*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

RIN2070-AJ22_EO12866_AgWPS_NPRM_2013-09-25.docx 

Draft document as submitted for review under EO 12866.

13P-0940 

Page 1 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 170 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0184; FRL–9395–8] 

RIN 2070–AJ22

Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9 affects from exposure to pesticides among agricultural workers and pesticide handlers; 

10 vulnerable groups, such as minority and low-income populations, child farmworkers, and 

11 farmworker families; and the general public. EPA recognizes the importance and independence 

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

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

14 in the Federal Register]. 

15
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 2 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

16 ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA17 HQ-OPP-2011-0184, by one of the following methods: 

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

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

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

21 by statute. 

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

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

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

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

26 St., NW, Washington, DC 20503. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

34 (703) 308-2962; e-mail address: davis.kathy@epa.gov. 

35 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

36 I. General Information 

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

Page 3 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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

39 in production agriculture where pesticides are applied. 

40 The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

41 not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this 

42 document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include: 

43 • Agricultural Establishments (NAICS code 111000), establishments or persons, such as 

44 farms, orchards, groves, greenhouses, and nurseries, primarily engaged in growing crops, plants, 

45 vines, or trees and their seeds. 

46 • Nursery and Tree Production (NAICS code 111421), e.g., establishments or persons 

47 primarily engaged in (1) growing nursery products, nursery stock, shrubbery, bulbs, fruit stock, 

48 sod, and so forth, under cover or in open fields and/or (2) growing short rotation woody trees 

49 with a growth and harvest cycle of 10 years or less for pulp or tree stock. 

50 • Timber Tract Operations (NAICS code 113110), e.g., establishments or persons 

51 primarily engaged in the operation of timber tracts for the purpose of selling standing timber. 

52 Forest Nurseries and Gathering of Forest Products (NAICS code 113210), e.g., establishments or 

53 persons primarily engaged in (1) growing trees for reforestation and/or (2) gathering forest 

54 products, such as gums, barks, balsam needles, rhizomes, fibers, Spanish moss, ginseng, and 

55 truffles. 

56 • Farm Labor Contractors and Crew Leaders (NAICS code 115115), e.g., establishments 

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

58 • Farm Workers (NAICS codes 11511, 115112, and 115114), e.g., establishments or 

59 persons primarily engaged in providing support activities for growing crops; establishments or 

60 persons primarily engaged in performing a soil preparation activity or crop production service, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 4 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

61 such as plowing, fertilizing, seed bed preparation, planting, cultivating, and crop protecting 

62 services; and establishments or persons primarily engaged in performing services on crops, 

63 subsequent to their harvest, with the intent of preparing them for market or further processing. 

64 • Pesticide Manufacturers (NAICS code 325320), e.g., establishments primarily engaged 

65 in the formulation and preparation of agricultural and household pest control chemicals (except 

66 fertilizers). 

67 • Farm Worker Support Organizations (NAICS codes 813311, 813312, and 813319), e.g., 

68 establishments or persons primarily engaged in promoting causes associated with human rights 

69 either for a broad or specific constituency; establishments or persons primarily engaged in 

70 promoting the preservation and protection of the environment and wildlife; and establishments 

71 primarily engaged in social advocacy. 

72 • Farm Worker Labor Organizations (NAICS code 813930), e.g., establishments or 

73 persons primarily engaged in promoting the interests of organized labor and union employees. 

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

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

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

77 establishments primarily engaged in the administration, regulation, supervision and control of 

78 land use, including recreational areas; conservation and preservation of natural resources; erosion 

79 control; geological survey program administration; weather forecasting program administration; 

80 and the administration and protection of publicly and privately owned forest lands. Government 

81 establishments responsible for planning, management, regulation and conservation of game, fish, 

82 and wildlife populations, including wildlife management areas and field stations; and other 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 5 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

83 administrative matters relating to the protection of fish, game, and wildlife are included in this 

84 industry. 

85 • Pesticide Handling on Farms (NAICS code 115112), e.g., establishments or persons 

86 primarily engaged in performing a soil preparation activity or crop production service, such as 

87 seed bed preparation, planting, cultivating, and crop protecting services. 

88 • Crop Advisors (NAICS codes 115112, 541690, 541712) e.g., establishments or persons 

89 who primarily provide advice and assistance to businesses and other organizations on scientific 

90 and technical issues related to pesticide use and pest pressure. 

91 B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 

92 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e93 mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

94 information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD95 ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific 

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

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

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

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

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

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

102 heading, Federal Register date and page number). 

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

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

Page 6 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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

106 your requested changes. 

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

108 used. 

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

110 sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 

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

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

113 threats. 

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

115 II. Background 

116 A. Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

124 populations. 

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

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

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

Page 7 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

138 early-entry tasks. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

145 working on an establishment owned by another immediate family member. 

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

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

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

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

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

Page 8 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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

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

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

154 3821; January 21, 2011), and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have 

155 been documented in the public docket for this action. 

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

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

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

Category Description Source 

Monetized Benefits $75 – 80 million/year 

 Avoided acute pesticide 

incidents 

$10 – 15 million/year EA Chapter 6.5 

 Reduced effects of chronic 

pesticide exposure 

at least $64.8 million/year EA Chapter 6.8 

Qualitative Benefits 

 Willingness to pay to avoid acute effects 

of pesticide exposure beyond cost of 

treatment and loss of productivity 

 Reduced latent effect of avoided acute 

pesticide exposure 

 Reduced chronic effects from lower 

chronic pesticide exposure to farmworker 

families 

EA Chapter 6 

Monetized Costs $62 – 72 million/year EA Chapter 5.2 

Small Business Impacts 

No significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

 The rule will affect over 300,000 small 

farms, nurseries, and greenhouses and 

several hundred small commercial 

entities that are contracted to apply 

pesticides. 

 Impact less than 0.1% of the annual value 

of sales or revenues for the average small 

entity. Highest anticipated impact less 

EA Chapter 5.4 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 9 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

than 1% of annual sales. 

Impact on Jobs 

The rule will have a negligible effect on 

jobs and employment. 

 The marginal cost of a typical 

farmworker is expected to increase 

$5/year. 

 The marginal cost for a more skilled 

pesticide handler is expected to increase 

by $60 per year, but this is less than 0.3 

percent of the cost of a part-time 

employee. 

EA Chapter 5.3 

159

160 B. What Action is the Agency Taking? 

161 The WPS is a regulation intended to reduce the risks of injury or illness resulting from 

162 agricultural workers’ and handlers’ use and contact with pesticides on farms, forests, nurseries 

163 and greenhouses. The rule does not cover persons working directly with livestock. The existing 

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

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

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

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

168 implementation was delayed until 1995. 

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

170 in the current regulations, such as: 

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

172 in early-entry activities, 

173 • Inadequate hazard communication provisions, 

174 • Insufficient training of agricultural workers before they face potential pesticide 

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

Page 10 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

176 • Unclear requirements regarding the decontamination supplies the WPS requires 

177 employers to provide, and 

178 • Insufficient recordkeeping to verify compliance with regulations. 

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

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

181 proposed changes to: 

182 • Improve effectiveness of worker and handler training, 

183 • Improve protections to workers during restricted-entry intervals (REIs), 

184 • Improve protections for workers during and after pesticide applications, 

185 • Expand the information provided to workers, thus improving hazard communication 

186 protections, 

187 • Expand the content of pesticide safety information displayed, thus improving the 

188 display’s effectiveness, 

189 • Improve the protections for crop advisor employees, 

190 • Increase the amounts of decontamination water available, thus improving the 

191 effectiveness of the decontamination process, 

192 • Improve the emergency response when workers experience pesticide exposures, 

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

194 and comply with the provisions, 

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

196 ensure protection for occupational pesticide workers, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 11 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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

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

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

200 • Improve flexibility for small farmers and members of their immediate family by 

201 expanding the definition of immediate family members to be more inclusive and retaining the 

202 exemptions from almost all WPS requirements for owners and their immediate family members. 

203 C. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

204 This action is issued under the authority of sections 2 through 35 of the Federal 

205 Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136-136y, and particularly 

206 section 25(a), 7 U.S.C. 136w(a). 

207 D. Related Rulemaking 

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

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

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

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

212 final rule to amend the current WPS at part 170. 

213 E. Benefits of the Proposal 

214 The proposed changes to the current WPS requirements are expected to lead to an overall 

215 reduction in incidents of unsafe pesticide exposure and to improve the occupational health of the 

216 nation’s agricultural workers and pesticide handlers. This section provides an overview of the 

217 qualitative benefits of the proposal and the estimated benefits that would accrue from avoiding 

218 acute pesticide exposure in the population protected by the WPS. It also provides an estimate of 

219 the number of chronic illnesses with a plausible association with pesticide exposure that would 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 12 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

220 have to be prevented by the proposed changes in order for the total estimated benefits to meet the 

221 estimated cost of the proposal. 

222 A sizeable portion of the agricultural workforce may be exposed occupationally to 

223 pesticides and pesticide residues. These exposures can pose significant long- and short-term 

224 health risks. It is difficult to quantify a specific level of risk and project the risk reduction that 

225 would result from this proposal because workers and handlers are potentially exposed to a wide 

226 range of pesticides with varying toxicities and risks. However, there is strong evidence that 

227 workers and handlers may be exposed to pesticides at levels that can cause adverse effects and 

228 that both the exposures and the risks can be substantially reduced. EPA believes the provisions in 

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

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

231 pesticides total about $11.4 million annually (Ref. 1). This conservative estimate includes only 

232 the avoided costs in medical care and lost productivity to workers and handlers and assumes that 

233 just 25% of acute pesticide incidents are reported. It does not include quantification of the 

234 reduction in chronic effects of pesticide exposure to workers and handlers, reduced effects of 

235 exposure including developmental impacts, to children and pregnant workers and handlers or 

236 willingness to pay to avoid symptoms of pesticide exposure. Because the chronic effects of 

237 pesticide exposures are seldom attributable to a specific cause, and thus are unlikely to be 

238 recorded in pesticide poisoning databases, EPA is not able to quantify the benefits expected to 

239 accrue from proposed WPS changes that would reduce chronic exposure to pesticides. However, 

240 associations between pesticide exposure and certain cancer and non-cancer chronic health effects 

241 are well documented in the peer-reviewed literature, and reducing these chronic health effects is 

242 an important FIFRA goal. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 13 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

243 Even if the lack of quantitative data impairs the reliability of estimates of the total 

244 number of chronic illnesses avoided, it is reasonable to expect that the proposed changes to the 

245 WPS will reduce the incidence of chronic disease resulting from pesticide exposure. Therefore, 

246 EPA conducted a “break even” analysis to consider the plausibility of the proposed changes to 

247 the WPS reducing the incidence of chronic disease enough to cause the net benefits of the 

248 proposed rule to exceed its anticipated costs. Under this analysis, EPA looked at the costs 

249 associated with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, prostate cancer, Parkinson’s disease, lung cancer, 

250 bronchitis, and asthma and their frequency among agricultural workers, and found that reducing 

251 the incidence of lung cancer by 0.08% and the incidence of the other chronic diseases by 0.8% 

252 per year (about 53 total cases per year among the population of workers and handlers protected 

253 under the WPS) would produce quantified benefits sufficient to bridge the gap between the 

254 quantified benefits from reducing acute incidents and the $62 million to $72 million cost of the 

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

256 result in long-term health benefits to agricultural workers and pesticide handlers in excess of the 

257 less than 1% reduction in just six diseases that corresponds with the break-even point for the 

258 proposed rule, not only by reducing their daily risk of pesticide exposures, but also by improving 

259 quality of life throughout their lives, resulting in a lower cost of health care and a healthier 

260 society. 

261 The proposed changes to the current WPS requirements, specifically improved training on 

262 reducing pesticide residues brought from the treated area to the home on workers and handlers’ 

263 clothing and bodies and establishing a minimum age for handlers and early entry workers, other 

264 than those covered by the immediate family exemption, mitigate the potential for children to be 

265 exposed to pesticides directly and indirectly. The unquantified benefit to adolescent workers and 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 14 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

266 handlers, as well as children of workers and handlers is great; reducing exposure to pesticides 

267 could translate into fewer sick days, fewer days missed of school, improved capacity to learn, 

268 and better long-term health. Parents and caregivers reap benefits by having healthier families, 

269 fewer missed workdays, and better quality of life. 

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

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

272 the proposed rule would substantially mitigate for these workers and handlers the potential for 

273 adverse health effects (acute and chronic) from occupational exposures to such pesticides and 

274 their residues. These measures include requirements intended to reduce exposure by: 

275 • Ensuring that workers and handlers are informed about the hazards of pesticides –the 

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

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

278 • Reducing exposure to pesticides – among other things, the proposed rule changes and 

279 clarifies the requirements for personal protective equipment. It also makes changes to the timing 

280 of applications when people are nearby. These and other provisions should directly reduce 

281 exposure in the agricultural workforce. 

282 • Mitigating the effects from exposures that occur – some accidental exposures are 

283 inevitable. EPA expects the proposed rule to mitigate the severity of health impacts by updating 

284 and clarifying what is required to respond to exposures. 

285 Further detail on the benefits of this proposal is provided in the document titled 

286 “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard” which is 

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

288 anticipated benefits: 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 15 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

289 1. Reduce incidents of exposure and illness through: 

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

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

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

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

294 existing regulation requires employers to provide training every 5 years. Today’s proposal, if 

295 finalized, would expand the content of the training, increase the frequency of training to every 

296 year, and set higher standards for trainers. Providing workers and handlers with information on 

297 reducing pesticide exposure in a manner they understand, e.g., in a language they speak and at an 

298 appropriate education level, and at intervals more likely to result in retention of the information, 

299 would benefit workers and handlers. Thus, EPA believes today’s proposal would reduce overall 

300 pesticide exposure among workers, handlers, and their families. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

307 reminder to workers not to enter the specific pesticide-treated area without proper protection. 

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

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

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

311 information about the limited circumstances in which workers may enter a treated area under an 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 16 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

322 establishment. Today’s proposal would require employers to maintain a copy of pesticide labels, 

323 the application records, and the Safety Data Sheet (SDS, formerly known as Material Safety Data 

324 Sheet, or MSDS), as well as the information currently required under the WPS, for 2 years after 

325 the product was applied on the establishment. The employer would be required to provide this 

326 information upon request and to ensure that health care providers treating a worker or handler 

327 who was exposed on the establishment receive a copy of this information. The more specific 

328 information required, longer retention period, and provision to provide additional information to 

329 health care providers should assist the health care provider in determining the specific types of 

330 pesticides to which a worker or handler may have been exposed and in more effectively treating 

331 the injured person. 

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

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

334 recent study estimates that 37% to 68% of acute pesticide-related illnesses in agricultural 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 17 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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

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

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

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

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

340 application or through drift. 

341 2. Strengthen protection for children through: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

348 establishes a minimum age of 16 for persons handling toxicity category I and II pesticides (29 

349 U.S.C. 213(c)(2)). Implementing a requirement for handlers and early-entry workers to be at 

350 least 16 years old would ensure that all persons handling pesticides, regardless of the toxicity 

351 level, are protected, thereby reducing their overall risk of pesticide exposure and illness. Persons 

352 under the age of 16 working on the establishment of an immediate family member would be 

353 exempt from both minimum age requirements. 

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

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

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

357 bodies, and shoes to their homes, vehicles, and family members. Although studies documenting 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 18 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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

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

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

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

362 3. Reduce some burdens on growers by: 

363 a. Eliminating duplicative respirator requirements. Agricultural worker and handler 

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

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

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

367 proposal harmonizes the requirements for agricultural employers that may be required to provide 

368 a respirator for their employees using pesticides under the WPS with those issued by OSHA for 

369 respirator use in agriculture beyond pesticide use in order to reduce the burden on employers to 

370 comply with two separate standards. 

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

372 current WPS employers may be uncertain about what measures they must take to verify whether 

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

374 establishment. EPA administers a voluntary training verification system, but it is not used nation375 wide or consistently. As a result, many employers provide pesticide safety training to all new 

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

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

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

379 employer as proof of valid training and for the new employer to maintain a copy in his or her 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 19 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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

381 agricultural and handler employers. 

382 c. Streamlining notification requirements between handler employers and agricultural 

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

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

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

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

387 pesticide application plans to the agricultural employer within 2 hours of the end of the 

388 application rather than before the application. Changes to the estimated application end time of 

389 less than one hour would not require notification. 

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

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

392 which could lead to increased compliance with the rule. Today’s proposal, if finalized, would 

393 reorganize the rule into four sections: (1) general requirements, (2) responsibilities of agricultural 

394 employers, (3) responsibilities of handler employers, and (4) exceptions. Employers’ greater 

395 understanding and compliance with the WPS would ensure that workers and handlers are 

396 provided with the information and equipment they need to protect themselves. In turn, this 

397 should contribute to reduced incidents of unreasonable adverse effects from pesticide exposure. 

398 F. Request for Comments 

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

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

401 provide input on the following when providing comments: 

402 • The need for, value of, and any alternatives to the requirements described in this 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 20 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

403 document. 

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

405 • The clarity of the proposed revisions. 

406 • The ability to effectively enforce the proposed regulation. 

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

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

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

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

411 the Agency. 

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

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

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

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

416 reminded that the submission of data derived from human research should include information 

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

418 26.1303. 

419 G. Reasons for Today’s Action

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

421 1990s, EPA has engaged a wide range of stakeholders to evaluate the effectiveness of the WPS 

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

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

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

425 Through public meetings and federal advisory committees, and as individuals and small groups, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 21 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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

427 changes address their recommendations and concerns. 

428 EPA has also reviewed available information about occupational pesticide exposure in 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

436 information and PPE. 

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

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

439 - $14,999, many do not speak English and are not literate in their native language, and workers 

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

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

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

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

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

445 Today’s proposal as a whole addresses many worker safety concerns; throughout this document 

446 the environmental justice concerns relative to specific changes will be highlighted. 

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

448 intended, among other things, to reduce the risks of illness or injury to workers and handlers 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 22 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

449 resulting from occupational exposure to pesticides on agricultural establishments. Broadly 

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

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

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

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

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

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

456 to achieve substantial benefits at minimum cost. 

457 The overall costs of the proposal range from $62 to $72 million annually. These costs 

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

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

460 type of employees, EPA estimates that the annual cost to large establishments would be $350 to 

461 $400 per year. Small establishments would incur a lower cost of $130 to $150 per year, which 

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

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

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

465 regulation will have a negative impact on employment. 

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

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

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

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

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

471 and handlers themselves. Through the WPS and these proposals, EPA seeks to have those 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 23 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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

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

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

475 handlers. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

484 be reported by the workers as related to their occupational exposure. Studies estimate that 

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

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

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

488 annually (Ref. 1). 

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

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

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

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

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

494 worker population would be more beneficial and likely to effect positive change than requiring 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 24 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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

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

497 government to ensure these populations are adequately protected. 

498 Well-documented associations between pesticide exposure and certain cancer and non499 cancer chronic health effects exist in peer-reviewed literature; however, the wide range of 

500 employment histories and pesticide exposures characteristic of the agricultural workforce 

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

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

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

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

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

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

507 improvements to the WPS that could reduce the frequency of these illnesses among workers and 

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

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

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

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

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

513 other illnesses considered. 

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

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

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

517 emergency exposure all provide workers and handlers with more information and a better ability 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 25 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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

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

520 Overall, the weight of evidence suggests that the proposed requirements will result in both short521 and long-term health benefits to agricultural workers and pesticide handlers. 

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

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

524 most handlers and early-entry workers; the minimum age would not apply to handlers and early525 entry workers on an establishment owned by an immediate family member. EPA believes that 

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

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

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

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

530 home to their families. Although studies are inconclusive about the effects of pesticides 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

538 conclusion. Today’s proposal reflects the Agency’s commitment to pay particular attention to the 

539 health of children and environmental justice concerns. The proposal also aligns with the 

540 President’s January 18, 2011 Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821), requesting that agencies 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 26 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

541 review existing regulations to improve the efficacy of their protection, to balance costs and 

542 benefits, and to maximize their efficiency. 

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

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

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

546 risk reduction benefits of the measures proposed below. 

547 G. Summary of Proposed Changes 

548 EPA proposes to revise the WPS by: 

549 • Changing the pesticide safety training content, retraining interval, and eligibility of 

550 trainers, 

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

552 • Establishing a minimum age of 16 for handlers and for workers who enter an area under 

553 an REI, 

554 • Establishing requirements for specific training and notification for workers who enter 

555 an area under an REI, 

556 • Restricting persons’ entry into areas adjacent to a treated area during an application, 

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

558 • Modifying the content of the warning sign, 

559 • Adding information employers must keep under the requirement to maintain 

560 application-specific information, 

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

562 an REI, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 27 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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

564 minimum age requirements for handlers and early-entry workers, 

565 •Expanding the definition of “immediate family” to allow more family-owned operations 

566 to qualify for the exemptions to the WPS requirements, 

567 • Revising definitions to improve clarity and to refine terms, and 

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

569 III. Statutory Authority and Framework 

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

571 work with and around pesticides in agriculture. 

572 A. FIFRA

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

574 framework for the regulation of pesticide products. Major amendments in 1972 by the Federal 

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

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

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

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

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

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

581 adverse effects of pesticides. 

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

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

584 protection under FIFRA. In discussing the 1972 amendments, the Senate Committee on 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 28 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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

586 pesticides or their residues. (Ref. 4) 

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

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

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

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

591 individual product labels inordinately complex, the Agency decided to consolidate common 

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

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

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

595 workers and handlers on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses from occupational exposure 

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

597 exposure, regardless of the risks of specific pesticides, and the individual pesticide labels provide 

598 the specific requirements appropriate to each pesticide product. The WPS sets basic requirements 

599 for notification of a treated area, limited entry into a treated area, supplies related to 

600 decontamination and maintenance of PPE, and access to information about pesticides used on the 

601 agricultural establishment. It also requires that workers and handlers receive basic safety training 

602 to inform them about ways to minimize their exposure and risk. 

603 B. EPA Regulation of Pesticides

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

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

606 process for registering and re-evaluating pesticides. The registration process begins when a 

607 manufacturer submits an application to register a pesticide. The application must contain 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 29 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

608 required test data, including information on the pesticide’s chemistry, environmental fate, 

609 toxicity to humans and wildlife, and potential for human exposure. The Agency also requires a 

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

611 Once an application for registration of a new pesticide product is received, EPA conducts 

612 an evaluation, which includes a detailed review of scientific data to determine the potential 

613 impact on human health and the environment. The Agency considers the risk assessments and 

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

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

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

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

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

619 such as use of closed mixing systems to reduce potential exposure to those who mix and load 

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

621 inhalation of the product. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

629 continued use of the product to society at large. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 30 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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

631 of these standards, EPA communicates to the applicant the need for more or better refined data, 

632 labeling modifications, or additional use restrictions. Once the applicant has demonstrated that a 

633 proposed product meets the statutory standards, and, if the pesticide is intended to be used on 

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

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

636 mitigation measures necessary to achieve that approval. EPA devotes significant resources to the 

637 regulation of pesticides to ensure that each pesticide product meets the FIFRA requirement that 

638 pesticides not cause unreasonable adverse effects to the public and the environment. 

639 When EPA approves a pesticide, the label reflects the risk mitigation measures required 

640 by the Agency. Since users must comply with the directions for use and use restrictions on a 

641 product’s labeling, EPA uses the labeling to establish and convey mandatory requirements for 

642 how the pesticide must be used to protect people and the environment from pesticide exposure. 

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

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

645 specific requirements for the protection of workers and handlers that complement the product646 specific labeling requirements. 

647 C. EPA’s Pesticide Reregistration and Registration Review Programs

648 FIFRA requires EPA to review periodically the registration of pesticides currently 

649 registered in the U.S. The 1988 FIFRA amendments required EPA to establish a pesticide 

650 reregistration program. Reregistration was a one-time comprehensive review of the human health 

651 and environmental effects of pesticides first registered before November 1, 1984 to make 

652 decisions about these pesticides' future use. The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 required 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 31 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

653 that EPA establish, through rule making, an ongoing “registration review” process of all 

654 pesticides at least every 15 years. The final rule establishing the registration review program was 

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

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

657 based on up-to-date scientific approaches and data. 

658 Pesticides reviewed under the reregistration program that met current scientific and safety 

659 standards were declared "eligible" for reregistration. The results of EPA's reviews are 

660 summarized in Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) documents. The last RED was 

661 completed in 2008. Often before a pesticide could be determined “eligible,” certain risk 

662 reduction measures had to be put in place. For a number of pesticides, measures intended to 

663 reduce exposure to handlers and workers were needed and are reflected on pesticide labels. To 

664 address occupational risk concerns, REDs include mitigation measures such as voluntary 

665 cancellation; limiting the amount, frequency or timing of applications; other application 

666 restrictions; classification of a product or specific use as a "Restricted Use Pesticide" (RUP); 

667 PPE; specific REIs; user safety requirements; and improved use directions. 

668 Rigorous education and enforcement are needed to ensure that these mitigation measures 

669 are appropriately implemented in the field. The framework provided by the WPS is critical for 

670 ensuring that the improvements brought about by reregistration, including worker risk mitigation 

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

672 the effectiveness of the existing structure. 

673 In summary, EPA’s pesticide reregistration and registration reviews assess the specific 

674 risks associated with particular chemicals and ensure that the public and environment do not 

675 suffer unreasonable adverse effects from the risks. EPA implements the risk reduction and 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 32 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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

677 through individual pesticide product labels. 

