry 

activities. 

(4) Agricultural employers must not 

allow or direct any worker to mix, load, 

or apply pesticides or assist in the 

application of pesticides unless the 

worker has been trained as a handler. 

(5) Agricultural employers are 

prohibited from intimidating, 

threatening, coercing, or discriminating 

against any worker for the purposes of 

interfering with any attempt to comply 

with the requirements of this part, or 

because the worker has made a 

complaint, testified, assisted, or 

participated in any manner in an 

investigation, proceeding, or hearing 

pursuant to this part. 

(6) There are potential sources of 

pesticide exposure on agricultural 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 15531 

establishments and pesticides and/or 

pesticide residues may be encountered 

during work activities. Pesticide 

residues may be on or in plants, soil, 

irrigation water, tractors, application 

equipment, or used personal protective 

equipment. Pesticides can also drift 

through air from nearby applications. 

Maintain a safe distance from nearby 

pesticide applications and leave the area 

immediately if pesticide sprays are 

contacting you. 

(7) Pesticides can cause illness or 

injury if they enter your body. 

Pesticides can enter the body by getting 

them on your skin or in your eyes, by 

swallowing them, or by breathing in 

their vapors. 

(8) There are potential hazards from 

toxicity and exposure that pesticides 

present to workers, including acute and 

chronic illnesses and effects, delayed 

effects, and sensitization. 

(9) There are potential hazards to 

children and pregnant women from 

pesticide exposure. 

(10) When working near pesticides or 

in pesticide treated areas wear work 

clothing that protects the body from 

pesticide residues and always wash 

hands before eating, drinking, using 

chewing gum or tobacco, or using the 

toilet. 

(11) Wash or shower with soap and 

water, shampoo hair, and change into 

clean clothes as soon as possible after 

working near or in pesticide treated 

areas. 

(12) There are potential hazards from 

the pesticide residues that may be on 

work clothing. Wash work clothes 

before wearing them again, and always 

wash work clothes separately from other 

clothes. 

(13) Pesticides may cause skin rashes 

or hurt your eyes, nose or throat. 

Pesticides can make you feel sick in 

different ways, such as headache or 

dizziness, muscles pain or cramps, 

nausea or vomiting, sweating, drooling, 

fatigue, or trouble breathing. 

(14) Wash immediately in the nearest 

clean water if pesticides are spilled or 

sprayed on the body. Shower, shampoo 

hair, and change into clean clothes as 

soon as possible. If a pesticide gets in 

your eyes, hold them open and rinse 

with a gentle stream of cool water. Rinse 

eyes for 15 minutes. 

(15) If you or someone you work with 

gets sick while working, tell your 

employer right away. If you suspect you 

have been injured or made ill from 

pesticides, get medical help as soon as 

possible. If you have been injured from 

pesticides while working, your 

employer must provide emergency 

transportation from the establishment to 

a nearby medical facility and provide 

information about the pesticide or 

pesticides that may have made you sick. 

[FR Doc. 2014–04761 Filed 3–18–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3