678 D. Existing Worker Protection Standard 

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

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

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

682 conditions of two types of employees: Workers and handlers. 

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

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

685 commodities. 

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

687 application on agricultural establishments. 

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

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

690 specific risk mitigation measures implemented through individual pesticide labels. The existing 

691 WPS requires agricultural employers to provide certain protections to their employees. 

692 Agricultural employers are required to notify workers of areas treated with pesticides so workers 

693 may avoid inadvertent exposures. Employers also must provide to all workers that may enter a 

694 treated area pesticide safety training that covers common routes of exposure, how to protect 

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

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

697 application, and following safety principles. A central location on the establishment must have a 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 33 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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

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

700 The labels of agricultural pesticides generally specify REIs (a time during which entry 

701 into a treated area is strictly limited) for areas treated with pesticides. The existing WPS 

702 regulation provides detailed requirements regarding identifying areas under an REI and notifying 

703 workers about them, excluding workers and others from the treated areas, and the limited 

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

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

706 the label, and instruction that employers must provide to workers entering under an REI 

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

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

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

710 measures implemented through the pesticide label. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

717 to which the person may have exposed. 

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

719 today’s proposal appears in Unit V. 

720 IV. Overview of EPA’s Protection of Pesticide Workers 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 34 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

721 A. Demographics of Agricultural Workers and Handlers

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

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

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

725 the tasks they perform. 

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

727 Workers Survey (NAWS) in 2001-2002, 75% of agricultural workers in the United States were 

728 born in Mexico and 2% in Central America (Ref. 3 p. 3). A majority (81%) of this group speaks 

729 Spanish as a native language, but a growing percentage speaks languages such as Creole, 

730 Mixteco, and indigenous languages (Ref. 3 p. 17). Approximately 44% could not speak English 

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

732 education; the foreign born workers, on average, completed no more than a sixth grade education 

733 (Ref. 3 p. 18). 

734 Approximately 43% of the survey respondents were classified as migrant, having traveled 

735 at least 75 miles in the previous year to find a job in agriculture (Ref. 3 p. 7). Over 20% of 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

743 of farmworkers, while about a third listed language barriers as an impediment to receiving care. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 35 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

751 (Ref. 3 p. 47). 

752 B. Incident Data Sources and General Information

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

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

755 detailing the coverage of all pesticide exposure incident reporting databases considered by the 

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

757 exposure incidents. 

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

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

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

761 and has a specific component for pesticides (SENSOR-Pesticides). EPA uses SENSOR762 Pesticides to monitor trends in occupational health related to acute exposures to pesticides, to 

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

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

765 program collects most poisoning incident cases from: 

766 • Department of Labor workers’ compensation claims when reported by physicians, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 36 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

767 • State Departments of Agriculture, and 

768 • Poison control centers. 

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

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

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

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

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

774 SENSOR-Pesticides provides the most comprehensive information on occupational pesticide 

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

776 Washington State. 

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

778 System (NPDS), formerly the Toxic Effects Surveillance System (TESS). NPDS is a 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

789 by the 61 certified PCCs, adhering to clinical criteria designed to provide a consistent approach 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 37 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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

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

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

793 occupational incident data. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

801 to incorrect diagnoses, and chronic effects are difficult to identify and track. The demographics 

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

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

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

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

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

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

808 1). 

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

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

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

812 types of incidents are related to pesticide drift and unpermitted entry into an area under an REI 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 38 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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

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

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

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

817 C. Other Worker Protection Programs 

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

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

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

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

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

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

824 solicit feedback from the regulated and affected communities to EPA about the effect of the 

825 pesticide labels and mitigation measures. To implement these programs, the Office of Pesticide 

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

827 regulatory agencies; USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) (formerly the 

828 Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES)); university 

829 cooperative extension services; farmworker groups; and the regulated community. EPA funds 

830 collaborative field projects and activities through grants with governmental and non831 governmental organizations with the goal of improving the health of workers, handlers, 

832 applicators, the public, and the environment. 

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

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

835 demonstrate competency to become certified to apply RUPs. Part 171 also has a section outlining 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 39 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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

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

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

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

840 cooperative extension services in each state. 

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

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

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

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

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

846 and suggests treatments based on the suspected exposure. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

853 continuing education opportunities. 

854 D. EPA-OSHA Relationship 

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

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

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

858 promulgated a Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200) to protect 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 40 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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

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

861 regulatory measures to ensure employees’ occupational safety and health. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

869 accident. OSHA determined that employees are at a significant risk of experiencing adverse 

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

871 requires employers to provide the following protections in the workplace: 

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

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

874 present; 

875 • Ensure labeling of all chemical containers; 

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

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

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

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

880 workplace. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 41 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

892 pesticide-related HCS standards. The policy also defers to EPA’s regulatory authorities for 

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

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

895 V. Sources of Information for Improvement of Worker Protection 

896 A. History of the WPS Regulation 

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

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

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

900 • A prohibition against spraying workers, 

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

902 agricultural pesticides, prohibiting entry until sprays had dried or dusts had settled; 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 42 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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

904 before the specific reentry interval had expired; and 

905 • A requirement for “appropriate and timely” warnings. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

915 with respect to the enforcement of the protections. EPA realized that the four existing 

916 requirements of the WPS were not typically included on the pesticide labels. Without a reference 

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

918 regulation itself did not clearly assign responsibility for compliance with the requirements; for 

919 example, workers were prohibited from entering treated areas, but nobody was charged with 

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

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

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

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

924 mix, load, or apply pesticides. Their occupational exposure profile is distinct from that of 

925 workers protected by the initial WPS. When mixing, handlers may face exposure while pouring 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 43 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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

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

928 mixture into the application equipment or making the application. The Agency believed that 

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

930 was necessary. 

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

932 32605; August 15, 1984), announcing its intention to revise the 1974 rule for the reasons 

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

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

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

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

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

938 from 25 entities. Certain labor representatives discontinued their participation early in the 

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

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

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

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

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

944 • Expansion of the scope of establishments covered; 

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

946 • Revision to the PPE requirements; 

947 • Improvement to worker notification provisions; and 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 44 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

948 • Strengthening compliance with the regulation by designating specific responsibilities of 

949 agricultural employers. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

958 on these concerns, Congress enacted legislation delaying implementation of the final rule. EPA’s 

959 revisions to the WPS were fully implemented in 1995. The expanded regulation provided 

960 protections for agricultural workers from pesticide exposure on farms and in forests, nurseries, 

961 and greenhouses; included agricultural handlers; and held agricultural employers and pesticide 

962 applicators responsible for complying with specific portions of the regulation. 

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

964 1995, EPA published a series of Federal Register notices: (1) reducing the grace period for 

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

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

967 (60 FR 21943; May 3, 1995), (3) exempting certain persons performing crop advisor tasks from 

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

969 exceptions to the WPS to allow workers to enter pesticide-treated areas during an REI under 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 45 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

979 requirements. This notice allowed all early-entry workers and handlers to wear disposable glove 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

992 Evaluation Group nominated the state participants on the IGW. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 46 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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

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

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

996 available to the public (Ref. 14). 

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

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

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

1000 of the elements in the IGW guidance document, as discussed in Units VII through XVIII. 

1001 At the same time EPA published the 1992 WPS, the Agency also published an NPRM on 

1002 a Hazard Communication/Right-to-Know program for agricultural workers (57 FR 38167; 

1003 August 21, 1992). This NPRM responded to comments received in response to the 1992 

1004 proposed rule noting that protections for agricultural workers could not be considered complete 

1005 until workers were provided with specific hazard information. Many comments called for EPA to 

1006 adopt requirements parallel to those imposed by OSHA rules. In the 1992 proposed rule, EPA 

1007 proposed options for providing written information about the specific hazards posed by 

1008 pesticides in the workplace, for alleviating confusion about possible conflict and duplication 

1009 between EPA and OSHA regulation of occupational safety and health in pesticides, and for 

1010 supporting states in developing their own hazard communication programs. EPA never 

1011 promulgated a rule finalizing a Hazard Communication/Right-to-Know program for agricultural 

1012 workers because Agency resources were diverted to develop training and compliance assistance 

1013 materials to implement the WPS as mandated by Congress. The Agency also wanted to solicit 

1014 more stakeholder feedback about states’ experiences implementing different approaches to 

1015 hazard communication before moving forward with a final regulation. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 47 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1016 B. Stakeholder Engagement 

1017 Over the last 20 years, the Agency has repeatedly engaged the public and particularly 

1018 affected stakeholders in the assessment of the 1992 WPS and its implementation. This 

1019 stakeholder engagement process has provided EPA with a deep appreciation of the complex 

1020 challenges facing federal, state and tribal authorities, agricultural employers, and workers and 

1021 handlers in the ongoing effort to ensure pesticide use is safe. 

1022 Immediately following full implementation of the 1992 WPS, EPA began the Pesticide 

1023 Dialogue Process. From 1996 to 2000, EPA held public meetings across the country for open 

1024 dialogue on rule implementation, challenges in compliance, and perceived effectiveness. The 

1025 meetings were open to the general public. 

1026 The Agency initiated the National Assessment of EPA’s Pesticide Worker Safety 

1027 Program (National Assessment) in 2000. Through this process, EPA convened stakeholder 

1028 meetings in Texas, California, and Florida. Participants included representatives from 

1029 farmworker organizations, cooperative extension services, commodity organizations, state 

1030 regulatory agencies, federal agencies, pesticide manufacturers and distributors, and individual 

1031 workers, handlers, and growers. Stakeholders provided information about the strengths and 

1032 weaknesses of the WPS’s protections and implementation. EPA established three workgroups: 

1033 general training (Ref. 15), train-the-trainer (Ref. 16), and hazard communication. Each of the 

1034 workgroups met apart from the public meetings to assess specific aspects of the WPS and to 

1035 recommend improvements. EPA held a final meeting in Washington, DC at which the 

1036 workgroups presented their findings to EPA. 

1037 The assessment concluded in 2005 with the presentation of the “Report on the National 

1038 Assessment of EPA’s Pesticide Worker Safety Program” (Ref. 17). The opinions and suggestions 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 48 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1039 made during the course of the assessment centered on a few broad improvement areas: the 

1040 expansion and upgrade of applicator competency and worker safety and promotion of safer work 

1041 practices, improved training of and communication with all pesticide workers, increased 

1042 enforcement efforts and improved training of inspectors, training of health care providers and 

1043 monitoring of pesticide incidents, and finally, program operation, efficiency, and funding (Ref. 

1044 17 p. 1). While EPA addressed some of the recommendations through grants, program guidance, 

1045 and other outreach, others required regulatory change (Ref. 17 p. 26). 

1046 During the initial stages of the framing of this proposal, EPA’s Federal Advisory 

1047 Committee, the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC), formed a workgroup in 2006 to 

1048 provide feedback to EPA on different areas for change. The workgroup had over 70 members 

1049 representing a wide range of stakeholders. EPA shared with the workgroup suggestions for 

1050 regulatory change identified through the National Assessment and solicited comments. The 

1051 workgroup convened for a series of meetings and conference calls to get more information on 

1052 specific parts of the regulation and provided its thoughts to the Agency. The workgroup never 

1053 reached consensus; it focused on evaluating possible changes under consideration by EPA 

1054 providing feedback from each member’s or organization’s perspective. Comments from the 

1055 PPDC workgroup members have been compiled into a single document and posted in the docket. 

1056 EPA convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel on potential revisions 

1057 to the WPS in 2008. The SBAR Panel was convened under section 609(b) of the Regulatory 

1058 Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act 

1059 (SBREFA). As part of the SBAR Panel’s activities, EPA consulted with a group of Small Entity 

1060 Representatives (SERs) from small businesses and organizations that could be affected by the 

1061 potential revisions. EPA provided the SERs with information on the WPS and potential revisions 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 49 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1062 and requested feedback on the proposals under consideration. EPA asked the SERs to offer 

1063 alternate solutions to the potential proposals presented to provide flexibility or to decrease 

1064 economic impact for small entities while still accomplishing the goal of improved safety. 

1065 The SERs provided feedback on the following areas: Requiring all treated areas to be 

1066 posted, requiring pesticide safety training more frequently than every 5 years, eliminating the 

1067 grace period between hiring a worker and providing pesticide safety training, and requiring 

1068 showers on establishments that employ handlers. EPA compiled the responses from the SERs in 

1069 an Appendix to the final Panel Report and posted the full report and appendix in the docket (Ref. 

1070 18). EPA considered the input from the SERs as part of the evaluation of available options for 

1071 this rulemaking, and where appropriate, feedback from the SERs is discussed in various 

1072 descriptions of proposed changes in this preamble. 

1073 In addition to formal stakeholder outreach, EPA met with numerous individual 

1074 stakeholders when requested to discuss concerns and suggestions in detail. Stakeholders included 

1075 farmworker organizations (Farmworker Justice, Migrant Clinicians Network, and El Comité de 

1076 Apoyo a los Trabajadores Agrícolas [Farmworker Support Committee]); the National 

1077 Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA); the Association of American 

1078 Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO); Crop Life America (CLA); and others. 

1079 C. GAO Audits

1080 In 1992, prior to the promulgation of the amended WPS, the General Accounting Office 

1081 (now the Government Accountability Office; GAO) published “Hired Farmworkers: Health and 

1082 Well-Being at Risk” (Ref. 19). The report discussed a number of services, such as social 

1083 security, housing, field sanitation, job training and employment programs, children’s education, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 50 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1084 and other issues that the government would need to address to provide better conditions for 

1085 farmworkers. 

1086 The 1992 report noted that at that time, EPA lacked an understanding of the health risks for 

1087 many older pesticides, placing workers at risk from potentially unsafe exposure. The report also 

1088 noted that the 1974 rule requirement to limit worker entry into treated areas was difficult for 

1089 workers to follow. It prohibited reentry until “sprays have dried or dusts have settled,” language 

1090 that involved subjective judgments. The 1992 amendments to the WPS partially addressed these 

1091 issues by requiring interim protective intervals for worker entry into treated areas based on the 

1092 acute toxicity of the product. Since that time, EPA’s reregistration program, through which EPA 

1093 reviewed and assessed older pesticides to ensure they continue to meet the FIFRA regulatory 

1094 standard, has been completed. See Unit III.C. Through that process, chemical-specific protective 

1095 reentry intervals have replaced the interim intervals. 

1096 In 2000, GAO issued another report, “Pesticides: Improvements Needed to Ensure the 

1097 Safety of Farmworkers and Their Children,” (Ref. 20). In this report, GAO focused more 

1098 specifically on the potential risks to children of entering a pesticide-treated area. It noted that 

1099 children under 12 years old may have a higher risk of adverse effects related to pesticide 

1100 exposure and should be protected adequately. It also cited EPA data on WPS enforcement, 

1101 noting the lack of consistency and involvement by EPA in monitoring the inspections and the 

1102 need to have target numbers of inspections. The report recommended that EPA “mitigate the 

1103 potential adverse effects of pesticide exposure on children below the age of 12 who work in 

1104 agriculture or are otherwise present in pesticide-treated fields” (Ref. 20 p. 24). It also suggested 

1105 that EPA improve oversight of state-level WPS enforcement and set standard guidance for 

1106 inspections. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 51 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1107 D. Environmental Justice

1108 Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994) established federal executive 

1109 policy on environmental justice. It directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 

1110 permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their missions by identifying and 

1111 addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their 

1112 programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations in the United States. 

1113 The Executive Order establishes four areas for action: 

1114 • promote enforcement of all health and environmental statutes in areas with minority 

1115 populations and low-income populations; 

1116 • ensure greater public participation; 

1117 • improve research and data collection relating to the health and environment of minority 

1118 populations and low-income populations; and 

1119 • identify differential patterns of consumption of natural resources among minority 

1120 populations and low-income populations. In addition, the environmental justice strategy shall 

1121 include, where appropriate, a timetable for undertaking identified revisions and consideration of 

1122 economic and social implications of the revisions. 

1123 EPA’s goal is to promote environmental justice for all communities and persons across 

1124 the United States, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income. Ensuring environmental 

1125 justice means not only protecting health and the environment for everyone, but also ensuring that 

1126 all people are treated fairly and are given the opportunity to participate fully in the development, 

1127 implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Consistent 

1128 with the Executive Order, the Agency’s environmental justice policies promote environmental 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 52 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1129 protection by focusing EPA’s attention and efforts on addressing environmental risks among 

1130 minority populations. 

1131 As discussed above in Unit IV.A., most workers and handlers intended to be protected by 

1132 the WPS face significant disadvantages. Most agricultural workers and handlers belong to 

1133 minority groups. Agricultural workers tend to have low literacy in any language and very limited 

1134 skills in English. Very often workers do not have permanent housing and generally reside close 

1135 to agricultural areas where pesticides are applied. Many workers and handlers are not residents 

1136 or legal aliens in the United States. The low literacy rates, range of non-English languages 

1137 spoken by workers and handlers, economic situation, geographic isolation, difficulty accessing 

1138 health care, and immigration status of workers and handlers pose challenges for communicating 

1139 risk management information and ensuring that these groups are adequately protected. 

1140 Occupational tasks performed by workers and handlers create a significant risk of 

1141 pesticide exposure, which is increased by the communication barriers discussed above. In 

1142 addition to potential exposure through work duties, studies show that workers and handlers face 

1143 a greater risk of exposure to pesticide drift from neighboring areas than does the general 

1144 population (Ref. 21). Pesticide exposure can also come through residues transferred by workers 

1145 and handlers on their clothing and body from the treated areas to their cars and homes, and from 

1146 the proximity of the housing to agricultural areas treated with pesticides (Ref. 21) (Ref. 22) (Ref. 

1147 23) (Ref. 24). Finally, pesticide exposure may occur from the consumption of treated foods in the 

1148 treated area or washing hands in pesticide contaminated water (Ref. 25) (Ref. 26) (Ref. 27 p. 25). 

1149 Throughout the development of this proposed rule, the Agency has continued to use 

1150 research on the demographic characteristics, work habits, and culture of the worker and handler 

1151 populations to revise the WPS to ensure it provides effective protection. Information for the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 53 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1152 assessment and development of the rule was gathered through field research and interaction with 

1153 workers, handlers, worker and handler representatives, and stakeholders. EPA extensively 

1154 engaged farmworker representatives, and when possible, worked directly with workers and 

1155 handlers, to solicit their feedback on the current regulation and ideas for improvement. 

1156 With this stakeholder input, the Agency identified areas where the existing WPS does not 

1157 provide an appropriate level of protection and evaluated the potential impact of various options 

1158 for strengthening the WPS for the worker and handler populations. That analysis identified areas 

1159 for improvement to the rule, such as expanding training to provide information on how to 

1160 minimize worker and handler exposure and that of their families from pesticide residues carried 

1161 from the treated area to the home. The Agency’s efforts to address environmental justice through 

1162 this rulemaking were reviewed repeatedly during the development of the rule and its supporting 

1163 documents. EPA believes that the proposed changes would improve the health of workers and 

1164 handlers by, for example, increasing the frequency of training, enhancing training content to 

1165 include ways to minimize pesticide exposure to children and in the home, adding posting of 

1166 treated areas near worker and handler housing to prevent accidental entry, and establishing a 

1167 minimum age for pesticide handlers and early-entry workers. 

1168 E. Children’s Protection

1169 An Executive Order issued in 1997 (62 FR 19885; April 23, 1997) and modified in 2003 

1170 (68 FR 19931; April 23, 2003) requires federal agencies to identify and assess environmental 

1171 health risks that may disproportionately affect children. In response to this mandate, EPA 

1172 established the Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) to advise and make 

1173 recommendations to EPA on issues related to children’s environmental health. The CHPAC 

1174 recommended that EPA “re-evaluate the worker protection standard in order to determine 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 54 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1175 whether it adequately protects children's health” (Ref. 28). In a Federal Register Notice issued on 

1176 February 3, 1999, EPA committed to conducting an assessment of the implementation and 

1177 enforcement of the WPS (64 FR 5277; February 3, 1999). 

1178 Children face risks from exposure to agricultural pesticides mainly through work in 

1179 pesticide-treated areas. A 2003 study by Calvert, et al. identified 531 children under 18 years old 

1180 with acute occupational pesticide-related illnesses over a ten-year period (Ref. 29). The same 

1181 study raised concerns for chronic impacts: “because [the] acute illnesses affect young people at a 

1182 time before they have reached full developmental maturation, there is also concern about unique 

1183 and persistent chronic effects” (Ref. 29). 

1184 Although no conclusive data exist, studies have been conducted to evaluate whether 

1185 children of agricultural workers and handlers may face elevated potential for exposure from 

1186 pesticide residues brought to the home by their parents (Ref. 30) (Ref. 31). Studies have also 

1187 been conducted to evaluate whether this exposure scenario may have contributed to negative 

1188 health or developmental effects (Ref. 32). Higher concentrations of pesticide residues combined 

1189 with the susceptibility of children to the effects of pesticide exposure may increase the likelihood 

1190 that children will be adversely impacted. EPA recognizes the need for more conclusive data on 

1191 exposure to children from pesticide residues brought into the home by agricultural workers. 

1192 However, given EPA’s commitment to protecting children and to the principles of environmental 

1193 justice, EPA believes the cost of adding a few minutes to pesticide safety training is reasonable 

1194 when compared to the benefit of reducing the potential risk. 

1195 Under the Department of Labor’s Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, children may work 

1196 at younger ages and in more hazardous tasks in agriculture than is permitted in other industries. 

1197 For example, the current law permits children as young as 10 years old to work in agriculture 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 55 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1198 under limited circumstances (29 CFR 575). Children under 16 years old are prohibited from 

1199 doing hazardous tasks, including handling or applying pesticides that are classified as toxicity 

1200 category I or II but can apply pesticides that are classified with a lower acute toxicity. (29 CFR 

1201 570.71(a)(9)) 

1202 In summary, children working in agriculture and children of agricultural workers and 

1203 handlers may be at a higher risk of pesticide exposure and illness; EPA believes these potential 

1204 risks warrant careful consideration in light of the provisions of the Executive Order on children’s 

1205 health (EO 13296). EPA believes that the proposed changes could protect children from many of 

1206 the risks they may face. 

1207 F. Retrospective Regulatory Review

1208 On January 18, 2011, the President issued Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821-23), 

1209 requiring agencies to, among other things, engage in a retrospective analysis of existing rules. 

1210 The purpose of the review is to promote consideration of “rules that may be outmoded, 

1211 ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal 

1212 them in accordance with what has been learned.” The order directs agencies to engage with the 

1213 public, especially all potentially affected stakeholders, in reviewing the impact of the rule and 

1214 considering flexible options to promote compliance. 

1215 In 2005, EPA reviewed the WPS pursuant to section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility 

1216 Act (5 USC 610). The purpose of the review was to determine whether the rule should be 

1217 continued without change, amended, or rescinded to minimize economic impacts on small 

1218 entities while still complying with the provisions of FIFRA. EPA solicited comment on the 

1219 continued need for the WPS; the complexity of the WPS; the extent to which it overlaps, 

1220 duplicates, or conflicts with other federal, state, or local government rules; and the degree to 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 56 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1221 which technology, economic conditions or other relevant factors have changed since the WPS 

1222 was promulgated. See EPA Docket ID number OPP-2003-0115 at www.regulations.gov. The 

1223 Agency received no comment on the action and concluded that the rule needs no revisions to 

1224 minimize impacts on small entities while still complying with FIFRA. 

1225 While EPA found that no changes were necessary to minimize the impacts on small 

1226 entities, EPA believes that the WPS should be updated for the reasons discussed in the previous 

1227 sections. EPA believes this proposal is consistent with Executive Order 13563 because it is the 

1228 product of a review of the WPS that includes extensive stakeholder participation. Through the 

1229 assessment process, EPA reviewed the 1992 WPS to determine whether the requirements were 

1230 effective, sufficiently protective, and unduly burdensome on employers. As discussed in Unit 

1231 V.B., EPA engaged in a substantial stakeholder engagement process, apart from the 2005 review 

1232 mentioned in the previous paragraph, to review the effectiveness of the current regulatory 

1233 requirements, to identify gaps in protection, and to determine flexible approaches to compliance 

1234 for the regulated community. EPA engaged with small business representatives to explore 

1235 flexible options for compliance. EPA believes the proposed changes reflect the current 

1236 understanding of the risks faced by workers and handlers, thereby substantially improving the 

1237 protections afforded to workers and handlers under the WPS and decreasing the overall burden 

1238 associated with compliance for employers. 

1239 VI. Overview of Proposed Revisions to Part 170 

1240 Earlier Units of this preamble describe the various ways that workers, handlers, and their 

1241 families can be exposed to pesticides. The stakeholder engagement described in Unit V.B. 

1242 resulted in many recommendations for EPA to revise the regulation. Through the SBAR panel, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 57 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1243 SERs raised the need for EPA to be mindful of the burden the WPS imposes on small business 

1244 and to reduce it wherever possible (Ref. 18). 

1245 As discussed earlier in this document, EPA has imposed requirements on the use of 

1246 pesticides with the intent of averting unreasonable adverse effects to human health and the 

1247 environment. These requirements include the WPS and pesticide-specific use restrictions found 

1248 on product labeling. In spite of these protections, worker and handler illnesses resulting from 

1249 pesticide exposure are documented, and the Agency believes they are underreported. Peer1250 reviewed studies, based on pesticide illness reporting and surveillance initiatives show evidence 

1251 of illnesses to workers and handlers. For example, one study finds that acute pesticide poisoning 

1252 incidents in the agriculture industry “continues to be an important problem” (Ref. 11). This study 

1253 examined pesticide poisoning incidents among agricultural workers from 1998-2005, and 

1254 analyzed 3,271 cases. Illness rates varied by category, but across agricultural worker categories, 

1255 risks of poisoning were an order of magnitude higher than for almost all non-agricultural 

1256 workers, which include farmers, processing/packing plant workers, and other miscellaneous 

1257 agricultural workers. A study conducted by Das, et al., identified 486 pesticide illness cases 

1258 among California farmworkers for 1998-1999, based on a surveillance program with mandatory 

1259 reporting by physicians. The study found that about half of all acute pesticide-related illness 

1260 cases in the California surveillance system affected agricultural workers (Ref. 33). Over a quarter 

1261 of the poisonings were to those mixing, loading or applying pesticides. The most common 

1262 symptoms were dermatological (about 44%), neurological (about 39%), and gastrointestinal 

1263 (about 38%), and the most common route of exposure was skin contact, followed by inhalation 

1264 and eye contact. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 58 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1265 A 2008 report indicates that from 1998 to 2005 the major causes of occupational 

1266 pesticide exposure were off-target drift, early reentry into a treated area, and pesticide use in 

1267 conflict with the labeling (Ref. 11). Studies have been conducted to evaluate whether worker and 

1268 handler families are exposed to pesticides because workers and handlers bring pesticide residues 

1269 home on their body, shoes, and clothing (Ref. 23) (Ref. 24) (Ref. 34). These studies recommend 

1270 that workers and handlers receive more specific information on how to protect their families and 

1271 avoid exposure in the workplace (Ref. 23) (Ref. 24) (Ref. 34). 

1272 EPA believes the proposed changes address the specific avenues of occupational 

1273 exposure and recognize the specific needs of the worker and handler population. Units VII. to 

1274 XX. describe the proposed changes and alternative options considered by EPA. The presentation 

1275 is generally structured to provide, where appropriate: 

1276 • A concise statement of the proposed change; 

1277 • The current WPS requirements; 

1278 • Stakeholder feedback and research supporting the proposed change; 

1279 • A detailed description of the proposed change and the rationale for the change; 

1280 • An estimated cost; 

1281 • A description of significant alternatives considered by EPA and the reasons for not 

1282 proposing them; and 

1283 • Specific questions on which the Agency seeks feedback. 

1284 For purposes of discussion, EPA groups the proposed changes and considered 

1285 alternatives as follows: 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 59 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1286 • Unit VII: Changes to the training for workers and handlers, including new 

1287 recordkeeping requirements, multiple changes to the content of the training, and trainer 

1288 qualifications. 

1289 • Unit VIII: Changes to the worker and handler notifications including posted and oral 

1290 notifications and revisions to the warning sign content. 

1291 • Unit IX: Hazard communication materials. 

1292 • Unit X: Information that handlers and agricultural employers must exchange. 

1293 • Unit XI: Handler restrictions including minimum age requirements for handlers. 

1294 • Unit XII: Expansion of entry-restricted areas, minimum age requirements for workers 

1295 entering a treated area under an REI, and clarification of the REI exceptions. 

1296 • Unit XIII: Pesticide safety information display, including location and content required. 

1297 • Unit XIV: Decontamination requirements for handlers and early entry workers. 

1298 • Unit XV: Emergency assistance. 

1299 • Unit XVI: Personal protective equipment, including the use of closed systems. 

1300 • Unit XVII: Monitoring handler exposure to cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides. 

1301 • Unit XVIII: Exemptions for immediate family and crop advisors and exception to 

1302 requirement for workers to be fully trained before entering a pesticide-treated area. 

1303 • Unit XIX: General revisions to the WPS. 

1304 • Unit XX: Implementation. 

1305 VII. Training for Workers and Handlers

1306 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 1307 day that workers begin working 

1308 in an area covered by the WPS to provide the full pesticide safety training discussed below. This 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 60 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1309 provision is considered an exception to the training requirements; therefore, the current “grace 

1310 period” and proposed amendments are discussed in Unit XVIII.C. 

1311 A. Shorten Retraining Interval for Workers and Handlers 

1312 1. Overview. The WPS currently requires employers to ensure that workers and handlers 

1313 are trained once every five years. EPA proposes to establish an annual retraining interval for 

1314 workers and handlers in order to improve the ability of workers and handlers to protect 

1315 themselves and their families from pesticide exposure. 

1316 2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS requires agricultural and handler employers to 

1317 ensure that handlers and workers receive pesticide safety training once every five years (40 CFR 

1318 170.130(a) and 170.230(a)). This retraining time period was initially implemented to minimize 

1319 burden on employers when pesticide safety training was first introduced, due to the limited 

1320 number of trainers available at the time. Worker and handler trainings, as discussed in Unit 

1321 VII.E., provide information on protecting oneself and family from pesticide exposure, 

1322 recognizing and avoiding dangers in the workplace, and steps to take in the event of pesticide 

1323 exposure. 

1324 3. Summary of the issues. Many stakeholders have commented that a 5-year retraining 

1325 interval is too long for workers and handlers to retain the safety information (Ref. 17) (Ref. 28) 

1326 (Ref. 35) (Ref. 15) (Ref. 36) (Ref. 37). Through the National Assessment, letters to the Agency, 

1327 and feedback from PPDC on proposed options, various stakeholders have recommended 

1328 shortening the current interval in order to improve workers’ and handlers’ understanding and 

1329 recall of the material covered. The General Training Issues Workgroup, with representatives 

1330 from across the agricultural community, recommended shortening the retraining interval for 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 61 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1331 workers and for the Agency to base the standard on retraining intervals for other similar 

1332 professions (Ref. 16). 

1333 Research has indicated the importance of repetition in an individual’s retention of 

1334 information (Ref. 38). Stakeholders, particularly pesticide safety educators, have noted that 

1335 “repeating basic safety messages increases adoption of improved safety practices.” (Ref. 39) 

1336 Providing training more frequently than the current requirement of every five years may be 

1337 especially beneficial for workers and handlers with limited knowledge of English or another 

1338 widely used language, e.g., Spanish, or who have recently started working in an agricultural job, 

1339 who may need additional review to fully understand the material. Worker advocacy groups and 

1340 educators have repeatedly noted that more frequent training is important for the worker 

1341 community. 

1342 Additionally, a 2007 report for the EPA by JBS International titled “Hazard 

1343 Communications for Agricultural Workers” reported that workers who were interviewed wanted 

1344 more frequent training on pesticide safety (Ref. 40). Workers requested training to occur at least 

1345 at least once a year. 

1346 Agricultural employers that provided information to EPA during the SBAR panel process 

1347 on the WPS stated that they already provide annual pesticide training, since verification of 

1348 previous training can be difficult to achieve and the employers want to ensure they comply with 

1349 the WPS. The Panel recommendations recognized the value of retraining, and specifically its 

1350 ability to emphasize and remind the worker of important safety principles (Ref. 18). State and 

1351 federal enforcement agents have also noted the difficulty in determining if a worker or handler 

1352 has been trained, when relying on his recall of the training material over a long time period, e.g., 

1353 5 years. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 62 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1354 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. The Agency proposes to establish an annual 

1355 retraining interval for workers and handlers. Accordingly, this would reduce the maximum time 

1356 between trainings for workers and handlers from 5 years to 1 year. 

1357 EPA believes that more frequent repetition of the protective principles outlined in the 

1358 pesticide safety training is particularly important given the demographics of the worker 

1359 population. As data cited earlier show, workers generally have low literacy and limited 

1360 understanding of English. Therefore, it is important for workers and handlers to receive the 

1361 information in a manner they understand and with sufficient frequency to ensure they retain the 

1362 information. 

1363 Research shows that adults remember only about 10% of what they hear and 50% of 

1364 information that they see and hear (Ref. 41). EPA expects the more frequent review of pesticide 

1365 safety information, in combination with the proposal for expanded display of pesticide safety 

1366 information at decontamination sites [see Unit XIII.A.], would improve retention of safety 

1367 principles and hygiene practices critical to self-protection, reinforce the importance of protecting 

1368 families from pesticide exposure, encourage handlers’ adherence to label requirements, and 

1369 remind workers and handlers of the obligations of their employers under the rule. 

1370 This proposed rule reflects previously established training requirements for similar 

1371 occupational hazards. Federal agencies already require annual training when hazardous 

1372 substances may be encountered in the workplace in many other industries. OSHA regulations 

1373 require employers to provide annual training to protect employees from chemical hazards in the 

1374 workplace including lead (29 CFR 1962.62(l)(1)), asbestos (1926.1101(k)(9)), and cadmium (29 

1375 CFR 1926.1127(m)(4)). Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), EPA 

1376 requires personnel at hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities to have annual 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 63 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1377 training as well (40 CFR parts 264 and 265). The risks from pesticide exposure through 

1378 agricultural work are similar to the threats posed by hazardous chemicals in other industries, and 

1379 the Agency believes training requirements to protect agricultural workers and handlers should be 

1380 comparable to those required by OSHA. In addition, agricultural and handler employers may 

1381 already be required to keep records of annual training required by other regulations, such as 

1382 those listed above. EPA believes that agricultural and handler employers would track an annual 

1383 requirement for WPS training along with required OSHA trainings and employment records, 

1384 such as those required by the Department of Labor. 

1385 The proposed regulatory text concerning shorter retraining intervals for workers and 

1386 handlers appears in §§170.101(a) and 170.201(a), respectively, of today’s proposed rule. 

1387 5. Costs and benefits.EPA estimates the cost of the requiring employers to provide 

1388 pesticide safety to training workers annually would be $8.8 million per year. Training its workers 

1389 would cost each agricultural establishment about $22 per year. EPA estimates the cost to 

1390 employers to provide pesticide safety training to handlers annually would be $3.5 million per 

1391 year. The average cost of training handlers would be about $17 per year for agricultural 

1392 establishments and $66 per year for commercial pesticide handling establishments. For a 

1393 complete discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of 

1394 Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

1395 While EPA can estimate the costs of this proposed change, quantifying the benefits is 

1396 more difficult. Nonetheless, based on the information and expert views described in this section, 

1397 it is reasonable to expect that more frequent training would lead to better retention of information 

1398 by workers and handlers, ultimately resulting in fewer incidents of pesticide exposure and illness 

1399 in workers and handlers, reduced take-home exposure, and better protection of children. The 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 64 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1400 Agency concludes that the estimated costs are reasonable when compared to the anticipated 

1401 benefits resulting from the additional training. 

1402 6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. The Agency considered three 

1403 alternative approaches to the retraining interval for workers and handlers. The first alternative 

1404 was recommended by the SBAR panel, based on a comment from one of the SERs. This option 

1405 would require annual retraining and offer small establishments, those with fewer than 10 

1406 employees, the option to provide training less frequently for workers (Ref. 18). A small 

1407 establishment requesting flexibility would be required to maintain documentation to show that 

1408 (1) no additional workers were hired within the retraining interval, (2) no new or different 

1409 pesticide applications were made from the previous year, and (3) they provided training for the 

1410 specific workers on the establishment previously. If the establishment added any new employees, 

1411 it would not be eligible to provide less frequent training. The estimated cost for this option would 

1412 be about $7.9 million annually, or $60 for large agricultural establishments and $14 for small 

1413 agricultural establishments. The Agency agrees that this option could reduce the burden on small 

1414 entities of providing annual training, but it would also reduce the benefit workers would receive 

1415 from annual retraining. Moreover, EPA notes that implementation of such an exception would 

1416 increase recordkeeping burdens on all small establishments that would offset, to some degree, 

1417 the savings for some establishments from not having to provide training. The additional 

1418 recordkeeping costs were not quantified. Under this exception, those small entities that added a 

1419 new employee or applied a different pesticide during the year would actually have higher costs, 

1420 even though the overall burden on small entities might be somewhat smaller. Based on the 

1421 marginal cost reduction, increased recordkeeping burden, and potential risk to workers who 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 65 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1422 would not receive training annually, the Agency thinks that requiring all establishments to 

1423 provide annual training is more appropriate. 

1424 EPA also considered a 2-year retraining interval for all establishments. EPA estimates 

1425 that biennial training for workers would cost about $3.2 million per year, or about $8 per 

1426 agricultural establishment per year. Biennial training for handlers would cost about $1.6 million 

1427 per year, or $8 per agricultural establishment and $27 per commercial pesticide handling 

1428 establishment per year. While biennial training would provide more protection to workers and 

1429 handlers than the current 5-year retraining interval, EPA believes the longer timeframe would not 

1430 improve retention to the extent expected from annual training. Employers are already required to 

1431 provide and track OSHA trainings and to maintain employment records, such as those required 

1432 by the Department of Labor, on an annual basis; requiring pesticide safety training every 2 years 

1433 could increase the burden on agricultural and handler employers to track the WPS training on a 

1434 different schedule. Representatives on the SBAR panel indicated that many employers already 

1435 provide training on an annual basis as part of their hiring process (Ref. 42 p. 2). EPA believes 

1436 that even with a biennial training requirement, many employers would continue to provide 

1437 training annually. Therefore, the burden on employers would not be significantly reduced by a 

1438 biennial training requirement. EPA believes the costs of more frequent annual training are 

1439 reasonable when compared to the anticipated benefits, particularly when combined with the 

1440 stakeholder reports that annual training is already provided in many cases. 

1441 Finally, EPA considered requiring a written test to gauge the workers’ or handlers’ 

1442 knowledge about the topics covered in training to ensure that they have the information needed 

1443 for self-protection. The Agency, however, was dissuaded from this alternative due to concerns 

1444 for the ability of workers and handlers to successfully complete an exam, even when they have 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 66 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1445 been adequately trained, on account of literacy and language challenges among workers and 

1446 handlers. Some stakeholders have indicated that noncertified applicators, who have similar 

1447 demographic profiles to workers and handlers, may find it difficult to pass a written examination 

1448 due to literacy and language barriers; the Agency believes workers and handlers may have 

1449 similar difficulty (Ref. 36) (Ref. 37). Concerns exist for the perceived burden on employers for 

1450 providing the time for needed training and exam-taking, and for the potential reduction in 

1451 workforce when workers or handlers cannot pass the exam, despite being aware of the training 

1452 content (Ref. 36) (Ref. 37). While testing might be a useful approach in some situations, the 

1453 Agency believes that in this context a testing requirement is less likely than annual retraining to 

1454 produce the desired improvements in workers’ and handlers’ understanding of pesticide safety. 

1455 Therefore, EPA is not proposing testing as an alternative to annual training. 

1456 7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

1457 • Should EPA consider different pesticide safety training timing? If so, what timeframe 

1458 and why? 

1459 • Do you have information concerning the relationship between the frequency of training 

1460 of workers and handlers and the frequency of incidents of pesticide exposure or illness? If so, 

1461 please provide. 

1462 • Are there other ways EPA could ensure that workers and handlers retain the information 

1463 presented in pesticide safety training so the retraining interval can be longer than one year? 

1464 • Are there other burdens or benefits associated with a 2-year retraining interval that EPA 

1465 has not considered? 

1466 • What would be the impact of a 1- or 2-year retraining interval on states and tribes? 

1467 B. Establish Recordkeeping Requirements to Verify Training for Workers and Handlers 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 67 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1468 1. Overview. The existing WPS does not establish any mandatory mechanism for 

1469 verifying that a worker or handler has received pesticide safety training. To improve compliance 

1470 with the WPS training requirements and to address the absence of documentation of worker and 

1471 handler training, the Agency proposes to eliminate the voluntary training verification card 

1472 system and to require employers to maintain records of WPS worker and handler training for two 

1473 years. In addition, the employer would be responsible for providing a copy of the record to each 

1474 worker or handler upon completion of the training. EPA believes a requirement for employers to 

1475 maintain the training roster, an official record, of employees’ training would address current 

1476 enforcement difficulties in verifying whether a worker or handler has received training. The 

1477 requirement to provide workers and handlers with a copy of the training record would allow a 

1478 subsequent employer to verify that the worker or handler had received training and to copy the 

1479 training verification record for the subsequent employer’s own files. 

1480 2. Existing WPS requirements. Presently, the WPS does not require agricultural 

1481 employers to document that they provided the training required under the WPS for workers or 

1482 handlers. The WPS also does not require trainers or employers to record who they trained, what 

1483 training they provided, or when they provided pesticide safety training. However, a voluntary 

1484 program was established that allowed states, tribes, and agricultural employers to use verification 

1485 cards to identify workers and handlers trained in accordance with the WPS. Participating states, 

1486 territories, and tribes have opted to distribute cards printed by EPA or to generate agency1487 specific cards. States, territories, and tribes allow distribution of the cards by trainers qualified 

1488 under the WPS or under stricter requirements. A few entities require trainers of workers or 

1489 handlers to submit the names of those trained to the state regulatory agency; however, EPA does 

1490 not maintain such a list. Under the current voluntary training verification card program, an 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 68 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1491 agricultural or handler employer who hires workers and handlers with valid training verification 

1492 cards does not need to provide training until the expiration date listed on the card. At least 20 

1493 states, territories, or tribes continue to use the voluntary training card system (Ref. 43). 

1494 3. Summary of the issues. Since 1998, EPA has received considerable feedback from 

1495 stakeholders, including state regulatory partners, regarding the difficulty of enforcing the training 

1496 provisions of the WPS rule, primarily due to a lack of recordkeeping (Ref. 17) (Ref. 18). 

1497 Inspectors have noted that they cannot consult a record to determine if the workers and handlers 

1498 on the establishment have been trained. Their primary method for evaluating compliance with 

1499 training requirements is to interview workers and handlers regarding the content of training 

1500 received or whether any training has occurred. Stakeholders, including state inspectors and 

1501 farmworker organizations, have indicated that interview results may be compromised as workers 

1502 and handlers may not recall the training they received, may not connect the questions with the 

1503 training information, and may not be able to communicate with the inspector in a language that 

1504 both are comfortable speaking. Some workers and handlers may feel intimidated and provide 

1505 inaccurate responses due to a lack of anonymity. Some states and territories, including AZ, CA, 

1506 HI, NV, NH, NJ, PA, and PR, have addressed the issue through requiring a form of 

1507 recordkeeping for worker and/or handler training, such as training records maintained by the 

1508 employer, training records submitted to the state, or making mandatory the voluntary training 

1509 verification card system. California has implemented a requirement for employers to maintain 

1510 records of handler training for 2 years (3 CCR 6724(e)). 

1511 Some stakeholders voiced strong support for improved recordkeeping as discussed in 

1512 reports from the National Assessment of EPA’s Pesticide Worker Safety Program (Ref. 44). The 

1513 General Training Issues Workgroup, convened as part of the National Assessment, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 69 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1514 recommended that all trainers be required to maintain records of trained workers for the duration 

1515 of the retraining interval, and suggested that EPA offer a variety of methods for employers to 

1516 demonstrate compliance (Ref. 15). Farmworker organizations as well as other stakeholders have 

1517 repeatedly emphasized the need to improve enforcement and compliance verification capabilities 

1518 in order to assure greater protection for workers (Ref. 17) (Ref. 35). 

1519 States, territories, and tribes have noted that the voluntary training verification card 

1520 system is undermined by fraudulent cards. They cite instances of workers, handlers, and labor 

1521 contractors illegally exchanging cards and altering the expiration date. Without an expiration 

1522 year printed on each card and annual reprinting of current verification cards, it is difficult to 

1523 assess the validity of the card. Without any requirement for creating and maintaining records of 

1524 training, it is virtually impossible to verify who has been trained. States have informed the 

1525 Agency that workers perceive the card as a credential that potential employers may use to 

1526 determine their employability. As a result, state agencies have reported that falsified cards are 

1527 common because workers and handlers want to show that they are employable. The Agency 

1528 believes, based on information gathered since the implementation of the training verification 

1529 card system, that the current system of voluntary training verification cards has proven to be an 

1530 unreliable method of tracking and identifying trained workers (Ref. 37) (Ref. 45) (Ref. 46).

1531 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. The Agency proposes to require agricultural and 

1532 handler employers to keep records of all workers and handlers who receive pesticide safety 

1533 training for 2 years on the agricultural establishment. Required information for the record of 

1534 worker and handler training would include the trained worker’s or handler’s name, signature, 

1535 date of birth, the date of training, the trainer’s name, proof of trainer’s qualification to train, the 

1536 employer’s name, employer’s phone number or phone number of the establishment, and which 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 70 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1537 EPA-approved training materials were used. EPA also proposes to require employers to provide 

1538 a copy of the training record to each worker and handler upon completion of the training. 

1539 EPA believes these new recordkeeping requirements would address some of the 

1540 difficulties in effectively enforcing the existing rule raised by regulatory and farmworker 

1541 advocacy stakeholders. This proposal would allow inspectors to verify training through records 

1542 retained by the employer and maintained by the workers and handlers themselves rather than 

1543 solely through interviews with workers and handlers. The Agency’s proposal is flexible in that it 

1544 would allow paper or electronic recordkeeping, so an employer could scan the training records 

1545 with employees’ signatures and maintain electronic files. 

1546 The recorded date of birth would be used to verify that the minimum age for handlers and 

1547 early-entry workers has been met. [See Units XI.B. and XII.A.] Retaining the trainer’s proof of 

1548 qualification to train would allow the inspector to determine if the trainer met the criteria to be a 

1549 trainer. [See Unit VII.D] 

1550 EPA recognizes the importance of maintaining some mechanism for workers and 

1551 handlers to change employers without repeating pesticide safety training each time they enter an 

1552 establishment. EPA believes that the proposed option would meet the need for employers to 

1553 verify that workers and handlers have received appropriate training by providing an official 

1554 record rather than the voluntary training verification card. The proposal to require employers to 

1555 maintain specific records of worker and handler training and to provide a copy of the training 

1556 record to each trained worker and handler would make the voluntary training verification card 

1557 program obsolete, redundant, and unnecessary. An employer could consider a worker or handler 

1558 trained if either the employee or prior employer presents a copy of the training record. EPA 

1559 believes requiring employers to provide a record of the training to workers and handlers would 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 71 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1560 allow workers and handlers to show future employers they have received WPS training. In 

1561 addition, future employers could maintain a copy of the workers’ or handlers’ record in their files 

1562 to comply with the requirement to ensure the employees have received the appropriate training. 

1563 The proposed regulatory text concerning the recordkeeping requirements to verify 

1564 training for workers and handlers appears in §§170.101(d) and 170.201(d), respectively, of 

1565 today’s proposed rule. 

1566 5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost of requiring employers to maintain records 

1567 of worker training for 2 years would be $1.6 million annually and about $4 per agricultural 

1568 establishment per year. The cost for employers to maintain records for handler training for 2 

1569 years would be $160,000 annually, or less than $1 per agricultural establishment and about $3 

1570 per commercial pesticide handling establishment per year. For a complete discussion of the costs 

1571 of the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the 

1572 Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1).

1573 Although EPA cannot quantify the benefits of this specific proposed option, EPA 

1574 believes that requiring records of worker and handler training would improve employers’ 

1575 compliance with the training requirements. Improved compliance would increase the likelihood 

1576 that workers and handlers perform WPS tasks with the information necessary to mitigate 

1577 exposure to pesticides for themselves and their family members. 

1578 6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. First, EPA considered an option to 

1579 require the employer or trainer to provide every trained worker and handler with a wallet-sized 

1580 verification record (similar to the current voluntary training verification card) that contains the 

1581 proposed recordkeeping information, instead of the proposal to provide a photocopy of the 

1582 training recordkeeping form. Distribution of the training verification cards would be limited to 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 72 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1583 trainers who meet the proposed qualifications. [See Unit VII.D.] The cards would be issued by 

1584 EPA on an annual basis and would indicate a date after which the card would no longer be valid, 

1585 i.e., a 2015 card would state that it would not be considered a valid verification of training after 

1586 12/31/2016. The annual card issuance by EPA and clear statement of the card’s longest potential 

1587 validity could help cut down the issues of fraudulent use raised by states and other stakeholders. 

1588 This alternative would increase the burden on trainers, employers, and EPA and states, 

1589 territories, and tribes. Instead of providing a copy of the training record, the trainer would be 

1590 required to copy the information onto each individual training verification card. Subsequent 

1591 employers would need to verify the information on the card with the original trainer or employer 

1592 and to obtain a copy of the original training record for their files. EPA would be responsible for 

1593 printing cards annually. EPA and states, territories, and tribes would be responsible for 

1594 distributing cards to approved trainers and tracking who received the cards. EPA estimates that a 

1595 mandatory training verification card program for workers would add about $640,000 to the cost 

1596 of training records, increasing the total cost to about $2.2 million. Based on the increased burden 

1597 to trainers, employers, and states, territories, and tribes without significantly different anticipated 

1598 benefits to workers, handlers, trainers, and employers, EPA decided not to propose this option. 

1599 Second, EPA also considered requiring agricultural and handler employers to submit 

1600 worker and handler training records to EPA or to the state, territory, or tribal regulatory 

1601 authority. The agency responsible at the federal or state, territory, or tribal level would then 

1602 maintain a database of trained workers and handlers. The Agency believes that it is adequate for 

1603 employers to maintain the records, making them available to inspectors upon request. The 

1604 submission of training records to a central repository might benefit EPA and others wishing to 

1605 verify a worker’s or handler’s status. However, employers would still bear the cost of either 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 73 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1606 creating a record of the training in the central repository or verifying a worker’s or handler’s 

1607 eligibility in the system. Since most workers and handlers have one or two employers per year, 

1608 the burden on employers to report to and check with a central repository of information may not 

1609 be justified. The proposed rule would require that the employer maintain records on-site for 

1610 inspection purposes. 

1611 Third, EPA also considered an option to require trainers, rather than or in addition to 

1612 employers, to retain records of those trained. EPA is not pursuing this option because the WPS 

1613 focuses on the responsibilities of agricultural and handler employers. Trainers are not responsible 

1614 for the use of the pesticide on the establishment and therefore cannot be legally responsible for 

1615 following the labeling and complying with the WPS requirements. Ultimately, the agricultural or 

1616 handler employer is responsible for ensuring that workers and handlers receive training and for 

1617 tracking that training. Inspections focus on compliance of the agricultural or handler employer 

1618 with the provisions of the WPS, not the trainer. The WPS would not prohibit the creation of 

1619 training records by the trainer; however, the agricultural or handler employer would have to 

1620 maintain a copy of the records. 

1621 Finally, the Agency considered establishing a 5-year interval for the record retention 

1622 cycle, which would coincide with the statute of limitations for civil violations (28 U.S.C. § 

1623 2462). The estimated cost of this requirement would be $1.9 million for worker training records 

1624 and $290,000 for handler training records. The incremental cost between record retention for two 

1625 or five years would be negligible. However, EPA believes based on state programs (e.g., 

1626 California and Florida) and stakeholder feedback that a requirement to keep records for 2 years is 

1627 sufficient. Therefore, EPA decided not to propose a 5-year interval for record retention. 

1628 7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 74 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1629 • Would a requirement for employers to report worker and handler training information to 

1630 the state or federal government for compilation in a central repository have benefits? If so, please 

1631 detail the potential benefits and cost. 

1632 • Should the Agency reconsider any of the alternate options presented in developing a 

1633 final rule? If so, why? Please provide data to support your position. 

1634 • Are there changes that would make the training verification card program more 

1635 effective and less prone to falsified cards? If so, please provide detailed suggestions for 

1636 improving the system. 

1637 • Should EPA consider a performance standard to evaluate worker and handler training 

1638 (asking questions based on the training content) rather than recordkeeping? Are there benefits or 

1639 drawbacks to this approach that the Agency has not considered? 

1640 • Would employers rely on training records provided by the worker or handler as 

1641 verification that the worker or handler had received pesticide safety training? 

1642 C. Require Employers to Provide Establishment-Specific Information for Workers and Handlers 

1643 1. Overview. The existing WPS does not require employers to provide to workers and 

1644 handlers establishment-specific information on the location of decontamination supplies as part 

1645 of their pesticide safety training. In order to allow workers and handlers to adequately protect 

1646 themselves in the event of an unexpected exposure that could occur through spills, being 

1647 sprayed, or other unusually high exposure situations, the Agency proposes that in addition to 

1648 required general training employers must provide establishment-specific information about the 

1649 location of decontamination supplies and pesticide safety and hazard information, as well as how 

1650 to obtain medical assistance. Agricultural and handler employers would be required to provide 

1651 this establishment-specific information to all workers and handlers, including those previously 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 75 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1652 trained on other establishments. The Agency expects this change will equip workers and handlers 

1653 with the knowledge and capability to assist in better protecting themselves from adverse effects 

1654 of pesticide exposure. 

1655 2. Existing WPS regulations. Sections 170.135(e) and 170.235(e) require the employer to 

1656 notify workers and handlers respectively about the location of the pesticide safety poster and the 

1657 emergency medical information. Presently, part 170 has no requirement for employers to provide 

1658 information on the location of decontamination supplies or hazard information to workers and 

1659 handlers. 

1660 3. Summary of the issues. Farmworker organizations have raised to EPA the need for 

1661 workers and handlers to receive establishment-specific information even if the employer can 

1662 verify that the workers and handlers have already received pesticide safety training. The 

1663 pesticide safety training covers general self-protection principles. Establishment-specific 

1664 information on where to find, among other things, decontamination supplies, emergency contact 

1665 information, and pesticide application information, is not consistent across establishments. While 

1666 the workers and handlers may have received general information on how to protect themselves, 

1667 without knowledge of where the necessary supplies are located or how to obtain emergency 

1668 medical assistance they would not be able to use the knowledge to protect themselves. 

1669 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. The Agency proposes to require employers to 

1670 provide establishment-specific pesticide safety training for workers and handlers when they enter 

1671 the establishment and before beginning WPS tasks. Content for the establishment-specific 

1672 information would include the location of pesticide safety information, the location of pesticide 

1673 application and hazard information, the location of decontamination supplies, and how to obtain 

1674 emergency medical assistance. Employers would be required to provide this training prior to the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 76 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1675 handler performing handler activities or the worker performing worker activities orally in a 

1676 manner that the handler or worker can understand, such as through a translator. Lastly, this 

1677 training would be required even if the employer can verify that the worker or handler has already 

1678 received pesticide safety training on another establishment. 

1679 EPA acknowledges that some of this information is already required under the current 

1680 rule. However, EPA believes that consolidating the requirements for establishment-specific 

1681 training would make them easier for employers to find and comply with, resulting in a higher 

1682 likelihood that workers and handlers would receive the necessary information. 

1683 The proposed regulatory text concerning the requirement for employers to provide 

1684 location-specific information to workers and handlers appears in §§170.103 and 170.203(b) of 

1685 today’s proposed rule. 

1686 5. Costs and benefits. The estimated cost of this proposal is included in the cost of 

1687 expanded training discussed in Unit VII.E. EPA assumes that employers cover this information 

1688 as part of routine pesticide safety training and therefore including the establishment-specific 

1689 information would add negligible time and cost. 

1690 6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. EPA did not consider any significant 

1691 alternatives to the proposed option.

1692 7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following question: 

1693 • To what extent do employers already provide this information to all workers and 

1694 handlers when they first arrive at the establishment, for example, during the hiring process? 

1695 • The current rule requires employers to ensure that the workers and handlers receive 

1696 information in a manner they understand. Are there any issues with the current requirement for 

1697 employers? If so, please describe and provide data to support this position. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 77 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1698 D. Establish Trainer Qualifications 

1699 1. Overview. The current rule allows workers and handlers to be trained by a variety of 

1700 persons, including certified applicators and handlers. In order to ensure that the pesticide safety 

1701 training received by workers and handlers is provided in a manner conducive to adult learning 

1702 and provided in a language and manner in which they can understand, the Agency proposes to 

1703 require trainers of workers to have completed an EPA-approved train-the-trainer program or be 

1704 designated by EPA or an appropriate state or tribal agency as trainers of certified applicators. 

1705 Certified applicators would no longer be automatically considered qualified to train workers. The 

1706 Agency proposes to retain the existing qualifications for handler trainers, namely that in order to 

1707 be a trainer of handlers, one must be a certified applicator under 40 CFR part 171 at the time of 

1708 the training, to have completed train-the-trainer program, or be designated by EPA or an 

1709 appropriate state or tribal agency as a trainer of certified applicators and to limit approval of 

1710 train-the-trainer programs to EPA. In addition, EPA proposes to require trainers to be present 

1711 throughout the training and to ensure that there are no distractions, e.g., background videos, loud 

1712 machinery, or other instructions, competing for the worker’s or handler’s attention. 

1713 2. Existing WPS regulations. The existing WPS designates the following groups as 

1714 qualified to be pesticide safety trainers for workers: 

1715 • Applicators certified according to 40 CFR part 171 (private and commercial applicators 

1716 of RUPs); 

1717 • Persons designated as trainers of certified applicators, or pesticide handlers by the 

1718 appropriate state, federal, or tribal agency; 

1719 • Individuals who have completed an approved pesticide safety train-the-trainer program; 

1720 or 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 78 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1721 • Persons who have completed WPS handler training. 

1722 The existing WPS designates the following groups as qualified to be pesticide safety trainers for 

1723 handlers: 

1724 • Applicators certified according to 40 CFR part 171; 

1725 • Persons designated as trainers of certified applicators or pesticide handlers by the 

1726 appropriate state, federal, or tribal agency; and 

1727 • Individuals who have completed an approved pesticide safety train-the-trainer program. 

1728 The current WPS also requires trainers to be present to answer questions but does not 

1729 require that they be present for the entire length of the training. 

1730 3. Summary of the issues. When EPA proposed what would become the 1992 WPS (53 

1731 FR 25970; July 8, 1988), stakeholders, specifically USDA and farmer organizations, raised 

1732 concerns about the need for adequate numbers of qualified WPS trainers. To ease the burden of 

1733 transition for agricultural employers during the implementation of the rule, EPA made approved 

1734 criteria for trainers in the final rule (57 FR 38102, 38128-29; Aug 21, 1992) intentionally broad. 

1735 Since that time, the pool of qualified trainers has expanded due to the increase and availability of 

1736 train-the-trainer programs. EPA has supported the Association of Farmworker Opportunity 

1737 Programs (AFOP) “Serving America’s Farmworkers Everywhere” AmeriCorps project for over 

1738 ten years. This project connects trainers with farmworker communities to build training capacity 

1739 and to provide free training services to agricultural and handler employers. In addition, EPA has 

1740 developed a train-the-trainer handbook for worker training (Ref. 47). Many states have also 

1741 increased the number of qualified trainers through train-the-trainer programs and other 

1742 mechanisms. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 79 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1743 Farmworker organizations and pesticide safety educators have raised to EPA the 

1744 importance of pesticide safety trainers having expertise both in the subject matter covered and in 

1745 adult education for low-literacy audiences. The Hazard Communications for Agricultural 

1746 Workers Report by JBS International found that workers want to receive pesticide safety training 

1747 from trainers who are knowledgeable and certified (Ref. 40). In order to convey information 

1748 about routes of pesticide exposure, potential accidents and how to mitigate pesticide exposure, 

1749 and avoiding exposure through basic hygiene, the trainer must have a strong knowledge of the 

1750 subject matter. A person can obtain this knowledge in several ways. First, a person who has gone 

1751 through a train-the-trainer program would become versed in the specific information to be 

1752 conveyed to the training audience. Second, a person who is qualified, as a university professor or 

1753 cooperative extension agent, to conduct training for a broad range of pesticide users, would have 

1754 a working knowledge of the potential pesticide risks faced by workers and handlers. Lastly, 

1755 handlers and applicators learn the subject matter in the training and certification programs, which 

1756 cover the concepts presented in pesticide safety training in more detail. 

1757 Research and stakeholder input have highlighted the need for trainers to have specific 

1758 skills to reach this type of audience. Farmworker organizations and pesticide educators expressed 

1759 concern about the ability of individuals without knowledge of adult education practices to 

1760 conduct effective pesticide safety training (Ref. 39) (Ref. 46) (Ref. 48). Stakeholders have also 

1761 informed EPA that training may be presented simultaneously with other information, preventing 

1762 workers and handlers from focusing completely on the safety information presented. 

1763 Stakeholders have raised concerns that trainers lacking skills in adult education may be 

1764 ineffective in communicating necessary pesticide safety information to workers (Ref. 35) (Ref. 

1765 36) (Ref. 48) (Ref. 46) (Ref. 39). Farmworker organizations have supported limiting eligibility of 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 80 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1766 trainers of workers and handlers to those completing a train-the-trainer program “covering 

1767 methods of conducting an informal adult participatory education session for low literacy 

1768 learners, with limited English proficiency” (Ref. 35). A pilot train-the-trainer program in 

1769 Washington State showed that participants who learned training techniques applicable to the 

1770 worker population were more successful in communicating with their target audience than they 

1771 had been prior to training, indicated by improved performance of the audience on a post-training 

1772 evaluation of knowledge (Ref. 17). 

1773 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to require trainers of workers to 

1774 complete a pesticide safety train-the-trainer program approved by EPA or to be designated as a 

1775 trainer of certified applicators by EPA or a state or tribal agency responsible for pesticide 

1776 enforcement. The proposal would delete the option for certification under 40 CFR part 171 or 

1777 training as a WPS handler to serve as sufficient qualifications for a person to be a trainer for 

1778 workers. 

1779 Additionally, the Agency proposes to require trainers of workers and trainers of handlers 

1780 to be present during the entirety of a training session and to answer questions. Trainers must also 

1781 ensure that the training is presented in a manner free of distractions. 

1782 EPA proposes to retain the existing categories for trainers of handlers and to add a 

1783 requirement that the train-the-trainer program be approved by EPA. 

1784 Under a cooperative agreement with the NASDA Research Foundation, EPA has 

1785 developed the National Worker Safety Trainer Handbook (Ref. 47). This manual outlines the 

1786 necessary pesticide safety information for workers, as well as describing adult education 

1787 principles and how to communicate across languages and cultures. In addition to the National 

1788 Worker Safety Trainer Handbook, EPA also supports the training of pesticide safety trainers of 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 81 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1789 workers by AFOP. Both of these programs would serve as models for an EPA-approved train1790 the-trainer program. Using these models, EPA would develop guidance to describe the necessary 

1791 elements of a train-the-trainer program and the process for seeking EPA approval. EPA 

1792 anticipates that any interested organizations, including non-profit organizations, universities, 

1793 state regulatory agencies, and the pesticide industry, could seek approval for and administer a 

1794 train-the-trainer course that meets EPA’s standards. 

1795 EPA proposes to retain the options for persons designated as trainers of certified 

1796 applicators or handlers by EPA or a state or tribal agency responsible for pesticide enforcement 

1797 because either EPA or the state or tribe has recognized that they have the subject matter expertise 

1798 and qualifications necessary to convey the pesticide safety information to workers or handlers. 

1799 Many cooperative extension services (part of land grant universities) have experts on pesticide 

1800 safety that work with agricultural employers to provide information on safe pesticide use. EPA 

1801 believes that in their role as educators and with knowledge of adult education, pesticide 

1802 application, and safety principles, these persons are qualified to provide the information to 

1803 workers and handlers. State regulatory agencies also hire or contract with adult educators to 

1804 provide pesticide safety training to workers or handlers. Rather than increase the burden on the 

1805 state or tribal lead agency by requiring that all persons complete a pesticide safety train-the1806 trainer course, EPA believes that state and tribal lead agencies would ensure that persons they 

1807 designate as trainers can appropriately convey the information required under the proposed 

1808 regulation to workers and handlers. 

1809 EPA proposes to eliminate the automatic authorization of certified applicators and WPS 

1810 handlers to train workers. Although certified applicators have demonstrated competency in 

1811 pesticide application and safety, they may not possess skills as trainers, particularly for low-
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 82 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1812 literacy, non-English speaking, adult audiences. Handlers may possess pesticide safety 

1813 knowledge and may have cultural and language abilities in common with workers, but they may 

1814 lack teaching skills or sufficient technical knowledge needed to effectively convey the 

1815 information. For training to make the most impact, trainers need to be competent not only in their 

1816 knowledge of pesticide risks but also in communicating with adult learners with educational 

1817 challenges. Trainers may have difficulty conveying the abstract concept of pesticide risk, due to 

1818 barriers such as the limited English language skills, cultural differences, and low educational 

1819 levels of many workers and handlers. EPA believes that there are sufficient qualified trainers to 

1820 meet the proposed requirements now, as opposed to when the 1992 WPS was implemented, 

1821 based on trainers qualified by AFOP initiatives and the publication and dissemination of an EPA 

1822 train-the-trainer handbook. 

1823 EPA proposes to retain the option for certified applicators to train handlers. While the 

1824 Agency has some concern regarding the ability of certified applicators to provide effective 

1825 training for workers because worker trainers need to have specific capability to deliver basic 

1826 information to an audience that may have a low education level and limited literacy and English 

1827 skills, EPA thinks this group can be successful as trainers for handlers. There is a large overlap 

1828 between the roles of applicators and handlers, which allows applicators to draw on their personal 

1829 knowledge and skills needed to correctly and safely perform handler tasks. In addition, in the 

1830 revisions to part 171, EPA is proposing to require certified applicators to provide training that 

1831 mirrors the WPS handler training to noncertified applicators applying RUPs under their direct 

1832 supervision. EPA believes that the certified applicators are appropriately qualified to convey the 

1833 proper pesticide application techniques and importance of protecting oneself from pesticide 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 83 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1834 exposure to handlers that will be performing similar tasks in areas that have been treated with 

1835 pesticides. 

1836 EPA believes that increasing the qualifications of trainers will increase the value of 

1837 training sessions by improving the quality of the training. Workers will benefit by improved 

1838 understanding of the learning objectives and an increased ability to protect themselves and their 

1839 families. 

1840 To ease implementation and ensure a sufficient cadre of qualified trainers is available, 

1841 EPA proposes to continue allowing certified applicators to conduct worker training until two 

1842 years following the effective date of the final rule. This transition period would allow time for 

1843 applicators and other persons that do not meet the current requirements and who wish to conduct 

1844 worker training to qualify as trainers under the proposed requirements, either by attending an 

1845 EPA-approved train-the-trainer program or seeking designation as an approved trainer of 

1846 workers from EPA or the state or tribe, and for all trainers to become familiar with new training 

1847 materials developed as a result of the finalized rule. 

1848 EPA plans to support the development of training materials for workers and handlers that 

1849 reflect the new training requirements such as manuals and videos. EPA will work with 

1850 stakeholders to develop these materials when the amendments to the rule are finalized and plans 

1851 to have them ready for distribution when the revised training requirements go into effect. 

1852 The proposed regulatory text concerning trainer qualifications for workers and handlers 

1853 appears in §§170.101(c)(4) and 170.201(c)(4) respectively of today’s proposed rule. 

1854 5. Costs. EPA estimates the cost of revising the standards for worker trainers would be 

1855 $1.1 million annually, or about $3 per agricultural establishment. For a complete discussion of 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 84 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1856 the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to 

1857 the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

1858 EPA cannot quantify the precise benefits associated with this proposal; however, EPA 

1859 believes requiring trainers to have the ability to convey the pesticide safety information, along 

1860 with knowledge of adult education principles and how to communicate with low-literacy 

1861 audiences, would increase overall understanding and retention of the pesticide safety training by 

1862 workers. This improvement would increase the likelihood that workers and handlers adopt the 

1863 principles outlined in the pesticide safety training and reduce the potential for exposure to 

1864 themselves and their family members. 

1865 6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. EPA considered several options 

1866 regarding categories of qualified trainers. One option considered by the Agency was to continue 

1867 to consider applicators certified under 40 CFR part 171 and handlers as qualified to train 

1868 workers. EPA does not think, however, that a certified applicator’s knowledge of pesticide safety 

1869 and application principles alone is sufficient to qualify the certified applicator as an educator for 

1870 basic safety principles for workers. As discussed above, teaching an adult population, especially 

1871 individuals with low-literacy skills, differing cultural norms, and a variety of primary languages, 

1872 requires trainers with skills in reaching this type of audience. After considering this alternative in 

1873 light of the demographics of workers and the importance of providing safety information in 

1874 manner workers can understand, EPA does not consider it reasonable to assume that certified 

1875 applicators and handlers necessarily have the adult education skills to adequately perform WPS 

1876 training for workers. Certified applicators and handlers may become trainers if they complete a 

1877 train-the-trainer course or are designated as trainers by the EPA or a state or tribal agency. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 85 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1878 EPA also considered an option to restrict trainer eligibility to only trainers who have 

1879 completed a train-the-trainer program. The Agency believes that allowing trainers of applicators 

1880 and those having completed a train-the-trainer course to train workers, as well as allowing 

1881 certified applicators to train handlers, will offer continued flexibility for agriculture and result in 

1882 less burden than restricting the qualifications to a single type of trainer. EPA has confidence that 

1883 trainers designated as qualified by EPA or the states or tribes would have knowledge of adult 

1884 education and the safety principles that workers need to know. Requiring all worker and handler 

1885 trainers to complete a train-the-trainer program would limit the number of eligible trainers and as 

1886 a result there might not be sufficient numbers to meet employers’ training needs. 

1887 EPA also considered implementing a test to determine the eligibility of trainers. Though 

1888 examination would provide a method of evaluating knowledge, safety educators and advocate 

1889 groups maintained that trainers need skills that cannot readily be assessed by an examination. For 

1890 example, it would be difficult to assess, through an exam, whether a person has skills in 

1891 communicating with low-literacy, adult audiences. EPA believes that train-the-trainer courses in 

1892 which trainers learn and practice interactive and engaging training techniques, in addition to the 

1893 necessary pesticide safety information, would be more effective than a written exam to prepare 

1894 educators for an audience of workers and handlers. 

1895 7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

1896 • Are there other programs that would prepare trainers to convey pesticide safety 

1897 information to workers and handlers? Please describe the program and the feasibility of its 

1898 implementation for affected establishments. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 86 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1899 • Should EPA consider requiring trainers of workers and handlers to refresh their 

1900 qualifications periodically, such as requiring attending a train-the-trainer program every 5 years? 

1901 Please provide data in support or opposition. 

1902 • The current rule requires employers to ensure that the workers and handlers receive 

1903 information in a manner they understand. Are there any issues with the current requirement for 

1904 trainers? If so, please describe and provide data to support this position. 

1905 E. Expand the Content of Worker and Handler Pesticide Safety Training 

1906 1. Overview. The WPS currently requires employers to provide pesticide safety training 

1907 covering specific content to workers and handlers. EPA proposes to expand the information 

1908 required to be covered in worker and handler pesticide safety training so that workers and 

1909 handlers can better protect themselves from adverse effects of pesticide exposures. 

1910 Additional content in worker pesticide safety training would include, among other things, 

1911 information on: How to reduce pesticide take-home exposure, the requirements for early-entry 

1912 notification, the requirement for emergency assistance for workers, and the availability of hazard 

1913 communication materials for workers, and informing workers of the obligations of agricultural 

1914 employers and what workers can expect. 

1915 Additional content in handler pesticide safety training would include the handlers’ 

1916 requirement to cease application if he or she observes a person other than another trained and 

1917 properly equipped handler in the area under treatment or entry restricted area, and a requirement 

1918 for OSHA-equivalent training on respirator use, fit-testing of respirators, and medical evaluation 

1919 for respirator users. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 87 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1920 EPA expects this additional information provided in the proposed expansions to worker 

1921 and handler pesticide safety training to better protect workers and handlers from risks associated 

1922 with pesticides. 

1923 2. Existing WPS regulations. Under 40 CFR 170.130(d)(4), worker pesticide safety 

1924 training must include, at a minimum, the following 11 basic safety training points: 

1925 • Where and in what form pesticides may be encountered during work activities. 

1926 • Hazards of pesticides resulting from toxicity and exposure, including acute and chronic 

1927 effects, delayed effects, and sensitization. 

1928 • Routes through which pesticides can enter the body. 

1929 • Signs and symptoms of common types of pesticide poisoning. 

1930 • Emergency first aid for pesticide injuries or poisonings. 

1931 • How to obtain emergency medical care. 

1932 • Routine and emergency decontamination procedures, including emergency eye flushing 

1933 techniques. 

1934 • Hazards from chemigation and drift. 

1935 • Hazards from pesticide residues on clothing. 

1936 • Warnings about taking pesticides or pesticide containers home. 

1937 • Requirements of the WPS designed to reduce the risks of illness or injury resulting from 

1938 workers' occupational exposure to pesticides, including application and entry restrictions, the 

1939 design of the warning sign, posting of warning signs, oral warnings, the availability of specific 

1940 information about applications, and the protection against retaliatory acts. 

1941 Under 40 CFR 170.230(c)(4), handler pesticide safety training must include, at a 

1942 minimum, the following 13 basic safety training points: 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 88 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1943 • Format and meaning of information on the product label, including safety information. 

1944 • Hazards of pesticides from toxicity and exposure. 

1945 • Routes through which pesticides can enter the body. 

1946 • Signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning. 

1947 • Emergency first aid for pesticide poisoning. 

1948 • How to get emergency medical care. 

1949 • Routine and emergency decontamination procedures. 

1950 • Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). 

1951 • Heat-related illness issues. 

1952 • Safety requirements for handling, transporting, storing, and disposing of pesticides. 

1953 • Environmental concerns. 

1954 • Warnings about taking pesticides or pesticide containers home. 

1955 • Training on the requirements of the regulation related to handling. 

1956 3. Summary of the issues. The stakeholder engagement process produced many comments 

1957 on the content of pesticide safety training for workers and handlers. [See Unit V.B.] 

1958 Recommendations to improve worker pesticide safety training in the “Report on the National 

1959 Assessment of EPA’s Pesticide Worker Safety Program” included adding elements to training on 

1960 potential sources of pesticide exposure and preventing family exposure, such as specific 

1961 information on the need to wash work clothes separately from other clothing (Ref. 17) (Ref. 15). 

1962 Additionally, farmworker organizations support expansion of the worker pesticide safety training 

1963 to include general information about pesticide hazards, ways to reduce take-home exposure, and 

1964 worker rights. In contrast, other stakeholders raised concerns for extending the length of training, 

1965 increasing the burden on employers, or making the training tedious for workers who may not be 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 89 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1966 paid for time spent in training. Many stakeholders also requested that EPA be mindful when 

1967 revising the WPS of the burdens faced by workers and some handlers, due to their low income, 

1968 low literacy, and limited English language skills. 

1969 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA is proposing a number of new provisions to be 

1970 included in the content for worker and handler safety training. Each of these is discussed in 

1971 greater detail in this section. Where some proposed changes only clarify or enhance an existing 

1972 training topic, rather than substantially altering the content of the topic, EPA does not discuss the 

1973 proposed modifications in as great detail as the proposed modifications to existing language that 

1974 substantially alter the content of the training topic. 

1975 EPA proposes to add the following topics to both worker and handler training: protection 

1976 from pesticide take-home exposure, enhanced emergency assistance provisions in the WPS, and 

1977 the availability of hazard communication materials. 

1978 Additional worker safety training topics would add about 15 minutes to the training and 

1979 would include, in addition to the points in the current WPS: Handler tasks that employers must 

1980 not direct or allow workers to do, early-entry notification requirements including age restrictions, 

1981 hazards of pesticide exposure to children and pregnant women, how to report suspected 

1982 violations, and the prohibition of employer retaliation for reporting suspected violations or 

1983 attempting to comply with 40 CFR part 170. 

1984 The proposed revised regulation for worker training at §170.101(c)(2) through (3) would 

1985 require the following training content: 

1986 • Agricultural employers’ obligation to provide workers with information and protections 

1987 designed to reduce work-related pesticide exposures and illnesses. This includes providing 

1988 pesticide safety training, pesticide safety and application information, decontamination supplies, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 90 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1989 and emergency medical assistance, and notifying workers of restrictions during applications and 

1990 on entering pesticide treated areas. 

1991 • How to recognize and understand the meaning of the warning sign used for notifying 

1992 workers of restrictions on entering pesticide treated areas on the establishment. 

1993 • How to follow directions and/or signs about keeping out of entry restricted or pesticide 

1994 treated areas. 

1995 • Where and in what form pesticides may be encountered during work activities and 

1996 potential sources of pesticide exposure on the agricultural establishment. This includes pesticides 

1997 drifting from nearby applications, and that pesticide residues may be on or in plants, soil, 

1998 irrigation water, tractors, application equipment, or used personal protective equipment. 

1999 • Potential hazards from toxicity and exposure that pesticides present to workers and their 

2000 families, including acute and chronic effects, delayed effects, and sensitization. 

2001 • Potential hazards from chemigation and drift. 

2002 • Routes through which pesticides can enter the body. 

2003 • Signs and symptoms of common types of pesticide poisoning. 

2004 • Emergency first aid for pesticide injuries or poisonings. 

2005 • Routine and emergency decontamination procedures, including emergency eye flushing 

2006 techniques. 

2007 • Wash immediately in the nearest clean water if pesticides are spilled or sprayed on the 

2008 body and as soon as possible, shower, shampoo hair, and change into clean clothes. 

2009 • How and when to obtain emergency medical care. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 91 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2010 • When working near pesticides or in pesticide treated areas, wear work clothing that 

2011 protects the body from pesticide residues and wash hands before eating, drinking, using chewing 

2012 gum or tobacco, or using the toilet. 

2013 • Wash or shower with soap and water, shampoo hair, and change into clean clothes as 

2014 soon as possible after working near or in pesticide treated areas. 

2015 • Potential hazards from pesticide residues on clothing. 

2016 • Wash work clothes before wearing again. 

2017 • Wash work clothes separately from other clothes. 

2018 • Do not take pesticides or pesticide containers used at work to your home. 

2019 • Agricultural employers are required to provide workers with pesticide hazard 

2020 information. 

2021 • Agricultural employers must not allow or direct any worker to mix, load or apply 

2022 pesticides or assist in the application of pesticides unless the worker has been trained as a 

2023 handler. 

2024 • There are minimum age restrictions and notification requirements for early-entry 

2025 activities. 

2026 • Potential hazards to children and pregnant women from pesticide exposure. 

2027 • Keep children and nonworking family members away from pesticide treated areas. 

2028 • Remove work boots or shoes before entering home. 

2029 • After working near pesticides or in pesticide treated areas, remove work clothes and 

2030 wash or shower before physical contact with children or family members. 

2031 • How to report suspected pesticide use violations to the state or tribal agency responsible 

2032 for pesticide enforcement. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 92 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2033 • Agricultural employers are prohibited from intimidating, threatening, coercing, or 

2034 discriminating against any worker for the purposes of interfering with any attempt to comply 

2035 with the requirements of this part, or because the worker has made a complaint, testified, 

2036 assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing pursuant to this 

2037 part. 

2038 Additional handler training topics would add about 15 minutes to the existing training 

2039 and would include: proper removal of PPE; the requirement for handlers to cease application if 

2040 persons are in the treated area or entry restricted area; the requirement that handler employers 

2041 must ensure handlers have received respirator fit-testing, training, and medical evaluation if 

2042 required to wear a respirator; and the minimum age requirement for handlers. 

2043 The proposed revised regulation for handler training at §170.201(c)(2) through (3) would 

2044 require the following training content: 

2045 • Employers’ obligation to provide handlers with information and protections designed to 

2046 reduce work-related pesticide exposures and illnesses. This includes providing pesticide safety 

2047 training, pesticide safety and application information, decontamination supplies, and emergency 

2048 medical assistance, and notifying handlers of restrictions during applications and on entering 

2049 pesticide treated areas. 

2050 • How to recognize and understand the meaning of the warning sign used for notifying 

2051 workers of restrictions on entering pesticide treated areas on the establishment. 

2052 • How to follow directions and/or signs about keeping out of entry restricted or pesticide 

2053 treated areas. 

2054 • Where and in what form pesticides may be encountered during work activities and 

2055 potential sources of pesticide exposure on the agricultural establishment. This includes pesticides 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 93 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2056 drifting from nearby applications, and that pesticide residues may be on or in plants, soil, 

2057 irrigation water, tractors, application equipment, or used personal protective equipment. 

2058 • Potential hazards from toxicity and exposure that pesticides present to workers and their 

2059 families, including acute and chronic effects, delayed effects, and sensitization. 

2060 • Potential hazards from chemigation and drift. 

2061 • Routes through which pesticides can enter the body. 

2062 • Signs and symptoms of common types of pesticide poisoning. 

2063 • Emergency first aid for pesticide injuries or poisonings. 

2064 • Routine and emergency decontamination procedures, including emergency eye flushing 

2065 techniques. 

2066 • Wash immediately in the nearest clean water if pesticides are spilled or sprayed on the 

2067 body and as soon as possible, shower, shampoo hair, and change into clean clothes. 

2068 • How and when to obtain emergency medical care. 

2069 • When working near pesticides or in pesticide treated areas, wear work clothing that 

2070 protects the body from pesticide residues and wash hands before eating, drinking, using chewing 

2071 gum or tobacco, or using the toilet. 

2072 • Wash or shower with soap and water, shampoo hair, and change into clean clothes as 

2073 soon as possible after working near or in pesticide treated areas. 

2074 • Potential hazards from pesticide residues on clothing. 

2075 • Wash work clothes before wearing again. 

2076 • Wash work clothes separately from other clothes. 

2077 • Do not take pesticides or pesticide containers used at work to your home. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 94 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2078 • Agricultural employers are required to provide handlers with pesticide hazard 

2079 information. 

2080 • Agricultural employers must not allow or direct any worker to mix, load or apply 

2081 pesticides or assist in the application of pesticides unless the worker has been trained as a 

2082 handler. 

2083 • Early-entry workers must be at least 16 years of age to perform early-entry activities 

2084 and workers must receive notification prior to conducting early-entry activities. 

2085 • Potential hazards to children and pregnant women from pesticide exposure. 

2086 • Keep children and nonworking family members away from pesticide treated areas. 

2087 • Remove work boots or shoes before entering home. 

2088 • After working near pesticides or in pesticide treated areas, remove work clothes and 

2089 wash or shower before physical contact with children or family members. 

2090 • How to report suspected pesticide use violations to the state or tribal agency responsible 

2091 for pesticide enforcement. 

2092 • Employers are prohibited from intimidating, threatening, coercing, or discriminating 

2093 against any handler for the purposes of interfering with any attempt to comply with the 

2094 requirements of this part, or because the worker has made a complaint, testified, assisted, or 

2095 participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing pursuant to this part. 

2096 • Information on proper application and use of pesticides. 

2097 • Requirement for handlers to follow all pesticide label directions. 

2098 • Format and meaning of all information contained on pesticide labels and in labeling. 

2099 • Need for and appropriate use and removal of all personal protective equipment. 

2100 • How to recognize, prevent, and provide first aid treatment for heat-related illness. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 95 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2101 • Safety requirements for handling, transporting, storing, and disposing of pesticides, 

2102 including general procedures for spill cleanup. 

2103 • Environmental concerns, such as drift, runoff, and wildlife hazards. 

2104 • Handlers must not apply pesticides in a manner that results in contact with workers or 

2105 other persons. 

2106 • Handler employers are required to provide handlers with information and protections 

2107 designed to reduce work-related pesticide exposures and illnesses. This includes providing, 

2108 cleaning, maintaining, storing, and ensuring proper use of all required personal protective 

2109 equipment; providing decontamination supplies; and providing specific information about 

2110 pesticide use and labeling information. 

2111 • Handlers must cease or suspend a pesticide application if workers or other persons are 

2112 in the treated area or the entry-restricted area. 

2113 • Handlers must be at least 16 years of age. 

2114 • Handler employers must ensure handlers have received respirator fit-testing, training, 

2115 and medical evaluation if they are required to wear a respirator. 

2116 • Handler employers must post treated areas as required by this rule. 

2117 i. Protection from Pesticide Take-Home Exposure. Although the current training instructs 

2118 workers and handlers not to take home pesticide containers and that clothing can carry pesticide 

2119 residue, the Agency proposes to expand the existing sections to include more specific 

2120 information in the worker and handler pesticide safety training on ways to reduce take-home 

2121 pesticide exposure. Specifically, the expanded training content would include the following: 

2122 instructions on washing before touching family members, removing soiled work boots or shoes 

2123 before entering the home, washing clothes that may have pesticide residues on them before 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 96 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2124 wearing them again and separately from other family clothes, and keeping family members away 

2125 from treated areas, as well as information on the potential risks to children and pregnant women 

2126 from pesticide exposure. 

2127 Workers and handlers may be exposed to pesticides at work; additionally, they and their 

2128 families may be exposed to pesticide residues brought into their homes from the workplace. 

2129 “Take-home” exposure is the movement of agricultural pesticides from the workplace to the 

2130 home via contact with pesticide-contaminated clothing, dirt tracked into the home, or other 

2131 pathways. This type of exposure has generated concern among health care professionals and 

2132 worker advocates. A 1995 study by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on worker’s home 

2133 contamination found, in multiple industries, that hazardous chemical contamination of workers’ 

2134 homes is a worldwide problem, resulting in injury and at times, death (Ref. 49 pp. vii, 17-19). 

2135 Although EPA does not have conclusive data about the impact of pesticide residue 

2136 transfer from a worker or handler to his or her home, car, and family members, the Agency 

2137 recognizes that workers and handlers are exposed to chemicals in the workplace and should be 

2138 educated on minimizing the transfer of these chemicals to non-work locations. Some studies 

2139 have been conducted to evaluate whether non-working children in agricultural families may have 

2140 greater exposure to agricultural chemicals than children of non-agricultural families from the 

2141 presence of pesticide residue in their home (Ref. 50). Contamination of the home from 

2142 agricultural pesticides can come from numerous sources, including soil, dust, or other residue on 

2143 clothing and vehicles and contaminated storage containers(Ref. 49) (Ref. 51). Additionally, 

2144 agricultural pesticides introduced into the home may persist longer than in outdoor areas, due to 

2145 the lack of degradative environmental processes, such as those furthered by rain and sun. Peer2146 reviewed studies have concluded that “farmworker and all rural families must be educated about 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 97 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2147 drift and how to reduce exposure” (Ref. 52 p. 1259) (Ref. 53) and that “pregnant farmworkers 

2148 and those living with farmworkers need to be educated to reduce potential take-home pesticide 

2149 exposure” (Ref. 34 p. 491). 

2150 Studies have focused on the presence of agricultural pesticides in the homes of workers. 

2151 Centers for Children’s Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research were established 

2152 to explore ways to reduce children's health risks from environmental factors. The program is 

2153 jointly funded by EPA and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and 

2154 also collaborates with the Centers for Disease Control (Ref. 54). Two of the centers, the 

2155 University of California at Berkeley (UC Berkeley) and the University of Washington, have a 

2156 number of studies which focus on agricultural pesticides and children, some with a primary 

2157 outcome of pesticide exposure reduction strategies. The Center for the Health Assessment of 

2158 Mother and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS) Study, a longitudinal birth cohort study of 

2159 children in the Salinas Valley, California, is the largest study administered by UC Berkeley’s 

2160 Children’s Center (Ref. 55). California Department of Health Services tested dust in worker and 

2161 non-worker homes and concluded that there is a greater presence of pesticide residue in the 

2162 homes of workers (Ref. 56). Additional studies apart from the UC Berkeley activities have also 

2163 examined the transfer of pesticide residues from pesticide-treated areas to the home and 

2164 automobiles, i.e., the take-home pathway (Ref. 23) (Ref. 50) (Ref. 51) (Ref. 57) (Ref. 58). 

2165 Effective methods of reducing take-home exposure exist. CDC’s 1995 study identified 

2166 worksite behaviors, such as minimizing workplace exposures, storing clean clothes in 

2167 uncontaminated areas of the worksite, changing work clothes prior to returning home, and 

2168 showering before leaving the workplace, that are effective means to reduce take-home exposure 

2169 (Ref. 49). The report also identified methods in the home to reduce contamination, such as 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 98 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2170 laundering work clothes separately from family laundry, preventing family members from 

2171 visiting the workplace, and informing the workers of risks to family members and how to 

2172 minimize their exposure. Workers and their families should be familiar with how behaviors such 

2173 as hand washing, proper laundering, and removing work clothes before entering the home can 

2174 reduce risk of exposure (Ref. 34). 

2175 ii. Training on Reporting Violations and Employer Retaliation Prohibition

2176 EPA proposes to require that worker and handler pesticide safety training include 

2177 information on how to report suspected pesticide use violations. EPA also proposes to include a 

2178 training point explaining that agricultural employers are prohibited from retaliation against 

2179 workers and handlers for attempting to comply with the WPS or reporting suspected violation of 

2180 the WPS. Including this information in the worker and handler training would increase the 

2181 effectiveness of the existing WPS protections against retaliations. 

2182 Under the current 40 CFR 170.7(b) employers are prohibited from taking “any retaliatory 

2183 action for attempts to comply with this part or any action having the effect of preventing or 

2184 discouraging any worker or handler from complying or attempting to comply with any 

2185 requirement of this part.” The existing §170.130(d)(4)(xi) requires employers to provide training 

2186 on protections against retaliatory acts. Similar protection against retaliation for handlers is 

2187 covered in §170.230(c)(4)(xiii). 

2188 Farmworker advocacy organizations recommend including in the worker and handler 

2189 pesticide safety training information on the rights of workers and handlers under the WPS (Ref. 

2190 36). The Agency agrees that workers and handlers should be aware of WPS provisions on how to 

2191 report violations and the prohibition on retaliation by the agricultural employer. Farmworker 

2192 advocacy organizations indicate that workers and handlers informed of their employers’ 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 99 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2193 requirements and the process to report violations and pesticide exposure incidents are more 

2194 likely to report them. This can lead to a clearer understanding of circumstances leading to WPS 

2195 violations and pesticide exposure issues by enforcement. 

2196 EPA believes it is important for workers and handlers to understand that the WPS 

2197 provides protections for their safety and that if their employers do not provide the required 

2198 protections, the government can assist them. By incorporating this information into the WPS 

2199 training, it is more likely that workers and handlers will understand the information and be aware 

2200 of the resources available to them in the event of a suspected act of retaliation or noncompliance 

2201 with the WPS. 

2202 Farmworker organizations requested that WPS worker and handler training include 

2203 contact information for legal representation (Ref. 35). EPA, however, does not agree. EPA does 

2204 not consider it appropriate to recommend particular attorneys or legal representatives. Moreover, 

2205 while legal representation may be helpful for a worker or handler who experiences retaliation or 

2206 a serious pesticide exposure, it is not clear that requiring the requested notification would 

2207 significantly contribute to the goals of FIFRA. 

2208 The proposed regulatory text concerning training in regard to reporting suspected 

2209 violations and employer prohibition against retaliation appears in §§170.101(c)(3)(viii) through 

2210 (ix) and 170.201(c)(3)(v) of today’s proposed rule. 

2211 iii. Training on Hazard Communications Materials for Workers and Handlers. EPA 

2212 proposes to require agricultural and handler employers to provide workers and handlers with 

2213 access to the expanded pesticide application information, the SDS, and the pesticide product 

2214 labeling upon request for up to two years. [See Unit IX.] EPA proposes to include an overview 

2215 of the new hazard communication requirements and materials (expanded application 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 100 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2216 information, SDS, and product labeling) in the pesticide safety trainings for workers and 

2217 handlers. 

2218 The proposed regulatory text concerning hazard communication content of worker and handler 

2219 pesticide safety training appears in §§170.101(c)(3)(i) and 170.201(c)(3)(v) of today’s proposed 

2220 rule.

2221 iv. Training on Early-Entry Notification for Workers. EPA is proposing to add to the 

2222 worker pesticide safety training points about the minimum age restriction and notification 

2223 requirements for early-entry work. Workers would learn that entry into a treated area under an 

2224 REI would be limited to workers 16 years of age or older and what notification requirements 

2225 must be provided prior to being directed to perform early-entry tasks. EPA expects that 

2226 providing this information to workers during training would make workers aware of their 

2227 agricultural employer’s obligation to provide information on the protections required when asked 

2228 to perform early-entry work. EPA believes that workers should be made aware of employer 

2229 obligations in their training so they will understand the significance of (and, if they fail to receive 

2230 it, notice the absence of) the information employers would be required to provide. For a 

2231 complete discussion of the proposed amendments to the early-entry requirements, see Unit XII. 

2232 The proposed regulatory text concerning early-entry notification and minimum age content of 

2233 worker and handler pesticide safety training appears in §§170.101(c)(3)(iii) and 170.201(c)(3)(v) 

2234 of today’s proposed rule. 

2235 v. Handler Responsibilities. EPA proposes that a handler be required to cease application if the 

2236 handler observes a person other than another trained and properly equipped handler in the area 

2237 under treatment or associated entry-restricted area. EPA believes that either the handler would 

2238 have prior knowledge that another handler would be in the area during treatment, or would cease 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 101 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2239 application until he or she could verify whether the person(s) in the treated area met the standard 

2240 as a trained and properly equipped handler. This new requirement would impose additional 

2241 responsibility on handlers. [See Unit XI.] Therefore, EPA proposes to add to the handler training 

2242 requirements a point on this specific handler responsibility. 

2243 The proposed regulatory text concerning the cessation of application content of handler 

2244 pesticide safety training appears in §170.201(c)(3)(i) of today’s proposed rule. 

2245 vi. Respirator Fit-Testing and Medical Evaluation for Handlers. Unit XVI.E. discusses 

2246 EPA’s proposal to adopt the OSHA standard (29 CFR part 1910) for respirator use. The OSHA 

2247 standard requires employers and users to take steps to ensure respirators are used safely, 

2248 including fit testing the handler’s respirator, conducting medical evaluation, and training 

2249 handlers on proper respirator use. 

2250 EPA proposes to require that handler training inform handlers of the new obligations of 

2251 handler employers regarding proper respirator use. Handler training content is proposed to 

2252 inform handlers that their employer must ensure they have received respirator fit-testing, training 

2253 and medical evaluation if they are required to wear a respirator; only those handlers who would 

2254 use a respirator would need to receive the full OSHA training on respirators. EPA expects this 

2255 change would inform handlers of the new requirements for respirator use and their importance. 

2256 The proposed regulatory text concerning adding to the training the employer’s 

2257 responsibility to provide handlers using respirators with respirator training, fit-testing, and 

2258 medical evaluation appears in §170.201(c)(3)(iii) of today’s proposed rule. 

2259 5. Costs. The proposed expansions to training content would expand worker training from 

2260 approximately 30 minutes to 45 minutes, and handler training from 45 minutes to 60 minutes. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 102 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2261 The Agency believes that the expanded training is necessary for workers and handlers to better 

2262 protect themselves. 

2263 EPA estimates the cost of expanding pesticide safety training for workers would be $4.3 

2264 million annually or about $11 per agricultural establishment per year. The cost to expand 

2265 pesticide safety training for handlers would be $660,000 annually, or about $3 per agricultural 

2266 establishment and $15 per commercial pesticide handling establishment per year. For a complete 

2267 discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed 

2268 Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

2269 EPA cannot quantify the specific benefits associated with this proposal. However, EPA 

2270 believes that adding information to worker and handler training would assist workers and 

2271 handlers to mitigate pesticide exposure to themselves and their families. EPA believes this would 

2272 result in a lower number of occupation-related pesticide exposures and reduce chronic and 

2273 developmental effects from pesticide exposure. 

2274 6. Alternate options considered but not proposed. EPA considered various combinations 

2275 of the additional training content discussed above. For example, EPA considered simply 

2276 clarifying the training required under the current rule to be more specific about the information 

2277 to be covered. EPA also considered not adding the information about employers’ responsibilities 

2278 to provide training to early-entry workers and to handlers using respirators in order to shorten the 

2279 total duration of a training program; however, given the importance of communicating the 

2280 additional information to workers and handlers to ensure they have the information necessary to 

2281 protect themselves and their families from pesticide exposure and the relatively low burden 

2282 associated with extending the training to cover the content, EPA believes that all of the 

2283 aforementioned points should be added to the training. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 103 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2284 While a shorter training program with fewer points would reduce the cost of the proposal 

2285 slightly, EPA believes the benefits of providing the proposed additional training topics to 

2286 workers and handlers are reasonably balanced against the cost. 

2287 7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

2288 • Are there any training points listed above that EPA should consider not including in the 

2289 final proposal? If so, which points and why? 

2290 • Are there points that EPA should consider adding to the training content? If so, what 

2291 points should be added? Please provide a rationale for why the additional content would benefit 

2292 workers and/or handlers. 

2293 F. Retain Audiovisual Presentations as Permissible Methods for Pesticide Safety Training 

2294 1. Overview. The existing WPS allows trainers to train workers and handlers using a 

2295 variety of methods, including an EPA-approved video or DVD. EPA recognizes concerns raised 

2296 by stakeholders that the video/DVD may not be an adequate training tool when used as a stand2297 alone training, but EPA has decided to retain the video as a training method and to add 

2298 requirements for the trainer to be present throughout the presentation, to answer all questions 

2299 from those participating in the training, and to ensure that the training is reasonably free of 

2300 distractions.

2301 2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS requires trainers to present the pesticide safety 

2302 information “either orally from written materials or audiovisually” (40 CFR 170.130(d)(1) and 

2303 170.230(c)(1)). EPA developed a variety of training materials, including training videos covering 

2304 the pesticide safety points specified in 40 CFR 170.130 and 170.230. A worker training video, 

2305 “Chasing the Sun Pesticide Safety Training” runs for approximately 30 minutes, and a handler 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 104 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2306 training video, “Pesticide Handlers and the WPS” runs for approximately 50 minutes. Each video 

2307 covers the current training points and both are available in English and Spanish. 

2308 3. Summary of the issues. Farmworker organizations have voiced opposition to 

2309 maintaining a video as the training device (Ref. 35), instead recommending that EPA require 

2310 employers to provide training using methods with greater interaction to better communicate with 

2311 workers (Ref. 36). A report from EPA’s National Assessment of the Worker Protection Program 

2312 recommended that training materials encourage interaction and participation, and be both 

2313 culturally and linguistically appropriate (Ref. 15). 

2314 The Agency recognizes the passive nature of video training and understands that some 

2315 stakeholders believe that a lack of worker or handler engagement during video training may 

2316 prevent effective transmission of pesticide safety information. Focus-group research, however, 

2317 indicates that workers prefer to receive training information in a video or provided orally along 

2318 with simple drawings on paper as visual aids rather than an oral presentation without any visual 

2319 aids (Ref. 40). Additionally, research has shown that comprehension of pictorials for safety2320 related information is significantly enhanced when accompanied by even brief trainer 

2321 involvement (Ref. 59). 

2322 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to continue to allow audiovisual 

2323 training tools, and to add requirements for the trainer to be present during the training, to answer 

2324 questions from trainees, and to ensure that the training is reasonably free from distractions. [See 

2325 Unit VII.D.] Combined with more qualified trainers familiar with the principles of adult 

2326 education, EPA expects that use of EPA-approved video would enhance, rather than diminish, 

2327 comprehension of training objectives. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 105 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2328 Based on feedback received directly from the affected community of workers, EPA 

2329 decided to retain the option for trainers to use audiovisual materials, including but not limited to 

2330 videos, DVDs, and PowerPoint presentations, as part of the training program. EPA believes that 

2331 allowing use of audiovisual training tools provides flexibility to trainers and employers by 

2332 allowing them to be present to monitor the audience, to stimulate discussion, and to answer 

2333 questions, while the video presents the major concepts of the training. This would help small 

2334 establishments that conduct infrequent trainings to ensure that the training covers all of the major 

2335 points. In addition, EPA recognizes that some employers and trainers are more comfortable 

2336 utilizing audiovisual materials as part of training because widely used videos employ actors 

2337 portraying workers to communicate the messages, which can be more convincing to the training 

2338 audience. 

2339 The proposed regulatory text requiring the trainer to be present throughout the training 

2340 for workers and handlers appears in §§170.101(c)(1) and 170.201(c)(1), respectively, of today’s 

2341 proposed rule. 

2342 5. Costs and benefits. EPA does not estimate any costs associated with this proposal 

2343 because it retains an existing provision of the rule. 

2344 6. Alternate options considered but not proposed. EPA considered eliminating the option 

2345 for trainers to present material audio visually. Based on the rationales discussed above, EPA 

2346 believes that allowing trainers to use audiovisual training materials and adding a requirement for 

2347 the trainer to be present and answer workers and handlers’ questions would adequately address 

2348 the concerns raised by farmworker groups while allowing trainer’s flexibility in how they 

2349 communicate with workers and handlers. 

2350 7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following question: 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 106 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2351 • Please provide any additional information on the efficacy of different methods used to 

2352 conduct worker and handler training. 

2353 G. Eliminate Exception to Handler Training Requirements 

2354 1. Overview. Currently, an employer does not have to provide handler training to a person 

2355 performing handler tasks if the handler has satisfied the training requirements under the 

2356 Certification of Pesticide Applicators Regulation (40 CFR part 171). In order to ensure handlers 

2357 receive the information necessary to understand WPS protections, EPA proposes to eliminate 

2358 this exception. EPA expects removal of this exception would ensure all handlers receive 

2359 complete information to protect themselves in situations specific to WPS establishments. 

2360 2. Existing WPS regulations. Under 40 CFR 170.230, pesticide handlers currently are 

2361 required to be trained on pesticide safety. Under 40 CFR 170.230(b)(2), employers may be 

2362 excepted from the requirement to provide handler training when their handlers have satisfied the 

2363 training requirements in 40 CFR 171. Part 171, however, does not include specific training 

2364 requirements relevant to WPS; therefore, the exception allows handlers to qualify without 

2365 learning about part 170 requirements, such as REIs and the prohibition against spraying when 

2366 anyone is in the treated area. 

2367 3. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to eliminate the exception for handler 

2368 training for a handler who has been trained in accordance with the requirements in 40 CFR part 

2369 171. In essence, this change would require persons who apply pesticides under the direct 

2370 supervision of a certified applicator to receive handler training under the WPS. As explained in 

2371 Unit II, the Agency is considering separate revisions to 40 CFR part 171 that could include 

2372 specific training requirements for persons applying RUPs under the supervision of a certified 

2373 applicator. Although the training requirements in these two proposed rules overlap substantially 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 107 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2374 (e.g., safe application techniques, understanding label requirements, safe storage and disposal), 

2375 the training EPA is considering to require under 40 CFR part 171 does not include specific 

2376 information on WPS requirements, handler responsibilities, and reducing take-home exposure 

2377 specifically in agriculture. WPS information is critical for handlers so they can protect 

2378 themselves, their families, workers, the environment, and bystanders. 

2379 4. Alternative options considered but not proposed. While EPA considered proposing 

2380 identical training requirements for both §170.201 and part 171, many RUP users never apply 

2381 agricultural pesticides, and would not need to know all the detailed requirements related to the 

2382 WPS protections, such as warning sign postings and specific handler responsibilities. EPA 

2383 believes the WPS-specific information is critical to equip a handler to avoid risk of exposure and 

2384 illness in agricultural situations. Therefore, the Agency does not intend to impose the same 

2385 training requirements for noncertified applicators under 40 CFR part 171. 

2386 5. Cost. EPA believes the cost for this requirement would be negligible. Those employers 

2387 that intend to provide training under 40 CFR part 171 for their handler employees would be able 

2388 provide the proposed WPS handler training and satisfy the requirements of both regulations. The 

2389 estimated training burden for the two requirements is substantially similar. 

2390 6. Request for comment. EPA requests feedback on the following: 

2391 • Should the proposed training under 40 CFR part 171 include a requirement for 

2392 expanded training on the WPS? 

2393 • How would the benefits to employers from giving a single training that would apply to 

2394 both WPS handlers and applicators using RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified 

2395 applicator compare to the costs of requiring agricultural applicator training for all applicators 

2396 using RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicator? 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 108 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2397 VIII. Notifications to Workers and Handlers 

2398 A. Posted Notification Timing & Oral Notification 

2399 1. Overview. The current rule allows employers to provide to workers either oral or 

2400 posted warnings about areas where an REI (regardless of its length) has been in effect within the 

2401 last 30 days unless required to provide both oral and posted warnings by the specific pesticide 

2402 label. For farms, forests, and non-enclosed nurseries (what EPA is proposing to define as 

2403 “outdoor production”), EPA proposes to require that agricultural employers post warning signs 

2404 regarding the application of a pesticide that has an REI greater than 48 hours, and proposes to 

2405 allow the option of oral warning or posted notification for products with REIs of 48 hours or less. 

2406 For greenhouses and indoor nurseries (what EPA is proposing to define as “enclosed space 

2407 production”), EPA proposes to require that agricultural employers post warning signs according 

2408 to the current posted warning requirements when the product applied has an REI greater than 4 

2409 hours, and proposes to allow the option for oral or posted notification where the product applied 

2410 has an REI of 4 hours or less. EPA expects the changes to improve worker protection by 

2411 increasing workers’ awareness of treated areas and reminding them to take required precautions 

2412 and to avoid pesticide exposure, leading to an overall reduction in occupational pesticide-related 

2413 illnesses. 

2414 2. Existing WPS regulations. Under 40 CFR 170.120, agricultural employers are required 

2415 to notify workers about pesticide applications and areas on the agricultural establishment subject 

2416 to an REI. Notification is required when workers or handlers are on the establishment during 

2417 application or the REI and will pass within one quarter (1/4) mile of the treated area. In 

2418 greenhouses and some enclosed nurseries, the agricultural employer must post warning signs. On 

2419 farms, and in forests and non-enclosed nurseries, the agricultural employer may choose either to 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 109 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2420 post warning signs at the usual points of entry around the treated area or to notify workers orally 

2421 about applications that will take place on the establishment. Both posted and oral worker 

2422 notification must inform workers about the location of the application and treated areas under 

2423 REIs so workers do not enter. In cases where the product labeling requires both written and oral 

2424 notification of workers, the WPS also requires this “double notification.” Part 170 does not 

2425 currently require the agricultural employer to keep a record of oral warnings. 

2426 3. Summary of the issues. In 2006, Farmworker Justice sent a letter to the EPA 

2427 Administrator, signed by more than 50 different farmworker groups, suggesting revisions for 

2428 making the WPS more protective. The letter states, “Restricted-entry intervals (REIs) are... 

2429 intended to provide a physical barrier, reducing worker exposure to pesticides when and where 

2430 the risk is greatest. But workers are not effectively warned to keep out of recently treated areas.” 

2431 (Ref. 35) Farmworker organizations noted three problems with the current requirement: Workers 

2432 may not remember REI details that span multiple days, oral warnings may not be adequately 

2433 provided by the employer in the appropriate language or understood and retained by the worker, 

2434 and compliance with the oral warning requirement is difficult to verify. Farmworker Justice 

2435 recommended posting areas treated with a pesticide with an REI longer than 72 hours and 

2436 requiring recordkeeping of oral notifications to workers. 

2437 The Farmworker Justice comments are consistent with research showing that oral 

2438 instruction alone may not be an effective method of safety instruction. 

2439 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. For “outdoor production,” EPA proposes to require 

2440 that agricultural employers post warning signs where the pesticide to be applied has an REI 

2441 greater than 48 hours, and to allow the option of oral warning or posted notification for products 

2442 with an REI of 48 hours or less. For “enclosed space production,” EPA proposes to require 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 110 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2443 posting of warning signs where the product applied has an REI greater than 4 hours, and to allow 

2444 the option of oral warning or posted notification for products with an REI of 4 hours or less. 

2445 EPA believes that under the current rule agricultural employers most commonly opt to 

2446 provide oral notification to their workers because this is less costly and less burdensome than 

2447 physically posting treated areas. However, workers may not recall oral notifications when REIs 

2448 are longer than a few days. Adults remember only about 10% of what they hear, but when the 

2449 information is seen and heard retention improves to about 50% (Ref. 41). Entry into a treated 

2450 area during an REI presents an elevated risk of pesticide exposure and EPA believes that 

2451 ensuring that workers are adequately notified of treated areas in a manner they can recall and 

2452 understand would result in fewer entries into treated areas during the REI without appropriate 

2453 protection. 

2454 A 2008 SENSOR-Pesticides/California Department of Pesticide Regulation publication 

2455 cites reentry into pesticide-treated areas prior to the end of the REI as the second leading factor 

2456 contributing to reports of acute occupational pesticide poisoning cases in agricultural workers 

2457 (Ref. 11). One reason workers may be entering pesticide-treated areas is their lack of awareness 

2458 that the area has been treated with a pesticide and is under an REI, which EPA believes can be 

2459 addressed by more robust posting of treated areas. 

2460 Because workers face challenges with literacy and understanding English, EPA believes 

2461 that reducing the reliance on spoken messages to protect workers and increasing reliance on a 

2462 clear, graphic, posted warning would better protect workers from the risks of entering a treated 

2463 area before the REI expires without proper protection. The posted warning signs will serve as 

2464 physical reminders for workers to avoid areas in which the REI has not expired. During pesticide 

2465 safety training, workers would be informed of the requirement for agricultural employers to 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 111 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2466 provide oral or posted notification for treated areas, in addition to the current requirement to 

2467 describe the warning signs, which would increase workers’ likelihood of noticing and complying 

2468 with entry restriction signs. [See Unit VII.E.] Treated areas under an REI pose elevated risk of 

2469 exposure; thus, by keeping workers out, negative health effects of pesticide exposure may be 

2470 avoided. EPA expects the proposed requirement to increase the number of areas posted on 

2471 agricultural establishments across the nation, thereby increasing the number of workers who are 

2472 aware of the REI and avoid entering, and ultimately leading to a reduction of incidence of 

2473 pesticide illnesses related to unintentional entry into treated areas under an REI. 

2474 The protective effect of increased posting requirements through subsequent reduction of 

2475 pesticide illnesses has been shown in Monterey County, California. In response to a series of 

2476 worker exposure incidents, Monterey County required agricultural employers to post areas 

2477 treated with a pesticide with an REI of 24 hours or longer. Since its implementation, this county2478 specific requirement has led to a significant reduction in pesticide-related illnesses caused by 

2479 entering a treated area before the expiration of an REI (Ref. 60). California cannot provide 

2480 specific data on the percent reduction, but a 2001 report from the California Department of 

2481 Pesticide Regulation noted stakeholder consensus on and support for the requirement, stating: 

2482 “All participants strongly believe that field posting prevents workers from early reentry. 

2483 Monterey County participants support their 24-hour posting regulations, even though compliance 

2484 is costly, because field posting prevents both application and reentry errors” (Ref. 60). 

2485 EPA believes the proposed posting requirement may also foster compliance and facilitate 

2486 enforcement because WPS inspectors could readily view posted warning signs. Inspectors who 

2487 see workers in a treated area while the posted warning signs were displayed could investigate 

2488 whether the workers received proper early entry protections. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 112 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2489 EPA believes posting all treated areas would be a very effective method for ensuring that 

2490 workers are notified about what areas are under an REI. However, the burden on employers to 

2491 post all treated areas subject to an REI would be substantial. To treat an area with an REI of 24 

2492 hours, the employer would have to post the area, make the treatment, and retrieve the signs the 

2493 following day. EPA believes that it is reasonable to expect workers to remember oral warnings 

2494 related to treated areas under REIs for at most 2 work days, or about 48 hours. 

2495 EPA is proposing to allow oral or posted warnings for areas in greenhouses treated with 

2496 an REI of 4 hours or less. Greenhouse production is much more compact than outdoor 

2497 production. In a row of planting tables, there could be many applications. EPA recognizes the 

2498 need for workers to have information about the different risks they face; however, EPA also 

2499 believes that products with an REI of 4 hours or less generally pose lower risks than products 

2500 with longer REIs. 

2501 As noted, EPA believes that workers can retain warning information provided orally for 

2502 up to 48 hours. However, greenhouses and other enclosed space production establishments have 

2503 significantly more applications in a smaller space. EPA believes it is unreasonable to expect 

2504 workers to remember all of the information provided orally about treated areas when each 

2505 different planting tray could have different requirements, therefore EPA is proposing a lower 

2506 threshold for posting notification of treated areas on establishments where multiple applications 

2507 may be conducted in a small area. EPA believes allowing employers the option to provide oral or 

2508 posted notification of treated areas for a small subset of pesticides provides employers with 

2509 flexibility while ensuring workers receive the information necessary to protect themselves. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 113 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2510 The proposed regulatory text concerning notification appears in the following sections of 

2511 today’s proposed rule: outdoor production – §170.109(a)(1)(i) and enclosed space production – 

2512 §170.109(a)(1)(ii). 

2513 5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost of requiring employers to post all treated 

2514 areas with an REI longer than 48 hours would be $10.5 million annually, or about $27 per 

2515 establishment per year. EPA estimates that the proposed changes to notification in greenhouses 

2516 would save about $10,000 per year, or $14 per greenhouse. For a complete discussion of the 

2517 costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the 

2518 Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

2519 EPA cannot quantify the benefits associated with this specific proposal; however, EPA 

2520 believes requiring employers to post treated areas under an REI of greater than 48 hours would 

2521 provide workers with more reliable information on treated areas and when to stay out. EPA 

2522 expects this would result in fewer workers entering treated areas under an REI and therefore 

2523 reduce the number of pesticide-related illnesses attributable to this cause. 

2524 6. Alternative options considered but not proposed.-- i. Alternatives to Posting 

2525 Timeframe. EPA considered the Farmworker Justice recommendation for EPA to require posted 

2526 warning signs in treated areas with REIs greater than 72 hours. This option would provide more 

2527 protection than the current regulation, but not as much as the proposed option which would 

2528 require the same posting, but for REIs greater than 48 hours. Given the importance to the worker 

2529 of understanding which areas are under an REI, EPA believes that posted notification for 

2530 products with REIs over 72 hours would not adequately warn workers to take precautions. EPA 

2531 believes that it would be unreasonable to expect a worker to retain the information about what 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 114 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2532 areas were treated and when REIs expire for longer than a two day period. EPA estimates the 

2533 cost of this proposal would be about $7.4 million, or $19 per establishment. 

2534 EPA also considered requiring agricultural employers to post warning signs in treated 

2535 areas with an REI of 24 hours or longer, similar to the requirement in Monterey County, 

2536 California. EPA recognizes the impact of Monterey’s posting requirement in reducing exposure 

2537 to workers. However, EPA also recognizes the need to balance the protection of workers and 

2538 burden on agricultural employers and applicators. Monterey County represents a small 

2539 geographical area. EPA believes that while posting of treated areas with an REI of 24 hours or 

2540 longer may have been practical in this limited region, it would not be practical as a national 

2541 requirement. Agricultural employers would have a much higher burden to post every treated area 

2542 with an REI of 24 hours or longer. EPA believes that workers could retain information on treated 

2543 areas and REIs for up to two days. 

2544 Lastly, EPA considered a requirement to post warning signs in all treated areas under 

2545 REIs for enclosed space and outdoor production. This option would ensure that workers are 

2546 aware of the status of every treated area and every area without posting would be safe for 

2547 workers to enter. Posting of all treated areas where an REI is in effect would send a clear 

2548 message to workers; however, it would be very difficult for agricultural employers to comply 

2549 with this requirement. Some products have an REI of 4 hours. In essence, an employer would 

2550 post signs after application and almost immediately take them down. While this task may be easy 

2551 in enclosed space production, it may be substantially more burdensome for an agricultural 

2552 employer engaged in outdoor production. 

2553 EPA believes that the proposed option to require posting of all areas of outdoor 

2554 production treated with a product with an REI greater than 48 hours strikes a balance between 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 115 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2555 the three alternatives considered. EPA recognizes the value of allowing oral warning for worker 

2556 notification of treated areas with REIs less than 48 hours because this option would provide 

2557 regulatory flexibility (Ref. 18). EPA believes that workers informed orally can remember that an 

2558 area has been restricted for entry for up to two days. Posting areas treated with a pesticide 

2559 product with an REI greater than 48 hours would provide workers visual reminders when the 

2560 REI is sufficiently long that a worker could have difficulty remembering the specific area treated 

2561 or length of the REI. 

2562 ii. Recordkeeping of Oral Notification. To address concerns that workers may not receive 

2563 oral notifications of treated areas with REIs shorter than or equal to 48 hours, EPA considered 

2564 adding a requirement for agricultural employers to retain records of the oral warning provided, 

2565 signed by the workers who received the notification, for 2 years. The required record would 

2566 contain: 

2567 • Location and description of the entry-restricted area and the treated area; 

2568 • Date and time the REI starts and ends; 

2569 • Date and time the agricultural employer provided the oral warning; 

2570 • Name and signature of the person providing the warning; and 

2571 • Name and signature of each employee that received notification. 

2572 Requiring the employee’s signature on the record would provide incentive to the 

2573 employer to provide the notification in a manner the worker understands in order to obtain the 

2574 signature. This requirement would impose significant burden on employers. The time required to 

2575 comply with the recordkeeping would substantially increase the time currently required to 

2576 provide the oral notification, based on the additional requirement to explain the notification 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 116 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2577 record and secure the signatures of all workers entering or working within 1/4 mile of the treated 

2578 area. 

2579 In addition, workers may have difficulty reading and understanding the record of the 

2580 notification because many are not literate in English. Workers may sign the notification record 

2581 because instructed to do so by the employer, not because they understand the information 

2582 provided and intent of the record of the oral notification, undermining the intent of the record as 

2583 confirmation of transfer of information to workers. 

2584 EPA estimates the cost to collect and retain records for 2 years would be about $20 

2585 million, or about $51 per establishment. This cost is substantially higher than the cost for 

2586 recordkeeping of pesticide safety training because pesticide safety training would only occur 

2587 once annually per worker whereas records of oral notification could be required almost every 

2588 time an application occurs. EPA has insufficient data to support a claim that the potential 

2589 benefits of this alternative, i.e., increased enforceability of the WPS, would outweigh the 

2590 potential burden on agricultural employers to record and maintain the information. 

2591 7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

2592 • For outdoor production, EPA proposes to allow the option of oral warning or posted 

2593 notification for products with an REI of 48 hours or less. Is there a different time period that 

2594 would better balance the costs of compliance with the expected risk reduction? 

2595 • Will the proposed requirements for posting instead of oral warnings provide sufficient 

2596 benefit for workers to warrant the additional burden placed on agricultural employers?

2597 • Should EPA require recordkeeping for oral notification? If so, why? 

2598 B. Locations of Warning Sign 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 117 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2599 1. Overview. Where the existing WPS requires a warning sign to be posted, the signs 

2600 must be placed where they are visible from all usual points of worker entry to the treated area, 

2601 the corners of the treated area, or an area affording maximum visibility. EPA proposes to revise 

2602 the required posting locations to include locations visible from a worker housing area if the 

2603 housing area is within 100 feet of a treated area for outdoor production. 

2604 2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS requires employers to post warning signs (40 

2605 CFR 170.120(c)). For applications in farms, forests, and non-enclosed nurseries (what EPA is 

2606 proposing to define as “outdoor production”), the warning signs must be visible from all usual 

2607 points of worker entry into the treated area, including, at a minimum, each access road, each 

2608 border with a labor camp (what EPA is proposing be referred to as a “worker housing area”) 

2609 adjacent to the treated area, and each footpath or other walking route that enters the treated area. 

2610 For applications in greenhouses and indoor nurseries (what EPA is proposing to define as 

2611 “enclosed space production”), the warning signs must be visible from all usual points of worker 

2612 entry to the treated area, including, each aisle or other walking route that enters the treated area. 

2613 When there are no usual points of worker entry to the treated area (farm, forest, nursery or 

2614 greenhouse), the employer must post signs in the corners of the treated area or in any other 

2615 location offering maximum visibility. 

2616 3. Summary of the issues. During the National Assessment process, stakeholders, 

2617 including farmworker groups and healthcare organizations, raised concerns about providing 

2618 notice to worker housing inhabitants when their location is not directly adjacent to the treated 

2619 area (Ref. 17). Workers and their families housed near treated areas may have a higher likelihood 

2620 of exposure to pesticides from inadvertently entering a treated area; the increased detection of 

2621 pesticides in the body has been found to be associated with housing adjacent to treated areas 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 118 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2622 (Ref. 51) (Ref. 57). In order to mitigate the risk associated with walking into a treated area 

2623 without adequate notification, stakeholders suggested increasing the posting of areas near worker 

2624 housing areas (Ref. 35). 

2625 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. To prevent inadvertent entry into treated areas from 

2626 onsite worker housing areas, EPA proposes to require a posted warning sign visible from a 

2627 worker housing area if the housing area is within 100 feet of a treated area for outdoor 

2628 production in addition to the required current locations. EPA expects this requirement would 

2629 improve notification of workers and their families in worker housing areas, mitigating exposure 

2630 resulting from entry into a treated area under an REI. This additional posting location should also 

2631 improve safety of families living on or near agricultural establishments. Individuals in worker 

2632 housing areas would be able to see the posted warning signs and avoid entry into the area. 

2633 EPA considered the demographics of the worker population when developing this 

2634 proposal. In recognition of their low literacy and limited English language skills, EPA proposes 

2635 to use the widely recognized warning sign indicating to stay out of a particular area with text in 

2636 at least two languages. In addition, workers and their families generally live near agricultural 

2637 areas but may not be aware of when a nearby area has been treated. Children may play around 

2638 the home in a treated area, increasing the likelihood of exposure to pesticides. By posting 

2639 information warning of pesticide applications near worker housing for workers and their families 

2640 to see, EPA believes that they will be less likely to inadvertently enter a treated area and thereby 

2641 will reduce overall risk of exposure to pesticides. This proposal supports EPA’s commitments to 

2642 keeping children safe and to take specific measures to protect vulnerable or disadvantaged 

2643 communities and populations. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 119 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2644 The proposed regulatory text concerning the warning sign appears in §170.109(b)(3)(ii) 

2645 of today’s proposed rule. 

2646 5. Cost. EPA believes the cost of this proposed expansion of the areas that must be posted 

2647 would be negligible. For a complete discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see 

2648 the “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 

2649 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

2650 6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. EPA considered a recommendation 

2651 offered by Farmworker Justice to require signs to be posted at the usual points of entry and every 

2652 100 feet along the perimeter of the treated area (Ref. 35). Many members of the PPDC 

2653 workgroup, including state regulatory agencies, cooperative extension services, and the 

2654 agricultural industry, said that posting warning signs every 100 feet around treated areas under 

2655 an REI would impose unnecessary burdens on the agricultural employer without resulting in 

2656 additional protections for workers (Ref. 36). Based on anticipated high burden without 

2657 demonstrable benefits for this option, EPA decided not to propose increasing posting to every 

2658 hundred feet around the perimeter. 

2659 7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

2660 • Are there preferable alternatives to the proposed option for posting locations that 

2661 EPA has not considered? If so, please describe and provide data to support the alternative. 

2662 C. Warning Sign Content 

2663 1. Overview. The current WPS warning sign says “Keep Out” and has a picture of a stern2664 faced man with an upraised hand in a red circle. EPA proposes to require the phrase “Entry 

2665 Restricted” instead of “Keep Out” on warning signs. EPA also proposes to change the red shape 

2666 on the sign from a circle to an octagon. EPA believes the text change would more accurately 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 120 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2667 reflect the intended message for workers to be adequately prepared and informed before entering 

2668 a posted area, and the octagonal shape will provide an effective signal that entry is restricted that 

2669 does not depend on literacy or language spoken. 

2670 2. Existing WPS regulations. Under 40 CFR 170.120(c)(1), posted warning signs must 

2671 state “Danger, Pesticides” and “Keep Out” in English and Spanish or another language the 

2672 workers understand and contain the “stern-faced man with the upraised hand” in a red circle as 

2673 pictured (in black and white) below. 

2674

2675 3. Summary of the issues. Stakeholders, including state regulators, educators, and 

2676 farmworker groups, have noted that the message on the sign can be confusing. Under the WPS, 

2677 workers can be trained and equipped to enter a treated area during an REI to conduct certain 

2678 early-entry tasks, such as repairing a clogged irrigation hose. [See Unit XII.B.] Due to these 

2679 exceptions, including the “Keep Out” text on the warning sign may lead to worker confusion, 

2680 since workers have been trained to stay out of a treated area posted with the warning sign and 

2681 also may be directed by their employer to enter the treated area to conduct an appropriate early2682 entry task. 

2683 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to revise the required text on the 

2684 warning sign to convey more accurate information to workers. While warning signs would retain 

2685 the phrase “Danger, Pesticides” text at the top, the message at the bottom of the sign would read 

2686 “Entry Restricted” instead of “Keep Out”. EPA believes this revision to the text more accurately 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 121 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2687 reflects that the sign is a warning to those entering a treated area. “Entry restricted” provides a 

2688 bold warning for anyone entering a treated area but also allows that some entry may be 

2689 permitted. 

2690 Additionally, EPA plans to replace the current shape of the red circle that contains the 

2691 stern-faced man with the upraised hand with an octagon. A red octagon is a widely-recognized 

2692 symbol to stop, and this will provide a stronger signal to workers to be cautious when they 

2693 encounter the posted warning sign, even if they are unable to comprehend the text. Workers will 

2694 receive pesticide safety training to reinforce the meaning of the warning signs and help them in 

2695 determining how to proceed. [See Unit VII.E.] The proposed warning sign is pictured below (in 

2696 black and white). 

2697

2698 EPA specifically considered input received directly from workers in developing this 

2699 proposal. Workers have indicated that they prefer to get information in simple language and 

2700 images that communicate the message (Ref. 40). EPA expects that these modifications to the 

2701 warning sign will provide a clearer, simpler warning to workers. EPA is aware of the importance 

2702 of conveying clear and simple safety information to worker populations, particularly for workers 

2703 who may have a low literacy level in English or their native language (Ref. 61, p. 16). NAWS 

2704 data show that 85% of workers would have difficulty obtaining information from printed 

2705 materials in any language (Ref. 3, p. 17). The proposed modifications to the warning sign would 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 122 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2706 make it clearer and simpler, which should enhance comprehension by low-literacy adults, and by 

2707 children of farm workers (Ref. 62). 

2708 The proposed regulatory text concerning the content of the warning sign appears in 

2709 §170.109(b)(2) of today’s proposed rule. 

2710 5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost of requiring employers to use the revised 

2711 warning sign would be $97,000 annually, or an average of $0.25 per establishment per year. EPA 

2712 estimates that employers currently purchase new signs every 2 years because weather and 

2713 outdoor exposure renders the signs unusable after this period. For a complete discussion of the 

2714 costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the 

2715 Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

2716 EPA cannot quantify specific benefits for this proposal. EPA believes that requiring the 

2717 use of signs that more accurately convey the intended message would lead to better 

2718 understanding of the sign and its message by workers. This would result in less confusion about 

2719 what the sign means, which should mean less potential for workers to disregard the sign out of 

2720 confusion, and thus, fewer workers entering treated areas under an REI which should decrease 

2721 the number of occupational pesticide-related illnesses. 

2722 6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. Farmworker Justice recommended 

2723 that EPA replace the “stern-faced man with the upraised hand” with the skull and crossbones. 

2724 They noted that the skull and crossbones is a universally recognized symbol that communicates 

2725 high risk of danger or death, and suggest that workers would better recognize the risks associated 

2726 with entering an area posted with the warning sign if it bore this symbol. 

2727 EPA considered Farmworker Justice’s recommendation to change the warning sign 

2728 graphic to the skull and crossbones, but decided against this option. The skull and crossbones 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 123 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2729 symbol is currently used on Toxicity I and II pesticide product labeling and for designation of 

2730 treated areas for certain extremely hazardous pesticides, for example, fumigants, and using the 

2731 same symbol in less hazardous conditions would weaken its impact where it is needed most. The 

2732 skull and crossbones symbol is associated with extreme toxicity or death, which is not always 

2733 appropriate for every pesticide that has an REI. In contrast, the proposed sign indicates to 

2734 workers that they should use caution in entering the treated area, but that entry may be 

2735 permissible with the proper safety equipment. EPA does not want to send workers a mixed 

2736 message by using the skull and crossbones on the sign. In addition, workers have been trained to 

2737 recognize the current sign since the rule went into effect. The Agency believes that the “stern2738 faced man with the upraised hand” is still the most appropriate and well-recognized symbol for 

2739 workers. 

2740 7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

2741 • Should EPA consider replacing the current or proposed general field posting sign with 

2742 risk-based reentry signs? What would be the costs and benefits of using risk-based signs? 

2743 IX. Hazard Communication 

2744 A. Pesticide-Specific Hazard Communication Materials – General 

2745 1. Overview. The existing WPS does not require employers to provide workers and 

2746 handlers with pesticide-specific hazard information on the products they may be exposed to in 

2747 the workplace. In contrast, OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), which covers most 

2748 workplaces, requires employers to provide chemical-specific hazard information (i.e., the safety 

2749 data sheets or SDSs) to workers before they enter an area where they could be exposed and to 

2750 make the same material available to workers upon request. EPA proposes to require that 

2751 agricultural and handler employers provide workers and handlers with access to copies of the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 124 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2752 SDS and pesticide labeling for products that have been applied on the establishment and to 

2753 which workers and handlers may be exposed. EPA believes making this information available to 

2754 workers and handlers may assist them and possibly health care providers in the event of an 

2755 emergency situation involving pesticide exposure. EPA also believes that providing access to 

2756 specific hazard information would assist workers and handlers in better protecting themselves 

2757 and others from pesticide hazards in the workplace. 

2758 2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS contains several provisions designed to 

2759 communicate pesticide hazard information to workers and handlers. By providing workers and 

2760 handlers with relevant information, these provisions minimize workplace risks associated with 

2761 pesticide use and mitigate the potential for occupational pesticide exposure. First, the WPS 

2762 requires employers to train workers and handlers on basic pesticide safety and the general 

2763 hazards associated with pesticides (40 CFR 170.130 and 170.230). Second, the WPS requires 

2764 employers to display basic pesticide safety information at a central location on the establishment 

2765 to remind workers and handlers of safe practices when working with or around pesticides and to 

2766 provide information about obtaining emergency medical assistance (40 CFR 170.124 and 

2767 170.224). Third, the WPS requires employers to provide handlers with access to the pesticide 

2768 labeling during pesticide handling activities and to ensure that the handler has read the labeling, 

2769 or been informed in a manner the handler understands, of all labeling requirements related to safe 

2770 pesticide use (40 CFR 170.232(a)). Lastly, employers must display certain information about 

2771 pesticide applications made on the establishment whenever workers or handlers will be on the 

2772 establishment and a pesticide has been applied or an REI has been in effect within the last 30 

2773 days (40 CFR 170.122 and 170.222). Although the existing WPS requirements provide workers 

2774 and handlers with basic safety information on how to protect themselves from general pesticide 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 125 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2775 hazards, and where pesticides have been applied on the establishment, no requirement exists for 

2776 employers to make pesticide-specific hazard communication materials, such as the SDS and the 

2777 pesticide labeling, accessible to both workers and handlers. 

2778 3. Summary of the issues. During the National Assessment meetings, health care, 

2779 medical, and farmworker organizations urged the Agency to add pesticide-specific hazard 

2780 communication provisions to the rule (Ref. 17). They noted that the WPS-required information 

2781 about pesticide applications that must be displayed at the establishment provides a limited set of 

2782 information about the pesticides used on the establishment. The information does not provide an 

2783 explanation of the specific symptoms associated with exposure to a specific product, nor does it 

2784 provide other use-related information that workers, handlers, and health care providers would 

2785 benefit from reviewing in the event of a pesticide-related illness or an emergency. To support 

2786 their request, they noted the disparity between information about chemical hazards required to be 

2787 provided to workers and handlers covered by the WPS and the information provided to workers 

2788 in all other industries under the OSHA HCS. 

2789 Farmworker organizations suggested that workers and handlers should receive “written 

2790 information, in a pictorial and low-literacy format, concerning the short- and long-term health 

2791 effects associated with each pesticide used at their worksite ” (Ref. 35, p. 2). Farmworker Justice 

2792 recommended that growers provide “crop sheets,” i.e., booklets with information on each 

2793 pesticide used on an establishment, to each worker and handler at the beginning of each work 

2794 period that involves entry into any treated area. (Crop sheets can take various forms but generally 

2795 summarize information about the pesticides used on a particular crop, the timing of application, 

2796 the type of application (for example, air blast or ground boom), and potential symptoms from 

2797 exposure to the pesticide.) Farmworker Justice suggested that the crop sheets be available in 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 126 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2798 English and Spanish. They believe that information presented in this format would enable 

2799 workers and handlers to recognize adverse effects and seek medical assistance if they 

2800 experienced symptoms related to exposure to a specific pesticide (Ref. 35). 

2801 Pesticide safety trainer representatives on the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee 

2802 Workgroup suggested that providing simple information on how to prevent potential pesticide 

2803 exposure is the most effective way to enable workers and handlers to protect themselves (Ref. 

2804 36) (Ref. 39); they did not endorse a specific type of hazard communication information. Health 

2805 care organizations noted that requiring employers to maintain pesticide labeling or SDS could 

2806 facilitate quick access to these documents by workers, handlers, or their representatives in the 

2807 event of an accidental exposure requiring medical attention. These groups noted that health care 

2808 practitioners can provide more appropriate medical attention if they can review and reference 

2809 either the label or the SDS. [See Unit XIV.] 

2810 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to require that agricultural and handler 

2811 employers make available to workers and handlers SDS and the labeling for pesticides used on 

2812 the establishment that require WPS compliance. This proposed requirement would be in addition 

2813 to the existing requirements to notify workers and handlers of the date, time, and location of 

2814 application, length of REI, and to identify the pesticide product. Employers would be required to 

2815 maintain the SDSs and the pesticide labels on the establishment for 2 years from the date of the 

2816 pesticide application. Workers, handlers or their authorized representatives could request access 

2817 to the pesticide-specific hazard information during normal business hours. [See Units IX.B. and 

2818 IX.C. for proposed revisions to employer requirements to provide information about pesticide 

2819 applications.] 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 127 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2820 In adopting the Hazard Communication Standard, OSHA said there was evidence to 

2821 indicate potential for chemical exposure in every type of industry, and that lack of knowledge 

2822 about those hazardous chemicals puts employees at significant risk of experiencing material 

2823 impairment of health (52 FR 31852; August 24, 1987) (59 FR 6126; February 9, 1994) (Ref. 63). 

2824 While the WPS pesticide safety training provides general information about risks associated with 

2825 pesticide exposure and how a worker or handler can protect himself or herself, the addition of a 

2826 requirement to provide information about each specific pesticide would provide complete hazard 

2827 information. The addition of a requirement to provide pesticide-specific hazard information 

2828 about each pesticide product requiring WPS compliance that is applied on the establishment 

2829 would provide workers and handlers with more complete information about the chemical hazards 

2830 they may encounter in the workplace. 

2831 Requiring employers to maintain the product labeling and SDSs for products applied on 

2832 their establishment would ensure that workers and handlers have access to detailed types of 

2833 pesticide hazard and emergency response information that would enable them to better protect 

2834 themselves and respond to emergencies. Additionally, as discussed in Unit XVI., medical 

2835 personnel are generally able to provide better treatment in the event of a pesticide exposure 

2836 incident when they have more information about the pesticide product to which the worker or 

2837 handler may have been exposed. Allowing authorized representatives of workers and handlers to 

2838 have access to the product labeling and SDSs upon request would assure that the information can 

2839 be accessed if a worker or handler is incapacitated; in addition, it would help assure that access 

2840 to this information is not impeded due to employee fears of retaliation. It also increases the 

2841 likelihood that workers and handlers will receive assistance in reading and understanding these 

2842 documents in cases where they need such assistance. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 128 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2843 EPA believes that imposing this requirement would not be unduly burdensome to 

2844 employers and would provide workers, handlers, and emergency responders with access to 

2845 appropriate pesticide-specific hazard information that should meet their needs. The SDS provides 

2846 succinct information about the known health hazards of the material, providing hazard 

2847 information that typically is not presented on the product labeling, and it is readily available from 

2848 pesticide manufacturers and should be provided with the pesticide container at the point of sale. 

2849 Based on EPA’s review of current state pesticide laws and regulations, and labor laws pertaining 

2850 to agricultural operations using pesticides, 12 states currently require agricultural employers to 

2851 make SDSs available to employees that may potentially be exposed to pesticides as part of their 

2852 occupational duties (Ref. 64). Ten of the states implement this requirement under state labor 

2853 regulations. Florida and California implement it under state pesticide laws. 

2854 The use of SDS in hazard communication in all other industries, as well as in agriculture 

2855 in several states, leads the Agency to believe that it would be the appropriate vehicle to make 

2856 pesticide-specific hazard information available to workers and handlers. 

2857 EPA recognizes that some employers may maintain electronic copies of their records. 

2858 Under the proposed option, an employer could maintain a copy of the pesticide labeling used for 

2859 the application and the corresponding SDS in either paper or electronic form. The employer 

2860 would need to be able to provide a paper copy of the materials upon request. Employers would 

2861 not need to update the pesticide labeling on file each time a new version is released; the labeling 

2862 on file must correspond with the labeling used at the time of application. 

2863 The proposed regulatory text concerning the provision of SDSs and pesticide product 

2864 labels appears in §170.11(b) of today’s proposed rule. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 129 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2865 5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost of requiring employers to maintain 

2866 application information, SDS, and labeling for 2 years would be $3 million annually, or about $8 

2867 per WPS establishment per year. The cost to obtain the SDS and labeling, as well as the 

2868 additional information described in unit IX.B., and to make it available would be about $5.3 

2869 million annually, or about $14 per establishment. For a complete discussion of the costs of the 

2870 proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker 

2871 Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

2872 EPA cannot quantify the specific benefits associated with this proposal; however, the 

2873 Agency believes that workers and handlers would benefit from having access to more complete 

2874 information about the pesticides to which they may be exposed. The additional information also 

2875 could be used to assist in more accurately diagnosing and treating pesticide-related illnesses. 

2876 EPA believes the costs of making more pesticide application information available to workers 

2877 and handlers are reasonable when compared to the expected benefits associated with the 

2878 requirement. 

2879 6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. EPA considered three alternatives to 

2880 the proposed option: a requirement to make crop sheets available, a requirement to translate 

2881 SDSs into different languages, and limiting the required pesticide information to the pesticide 

2882 labeling. 

2883 First, the Agency considered requiring employers to provide workers and handlers with a 

2884 crop sheet in English and Spanish for each pesticide they might encounter, each time they enter 

2885 the treated area. The Agency is aware of several attempts by state agencies to pilot this use of 

2886 crop sheets. California and Texas have had requirements for employers to provide crop sheets to 

2887 those working in pesticide-treated areas. Texas funded the initial development and periodic 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 130 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2888 updating of the crop sheets, but the process became too expensive and labor intensive for the 

2889 state to continue. The states reported that the crop sheets were left as litter in the treated area. 

2890 Texas reported that the redundancy between the requirements under Texas law and the WPS 

2891 contributed to the decision to discontinue the crop sheet program. 

2892 EPA believes that developing crop sheets as recommended by farmworker organizations 

2893 would be challenging because they suggested simple pictorial descriptions of hazards and 

2894 symptoms, which would not be accomplished easily with the technical information that is 

2895 generally included on an SDS. In addition, many agricultural enterprises produce a variety of 

2896 commodities, increasing the number and complexity of the crop sheets. Agricultural practices 

2897 differ across regions and according to local conditions, making it difficult to develop a standard 

2898 set of crop sheets that could be used nationally; a booklet that would be useful for vegetables 

2899 grown in New England would not be representative of practices in vegetable production in the 

2900 Southwestern United States. As part of its consideration, the Agency assessed the cost of 

2901 developing crop sheets based on the assumption that pesticide registrants would develop the crop 

2902 sheets because they have the most complete knowledge of each pesticide’s properties, hazards, 

2903 and potential health effects. The estimated cost of $13 million annually does not include copying 

2904 and distributing the crop sheets to workers and handlers every time they enter a treated area. 

2905 Copying and distributing the crop sheets would significantly increase the cost of this option. 

2906 Based on the experience of states that have attempted to implement crop sheet 

2907 distribution programs, EPA does not believe that workers and handlers would benefit sufficiently 

2908 to justify the cost of developing, compiling, translating, and distributing specific crop sheets. 

2909 Second, EPA considered requiring pesticide-specific hazard communication materials to 

2910 be made available in a language that workers and handlers can understand. This would mean 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 131 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2911 translating a copy of the SDS and labeling into each language understood by a worker or handler 

2912 on the establishment and maintaining copies of the original and translated SDS and labeling, 

2913 rather than providing the information in English and putting the burden of translation on the 

2914 worker or handler. 

2915 The NAWS estimates that the majority of agricultural workers (83%) are non-English 

2916 speakers (Ref. 65). Additionally, NAWS data show that 85% of workers “would have difficulty 

2917 obtaining information from printed materials in any language” (Ref. 61, p. 16). Additionally, 

2918 workers and handlers speak a large number of languages and dialects, and the Agency believes it 

2919 would be impractical to translate and present complex information into so many different 

2920 languages. This requirement would be complicated further by the fact that some indigenous 

2921 worker and handler populations do not have a written language. EPA assumes that a majority of 

2922 requests for the SDS will be made related to a health care incident, which means that either the 

2923 health care practitioner or a worker advocacy support group would likely receive the 

2924 information. These groups are more likely to have staff that speak English and are capable of 

2925 translating the information for the worker or handler if necessary. 

2926 All other industries – including the construction, janitorial, and maintenance industries 

2927 where there are traditionally significant numbers of workers with limited skills reading or 

2928 understanding English – use SDSs in English to meet OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard 

2929 requirements to make chemical hazard information available to employees (29 CFR 

2930 1910.120(g)). Most readily available sources of pesticide-specific hazard information, such as 

2931 SDS and pesticide labeling, are in English. EPA did not estimate the cost of translating the SDS 

2932 and labeling into each language spoken by workers and handlers, but expects that the burden 

2933 would be extremely high. The burden of producing SDSs in multiple languages would probably 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 132 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2934 fall on registrants, but agricultural and handler employers would bear the burden of obtaining 

2935 and maintaining a copy of this information in every language spoken by their workers and 

2936 handlers. 

2937 Based on this information, EPA does not believe that the risk reductions expected to 

2938 result from providing SDSs to workers in their native languages would justify the significant 

2939 costs of doing so. Medical and legal personnel who would provide assistance to workers in the 

2940 event of a suspected exposure are proficient in English and could use the SDSs as already 

2941 developed by the pesticide registrant. 

2942 Finally, EPA considered requiring the employer to maintain only labeling for pesticides 

2943 that require WPS compliance that are applied on their establishments, rather than both the 

2944 product’s labeling and SDS. Pesticide labeling must accompany the product; therefore, 

2945 employers generally already have a copy of the labeling for products applied on their 

2946 establishment. When a pesticide is applied by a commercial applicator or someone other than the 

2947 agricultural employer, he or she can easily request a copy of the pesticide labeling from the 

2948 person who made the application. The SDS, on the other hand, does not accompany the product 

2949 and may require more time to locate, increasing the burden on the agricultural employer. 

2950 Limiting the requirement to the pesticide labeling could reduce the burden on agricultural 

2951 employers. 

2952 EPA believes that the burden associated with retrieving a pesticide SDS is, however, not 

2953 substantial because the SDS is readily available online and can be requested from and provided 

2954 by the pesticide manufacturer and sometimes the pesticide dealer. The SDS contains information 

2955 necessary for the diagnosis and treatment of certain pesticide-related illnesses. In some instances 

2956 of pesticide-related illnesses, time is of the essence in determining the course of treatment. In 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 133 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2957 these instances, having the SDS readily available for the worker, handler, and/or treating medical 

2958 personnel could be essential to ensuring proper treatment. The cost for requiring the employer to 

2959 collect and make available only the labeling would be about $1.6 million, or about $4 per 

2960 establishment. EPA believes that the additional burden associated with retrieving the SDS for 

2961 each product is justified by the potential benefit to workers and handlers from having the SDS 

2962 available in the event of a pesticide-related illness. 

2963 7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

2964 • What would be the burden on employers to maintain the SDS and pesticide label for 2 

2965 vs. 5 years? 

2966 • Do agricultural employers already collect SDSs? If so, how do they obtain them and 

2967 what burden is associated with retrieving the SDS for one or more products? 

2968 • What are the benefits and drawbacks of requiring employers to maintain and provide 

2969 access to employees and others the proposed pesticide-specific hazard information? 

2970 • Are there other approaches to providing pesticide-specific information to workers and 

2971 handlers that the Agency should consider? If so, please describe and provide rationales for 

2972 implementing them. 

2973 • Are there other data on the benefit to workers and handlers from receiving pesticide2974 specific information before every entry into a pesticide treated area? 

2975 • Does opening access to pesticide-specific information to authorized representatives 

2976 raise any problems? If so, please describe the potential issues with particularity and provide 

2977 supporting information where available. 

2978 B. Pesticide Application Information – Content and Timing
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 134 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2979 1. Overview. The existing WPS contains requirements for agricultural employers to 

2980 record and display information about pesticide applications and to make that information 

2981 accessible to workers and handlers. However, the existing requirements do not include some key 

2982 information about pesticide applications that could help workers and handlers better identify 

2983 treated areas on the establishment and avoid pesticide exposure. EPA proposes to require 

2984 additional information about pesticide applications to be recorded. EPA also proposes to change 

2985 the timing of when employers must record the information. EPA believes the additional 

2986 information would better inform workers and handlers of relevant information about pesticide 

2987 applications. The more flexible timing requirements for recording application information would 

2988 reduce burden on employers. [See Unit IX.C. for proposed revisions to requirements for 

2989 displaying information about pesticide applications.] 

2990 2. Existing WPS regulations. The existing WPS requires agricultural employers to record 

2991 and display certain information about pesticide applications at a central location on the 

2992 establishment. Employers must comply with this requirement when workers or handlers will be 

2993 on the establishment and an application of a pesticide requiring WPS compliance has been made 

2994 or an REI has been effect within the last 30 days (40 CFR 170.122 and 170.222). The purpose of 

2995 this requirement is to communicate information to workers and handlers about the locations of 

2996 potential pesticide hazards on the establishment, for example, entry restricted areas or areas 

2997 under an REI. The WPS requires employers to record and display the following information 

2998 about pesticide applications: 

2999 • Location and description of the treated area, 

3000 • Product name, 

3001 • EPA registration number, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 135 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3002 • Active ingredient(s) of the pesticide product, 

3003 • Time and date the pesticide is to be applied, and 

3004 • REI for the pesticide. 

3005 The existing WPS requires the application information to be accurate and to be displayed before 

3006 application takes place if workers are present on the establishment. If no workers or handlers are 

3007 on the establishment at the time of application, the information must be posted before the first 

3008 work period when workers or handlers are on the establishment. If warning signs are posted for 

3009 the treated area before an application, the specific application information for that application 

3010 must be displayed at the same time or earlier, in accordance with the display requirements. When 

3011 workers or handlers are present on the establishment, the employer must display the application 

3012 information for at least 30 days after the end of the REI. Employers may discontinue the 

3013 information display prior to 30 days after the end of the REI when workers or handlers are no 

3014 longer on the establishment. 

3015 3. Summary of the issues. During the National Assessment and SBREFA consultation 

3016 process, employers and pesticide applicators noted that they had difficulty recording and 

3017 displaying application information before the application occurs (Ref. 17) (Ref. 18). They cited 

3018 changes in pesticide application plans, usually to accommodate changing weather conditions, as 

3019 a primary reason for not being able to accurately record the pesticide application information. 

3020 State regulatory agencies noted that the current requirement for providing information 

3021 about pesticide applications lacked specific information necessary to enable state inspectors to 

3022 accurately determine the start and end times of the REIs (Ref. 17). As a result of a high-profile 

3023 pesticide enforcement case and the aforementioned difficulty determining REI start and end 

3024 times, North Carolina informed EPA that it has taken steps to amend the state pesticide laws. The 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 136 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3025 amended laws would require the end times of pesticide applications to be recorded as part of 

3026 state pesticide recordkeeping so inspectors could calculate precise REIs (Ref. 66). 

3027 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. In addition to the pesticide application information 

3028 currently required to be recorded, the Agency proposes to require agricultural employers to 

3029 record further specific information about pesticide applications. The proposed information would 

3030 include the specific crop or site treated, the start and end dates and times of the application, and 

3031 the end date and duration for the REI. EPA also proposes to revise the requirement for when 

3032 information must be recorded to allow flexibility for agricultural employers to record the 

3033 pesticide application information no later than the end of the day of the application. 

3034 An agricultural establishment can grow a variety of crops in specific areas. EPA believes 

3035 that adding the type of crop site to the record would help workers, handlers, and pesticide 

3036 inspectors to distinguish the particular treated area to which the information pertains. EPA also 

3037 believes that including the specific start and end times for the pesticide application, in addition to 

3038 the date of application, would assist workers, handlers, and inspectors in accurately calculating 

3039 the date and time the REI ends. The requirement for employers to note the specific date and time 

3040 when the REI ends would clarify when workers may enter the treated area. The proposed 

3041 revisions would require agricultural employers to make the pesticide application information (as 

3042 well as the proposed pesticide-specific hazard information [see Unit IX.A.]) available no later 

3043 than the end of the day of the pesticide application when workers are on the agricultural 

3044 establishment that day. By “make available,” the Agency means that the agricultural employer 

3045 must, at a minimum, have the materials in a place where the workers, upon request, can have 

3046 access to view them. If workers are not on the establishment on the day of application, the 

3047 information must be made available at the beginning of the first work period following 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 137 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3048 application. Changing when the application information must be made available allows 

3049 flexibility if the application schedule changes. Making these changes would allow more realistic 

3050 timeframes for recording application information and would take into account the realities of 

3051 fluctuations in application timing. The change also would accommodate the requests to record 

3052 the end time of the application and timing of REI. Information would be more accurate and the 

3053 burden of correcting the information would be reduced. 

3054 EPA does not believe that allowing the application information to be made available by 

3055 the end of the day would put workers and handlers at risk because notification of treated areas to 

3056 workers and handlers must occur before the treatment commences by either oral notification or 

3057 by the posting of warning signs. Therefore, EPA believes that workers would be protected during 

3058 application and immediately post-application by the WPS notification provisions. 

3059 The proposed regulatory text concerning the timing and content of pesticide application 

3060 information required to be displayed appears in §170.11(b) of today’s proposed rule. 

3061 5. Costs. Because the information required in this proposal is linked to the retention of 

3062 the pesticide labeling and SDS, the costs were calculated together. Therefore, the estimated costs 

3063 for this proposal are included in the cost discussed in Unit IX.A. For a complete discussion of the 

3064 costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the 

3065 Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

3066 6. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

3067 • Would the additional pesticide application information proposed by EPA impose undue 

3068 burden on the applicator or the employer? 

3069 • Are there benefits or drawbacks to requiring this additional information that EPA has 

3070 not considered? If so, please describe. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 138 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3071 C. Pesticide Application Information – Location and Accessibility 

3072 1. Overview. The WPS contains requirements for agricultural employers to record and 

3073 display information about pesticide applications made on the establishment at a central location 

3074 on the establishment from the time of the application until 30 days after the REI expires. EPA 

3075 proposes to replace the current requirement with a requirement for employers to make pesticide 

3076 application information available on request by a worker, handler, or his or her representative. 

3077 The proposal would also increase the time employers must maintain the application information 

3078 on the establishment from 30 days after the REI expires to 2 years. The employer would 

3079 maintain the pesticide application information in the same location as the SDS and labeling 

3080 (pesticide-specific hazard communication; see Unit IX.A.). EPA believes this proposal would 

3081 reduce the overall burden on agricultural employers while still providing workers and handlers 

3082 with reasonable access to information regarding pesticide applications and pesticide-specific 

3083 hazard information. 

3084 2. Existing WPS regulations. As described in Unit IX.B., the WPS requires agricultural 

3085 employers to record and display certain information about WPS-covered pesticide applications at 

3086 a central location on the establishment when workers or handlers will be on the establishment 

3087 and an application of a WPS-covered pesticide has been made or an REI has been in effect 

3088 within the past 30 days (40 CFR 170.122 and170.222). 

3089 3. Summary of the issues. During the National Assessment meetings, stakeholders, 

3090 particularly employers, noted the difficulty in maintaining the pesticide application information 

3091 at a central posting site (Ref. 17). Pesticide application plans frequently change, and keeping a 

3092 notice board at a central location, which, in some cases, may be a significant distance from the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 139 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3093 treated area, up to date with those changes presents a challenge to the employer, especially prior 

3094 to the application. 

3095 Agricultural employer stakeholders noted that weathering of the posted information 

3096 quickly impacts legibility, making it difficult to meet the legibility requirements for the 

3097 information (Ref. 67). Some states, including Florida, recognize the difficulty facing employers 

3098 and have developed a portable central location display. Florida’s display includes a laminated 

3099 metal sign and weatherproof box to contain the necessary WPS information. Florida developed 

3100 this display to increase compliance, to increase durability of the poster and information, and to 

3101 provide a solution to the problems noted with maintaining the legibility of information required 

3102 to be displayed at a central location on large establishments (Ref. 67). 

3103 Keeping the information current at the central location has been problematic for 

3104 agricultural employers, as records of frequent pesticide applications on an establishment with 

3105 multiple crops can be difficult to maintain accurately during the growing season (Ref. 17). 

3106 Employers argued that keeping the application information at a central location essentially 

3107 requires them to maintain two copies of pesticide application records because they cannot rely on 

3108 the WPS central posting site to be the only copy of application records, imposing a double 

3109 recordkeeping burden. Keeping two separate sets of application information records with the 

3110 same information on a busy establishment can be difficult. 

3111 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to require the employer to maintain 

3112 pesticide application information and make it accessible to workers, handlers, or authorized 

3113 representatives of workers or handlers upon request, and to eliminate the requirement for 

3114 agricultural employers to display the pesticide application information at a central location. The 

3115 proposed requirement does not specify a particular location on the establishment where the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 140 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3116 employer must store records, but does require that pesticide application records must be 

3117 maintained on the establishment and must be made available upon request to workers, handlers, 

3118 or their representative during normal business hours. The application information must be 

3119 maintained in addition to the pesticide-specific hazard information. [See Unit IX.A.] 

3120 The requirement for display of pesticide application information at a central posting site 

3121 has been the most frequently cited area for non-compliance and violations. Between 2006 and 

3122 2008, there was an annual average of 770 WPS violations related to central posting reported by 

3123 states to EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (Ref. 68) (Ref. 69) (Ref. 70). 

3124 EPA has concerns about the difficulties expressed by stakeholders such as regulators and 

3125 agricultural employers in maintaining this information at the central posting area, and it is 

3126 reflected in the violation records. EPA has concerns about the usefulness of the central display to 

3127 workers and handlers, especially on large establishments, because the worker or handler may be 

3128 assigned to work miles from the central display and would not encounter it on a routine basis. 

3129 Moreover, if the information is not accurate or correctly maintained, workers and handlers could 

3130 be deprived of receiving accurate information about pesticide applications on the establishments. 

3131 Rather than continue a requirement that burdens employers without clear benefits to workers and 

3132 handlers, EPA has decided to revise the requirement related to displaying information about 

3133 pesticide applications. 

3134 The proposed requirement for maintaining and making pesticide application information 

3135 (and the related pesticide-specific hazard communication information as discussed in Unit IX.A) 

3136 available to workers and handlers upon request parallels OSHA’s requirement for employers to 

3137 provide hazard information. EPA recognizes that OSHA’s HCS has been successfully 

3138 implemented in all other industries, and that employers covered by the WPS struggle with 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 141 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3139 maintaining the central display according to current requirements. The intent of the requirement 

3140 is to give the workers and handlers access to accurate and legible pesticide application and 

3141 hazard information. EPA believes that a requirement that allows employers to keep records in a 

3142 location other than on display at a central location will significantly reduce burden on the 

3143 employers without sacrificing the amount or type of information to which workers or handlers 

3144 have access. 

3145 The proposed regulatory text concerning the accessibility of application information 

3146 appears in §170.11(b) of today’s proposed rule. 

3147 5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost of requiring employers to make pesticide 

3148 application information available upon request and eliminating the requirement for central 

3149 posting would be $1.1 million annually, or about $3 per WPS establishment. This estimated cost 

3150 does not include any additional copies of the pesticide application information necessary because 

3151 time and weather render the display illegible. The cost estimate includes an assumption that 25% 

3152 of workers and handlers would request access to the materials, which EPA recognizes is a 

3153 conservative estimate and drives the cost of the requirement higher. The anticipated benefits of 

3154 this proposal were discussed in the section above. For a complete discussion of the costs of the 

3155 proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker 

3156 Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

3157 EPA believes that this proposal would reduce the burden on employers by allowing them 

3158 to maintain the records in a location that is not subject to weathering and would not substantially 

3159 increase the burden on workers and handlers seeking this information. EPA believes that most 

3160 workers do not routinely pass the central posting area because their workplace is at a different 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 142 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3161 part of the establishment. The proposed change would continue to make available at a designated 

3162 location pesticide application information for workers and handlers. 

3163 6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. EPA considered requiring that 

3164 employers post specific pesticide application information on the signs used to post each treated 

3165 area. Under this option, specific information about the pesticide used, date of application, and 

3166 REI would be included on the bottom of each warning sign posted around a treated area. [See 

3167 Unit VIII.C. for a discussion of the proposals related to notifications to workers and handlers.] 

3168 This option would allow early-entry workers to access information about the specific pesticides 

3169 used in areas where they may be working at the time they enter the treated area. However, this 

3170 alternative option would substantially increase the burden associated with posting treated areas 

3171 because employers would have to copy the pesticide and application information onto each 

3172 warning sign. In addition, when treated areas are posted for multiple days, the sign could become 

3173 weathered and illegible, imposing the additional burden on the grower to update the legibility of 

3174 the sign or negating the intended protection associated with providing the information at the 

3175 treated area. This option could also reduce information available to workers and handlers 

3176 because pesticide application information would not be available when the treated area does not 

3177 require a posted warning sign. 

3178 EPA believes that the proposed options to post a general warning sign at pesticide treated 

3179 areas [see Unit VIII] and to require the employer to maintain and make accessible pesticide3180 specific application information balance the need for workers and handlers to have access to 

3181 pesticide hazard information and the burden on agricultural employers. Therefore, EPA decided 

3182 not to propose this option. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 143 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3183 D. Pesticide Application Information and Pesticide-Specific Hazard Communication Materials 

3184 —Retention of Records 

3185 1. Overview. The current WPS requires employers to maintain information about 

3186 pesticide applications from the time of application until 30 days after the REI expires. The 

3187 Agency proposes to require employers to retain the pesticide application and related pesticide3188 specific hazard communication information for 2 years from the date of the end of the REI for 

3189 each product applied. EPA believes the extended recordkeeping period would ensure that state, 

3190 tribal and federal agencies, workers, handlers, and health care workers have access to the 

3191 information when necessary to investigate a health-related pesticide incident or potentially 

3192 unlawful pesticide application. 

3193 2. Existing WPS regulations. The existing WPS requires agricultural employers to display 

3194 information about pesticide applications from the time of application until 30 days after the REI 

3195 has expired (40 CFR 170.122(b) and 170.222(b)). 

3196 3. Details of the proposal/rationale. The Agency proposes to require employers to retain 

3197 and make available for 2 years from the date of the end of the last applicable REI pesticide 

3198 application information and related pesticide-specific hazard communication information that 

3199 includes the SDSs and product labeling for pesticides that require WPS compliance. EPA expects 

3200 the extended recordkeeping period would ensure that application information is maintained for a 

3201 sufficient period of time to allow for follow-up in the event of health problems that might be 

3202 related to pesticide exposure or for investigation of a suspected pesticide misuse. EPA recognizes 

3203 that some employers may maintain electronic copies of their application records and other 

3204 documents such as SDS and pesticide labeling. Under the proposed option, an employer could 

3205 maintain a copy of the application information, the pesticide labeling used for the application, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 144 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3206 and the corresponding SDS in either paper or electronic form. The employer would need to be 

3207 able to provide access to the electronic format of the materials or make available a paper copy of 

3208 the materials upon request. Employers would need to ensure that the copy of the pesticide label 

3209 on file is the same as the label for the pesticide product at the time it was applied on the 

3210 establishment. Employers would not need to update the pesticide labeling or SDS on file each 

3211 time a new version is released; however, if the product used in a subsequent application bears a 

3212 different version of the labeling, the employer would need to keep both versions of the labeling 

3213 on file, in a manner identifying which version was used on which occasion. 

3214 EPA believes the current 30-day timeframe for retention of the application information is 

3215 not adequate for workers or handlers to access the information, especially if there has been a 

3216 delayed health impact from the exposure. It is possible for latent health effects from a pesticide 

3217 exposure to occur after the 30-day window, necessitating access to information about the 

3218 potential source of exposure and the types of pesticides that may have been involved. In 2004 

3219 and 2005, farmworker women who had worked in Florida, North Carolina, and New Jersey gave 

3220 birth to babies with birth defects. In 2006, EPA investigated the incidents and sought information 

3221 about pesticide exposures several months after the women’s employment ended (Ref. 71). The 

3222 ability to perform a full investigation into the serious health effects was hampered by the 30-day 

3223 limit for retention of the WPS-required application information (Ref. 72). 

3224 The proposed regulatory text concerning the 2-year recordkeeping requirement appears in 

3225 §170.11(b)(2) of today’s proposed rule. 

3226 4. Costs. The costs of this proposal were discussed in Unit IX.A. in conjunction with the 

3227 requirement to retain and make available the SDS and pesticide labeling. For a complete 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 145 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3228 discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed 

3229 Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

3230 5. Alternative options considered but not proposed. EPA considered requiring application 

3231 records and hazard information to be maintained for 5 years. The incremental cost between the 2-

3232 year and 5-year period is negligible because the principal costs of recordkeeping occur when the 

3233 record is created. Several states, including California, have required employers to retain WPS 

3234 records for 2 years. Based on their experience, 2 years is a sufficient time to allow the state to 

3235 investigate complaints. Therefore, it is not clear that the increased burden associated with 

3236 requiring employers to maintain records for 5 years would be justified. 

3237 6. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

3238 • Should EPA consider a different timeframe for recordkeeping for this 

3239 requirement? If so, what period and why? 

3240 • What burdens would be imposed on agricultural employers as a consequence of 

3241 the proposed two-year record retention requirement? 

3242 • How would the burden of the proposal to maintain application records compare 

3243 with the current requirement to maintain a central display? 

3244 X. Information Exchange between Handler and Agricultural Employers 

3245 1. Overview. The current WPS requires handler and agricultural employers to exchange 

3246 information about pesticide applications. EPA proposes to add to the existing requirement 

3247 information about the location of the “entry-restricted areas” and the start and end times of 

3248 pesticide applications. EPA also proposes to require the handler employer to provide any 

3249 changes to pesticide application plans to the agricultural employer within 2 hours of the end of 

3250 the application rather than before the application. Changes to the estimated application end time 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 146 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3251 of less than one hour would not require notification. EPA expects these changes to reduce worker 

3252 pesticide exposure by providing accurate, timely information about applications to the 

3253 agricultural employer. 

3254 2. Existing WPS regulations. When handlers are employed by an employer other than the 

3255 agricultural employer, the existing WPS requires the agricultural employer to provide the handler 

3256 employer with information about treated areas on the agricultural establishment, including 

3257 specific location and description of any such areas and restrictions on entering those areas (40 

3258 CFR 170.124). 

3259 The WPS requires handler employers to provide agricultural employers with the 

3260 following information prior to the pesticide application: 

3261 • Location and description of the area to be treated, 

3262 • Time and date of application, 

3263 • Product name, active ingredient(s), and EPA Registration Number for the product, 

3264 • REI, 

3265 • Whether posting and/or oral notification are required, and 

3266 • Any other product-specific requirements on the product labeling concerning protection 

3267 of workers or other persons during or after application. 

3268 Handler employers are currently required to inform agricultural employers when there 

3269 will be changes to scheduled pesticide applications, such as to give notice of changes to 

3270 scheduled pesticide application times, locations, and subsequent REIs, before the application 

3271 takes place (40 CFR 170.224). 

3272 3. Summary of the issues. State regulatory agencies participating in the IGW raised 

3273 concerns over the regulation’s silence regarding handler employers’ responsibilities in the event 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 147 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3274 a scheduled pesticide application changes resulting in the original information no longer being 

3275 accurate (Ref. 14). IGW members questioned field implementation of the provision because the 

3276 agricultural employer could send a worker into an area that is believed not to be treated while the 

3277 handler employer changes the application schedule. As a result, the worker would be at risk of 

3278 being directly or indirectly exposed to pesticides. 

3279 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes two additions to the information 

3280 currently required to be exchanged between agricultural and handler employers: the location of 

3281 the “entry-restricted area” and the start and end times of the pesticide application. This 

3282 information should help clarify the current rule and assist with field implementation. 

3283 First, EPA proposes to expand the agricultural employer’s required information exchange 

3284 with the handler employer to include the location of the proposed “entry-restricted area,” which 

3285 EPA proposes to define as the area surrounding a treated area during pesticide application from 

3286 which workers or other persons must be excluded during the pesticide application. 

3287 Second, to clarify and improve handler employer requirements for providing information 

3288 to the agricultural employer, EPA proposes to require the handler employer to include the 

3289 proposed start and estimated end times for the application, which are needed to accurately 

3290 calculate the REI end date and time. EPA proposes to require the handler employer to provide 

3291 changes to pesticide application plans to the agricultural employer within 2 hours of the end of 

3292 the application rather than before the application. Changes to the estimated application end time 

3293 of less than one hour would not require notification. These changes would allow more 

3294 flexibility for handler employers by reducing the number of times they would have to 

3295 communicate with the agricultural employer while maintaining communication of important 

3296 application and safety information. Currently, the handler employer or handler must inform the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 148 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3297 agricultural employer of all changes to pesticide application timing before the application takes 

3298 place. For example, if a rain storm delayed the application, this could mean multiple exchanges 

3299 of information before the application takes place. 

3300 EPA expects these changes would make the required information exchange easier for 

3301 agricultural and handler employers to understand and follow. Providing more accurate 

3302 information about the timing of applications and subsequent REI would assist employers in 

3303 ensuring that workers and handlers are kept out of areas being treated or under an REI unless 

3304 properly protected. Overall, the proposal should reduce the number of incidents resulting from 

3305 workers or handlers entering treated areas unaware of an ongoing application or existing REI. 

3306 The proposed regulatory text concerning the information exchange between agricultural 

3307 employers and handlers appears in §§170.9(k) and 170.13(i)-(j).

3308 5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the proposed revisions to the information exchange 

3309 requirements would have no or negligible cost because they clarify the rule and codify existing 

3310 guidance. For a complete discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the 

3311 “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost 

3312 Analysis (Ref. 1). 

3313 6. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

3314 • Is it reasonable to require the handler employer to notify the agricultural employer of 

3315 changes to scheduled pesticide applications within 2 hours of the end of the application?

3316 • What are the benefits to expanding the information to be exchanged between handler 

3317 and agricultural employers? Are there any drawbacks?

3318 • Would this impose additional burden on employers? If so, what burden and how could 

3319 it be reduced?
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 149 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3320 XI. Handler Restrictions 

3321 A. Suspend Application

3322 1. Overview. EPA proposes to add a provision to the WPS stating that the handler or 

3323 applicator must “immediately cease or suspend application if any worker or other person, other 

3324 than an appropriately trained and equipped handler, is in the treated or entry restricted area.” 

3325 This statement would help to ensure that handlers understand their responsibility to protect 

3326 workers from pesticide exposure through direct contact or drift. 

3327 2. Existing WPS regulations. The current rule requires handlers to “assure that no 

3328 pesticide is applied so as to contact, either, directly or through drift, any worker or other person, 

3329 other than an appropriately trained and equipped handler.” 

3330 3. Stakeholder information considered by EPA. WPS inspectors have informed EPA that 

3331 the current WPS language does not provide sufficient directive for handlers to stop an 

3332 application if a person, other than a trained and properly equipped handler, enters the treated area 

3333 and entry-restricted area during application. 

3334 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. The proposal would require handlers to cease 

3335 application if they observe any person other than a trained and properly equipped handler to be 

3336 present in the treated or entry-restricted area. This clarifies and strengthens the current WPS 

3337 language which does not currently include a “cease application” statement but does require the 

3338 handler to assure no pesticide is applied so as to contact a worker. This additional “cease 

3339 application” statement is an important clarification considering the SENSOR3340 Pesticides/California Department of Pesticide Regulation publication that cites drift as the 

3341 leading factor contributing to reports of acute occupational pesticide poisoning cases in 

3342 agricultural workers (Ref. 11). Further, the Washington State Department of Health’s Pesticide 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 150 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3343 Incident Reporting and Tracking Review Panel 2009 Annual Report details an incident involving 

3344 54 workers exposed to drift from an aerial application where 47 workers sought medical 

3345 treatment for multiple health symptoms. The adverse effects of this incident may have been 

3346 mitigated if the handler acted to cease application when he saw the workers located in the treated 

3347 or entry-restricted area (Ref. 73). 

3348 The regulatory text concerning the suspension of an application appears in §170.205(a) 

3349 through (b) of today’s proposed rule. 

3350 5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost of this proposal would be negligible 

3351 because it clarifies an existing requirement 

3352 6. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

3353 • Will this proposal, in combination with the entry-restricted area requirements proposed 

3354 in Unit XIV., effectively reduce worker exposure to spray drift? Please provide rationale and 

3355 data to substantiate your response. 

3356 • Are there alternatives to this proposal that would better protect workers and others from 

3357 spray drift, while reserving the flexibility to use pesticides in agriculture? Please provide 

3358 rationale and data to support your response. 

3359 B. Establish Minimum Age of 16 for Handling Pesticides

3360 1. Overview. The current WPS does not establish any age restrictions for handlers. EPA 

3361 proposes to prohibit persons younger than 16 years of age from handling pesticides, with an 

3362 exception for handlers working on an establishment owned by an immediate family member. See 

3363 Unit XVIII.A., for a complete discussion of the immediate family exception. EPA expects this 

3364 change will result in reduced risks to children and improved competency in handling, resulting in 

3365 reduced exposure to workers, handlers, bystanders, and the environment. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 151 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3366 2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS does not establish a minimum age for handlers. 

3367 3. Summary of the issues. FLSA establishes a minimum age of 16 years for any person to 

3368 handle a pesticide designated as toxicity category I or II and not working on a farm owned by an 

3369 immediate family member (29 U.S.C. 213(c)(2)). The CHPAC recommended that EPA establish 

3370 a minimum age of 16 for pesticide handlers of any agricultural pesticide, based on a 

3371 recommendation from NIOSH. (Ref. 74). Handlers, compared to workers, face exposure to 

3372 pesticides at higher levels as they mix, load, and apply pesticides (Ref. 75). A report from 

3373 NIOSH compiles studies that demonstrate “[y]outh are at increased risk of injury from lack of 

3374 experience. Inexperienced workers are unfamiliar with the requirements of work, are less likely 

3375 to be trained to recognize hazards, and are commonly unaware of their legal rights on the job. 

3376 Developmental factors – physical, cognitive, and psychological – may also place them at 

3377 increased risk.” (Ref. 76) 

3378 In addition, during the SBREFA consultation described in Unit IV.B., the SERs 

3379 recommended establishing a minimum age of 16 under the certification of pesticide applicators 

3380 rule (40 CFR 171), with an exception to the minimum age on family farms (Ref. 42). 

3381 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to prohibit a handler employer from 

3382 allowing persons younger than 16 years old to perform handling tasks. The minimum age would 

3383 not apply to handlers that fall under the immediate family exception, i.e., working on a farm 

3384 owned by an immediate family member. 

3385 As discussed above, the FLSA already establishes 16 as a minimum age for persons using 

3386 toxicity category I and II pesticides. This restriction does not extend protection to all handlers 

3387 under the WPS. Handlers may use pesticides in any toxicity category, from I to IV. EPA seeks 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 152 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3388 to ensure that all adolescent handlers receive equal protection, regardless of the toxicity of the 

3389 pesticide used. 

3390 OSHA asked NIOSH to evaluate the existing Hazardous Order regulations and to make 

3391 recommendations for strengthening the protections provided by these requirements. Among 

3392 other things, NIOSH responded with rationale for changing the hazardous order related to 

3393 pesticide use in agriculture to establish 16 as the minimum age for using all pesticides, not only 

3394 those pesticides in toxicity categories I and II. The NIOSH report cites data from a study which 

3395 examined pesticide poisoning among working children. A total of 531 children under the age of 

3396 18 years were identified to have acute occupational pesticide-related illness. It was estimated that 

3397 62% of the cases were children employed in agricultural production and services. Of the 81% of 

3398 cases where the EPA acute toxicity category was available, 67% of the illnesses were associated 

3399 with toxicity category III pesticides, which are not currently prohibited under the hazardous 

3400 order (Ref. 76, p. 93). 

3401 Aside from any increased risks that children may suffer from pesticide exposures, the 

3402 Agency recognizes that children generally lack the experience and judgment to avoid or prevent 

3403 unnecessary exposure. A study conducted by the National Institutes of Health also demonstrates 

3404 that because their brains are still developing, adolescents may have trouble balancing risk-reward 

3405 decision-making and goal-oriented decision making (Ref. 77 p. 7). Although adolescents may 

3406 understand the possible consequences of their actions, they are more likely to make decisions 

3407 based upon their initial emotional responses, which will often lead them to make suboptimal 

3408 choices (Ref. 77, p. 7). Additionally, younger persons are less likely to be aware of their rights 

3409 and how to recognize hazards in the workplace (Ref. 76). 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 153 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3410 The proposed age restriction would include a requirement for the handler employer to 

3411 record the training and the birth date of all persons trained. It would be possible for someone 

3412 under 16 years old to receive handler training; however, the trained individual would not be 

3413 permitted to perform handling tasks until they turn 16. The proposed age restriction advances the 

3414 Agency’s commitment to protecting children. 

3415 EPA recognizes the independence of the family farm and believes that farm family 

3416 parents are in the best position to make decisions about the types of activities in which their 

3417 children can safely engage. EPA believes that handlers working on an establishment covered by 

3418 the immediate family exception would be adequately prepared and supervised by family 

3419 members. Therefore, the minimum age requirement for handlers would not apply to persons 

3420 performing handling tasks when covered by the immediate family exemption. 

3421 The proposed regulatory text concerning the minimum age of 16 for handlers appears in 

3422 §§170.9(c) and 170.13(c) of today’s proposed rule. The exception for persons covered by the 

3423 immediate family exemption is found in §170.301(a)(1)(i). 

3424 5. Costs. EPA estimates the cost of requiring handlers to be at least 16 years old would be 

3425 $466,000 annually, or about $2 per agricultural establishment per year. It would impose no cost 

3426 on commercial pesticide handling establishments. The cost of maintaining records of handlers’ 

3427 birth dates is included in the cost of retaining records for handler training. For a complete 

3428 discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed 

3429 Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

3430 EPA cannot quantify the benefits associated with this proposal. However, EPA believes 

3431 this proposal would improve the health of adolescent handlers, as well as other workers and 

3432 handlers on the establishment and the environment. As discussed above, adolescents’ judgment 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 154 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3433 is not fully developed. EPA believes that restricting adolescents’ ability to handle pesticides 

3434 would lead to less exposure potential for the handlers themselves, and less potential for 

3435 misapplication that could cause negative impacts on other handlers or workers on the 

3436 establishment, as well as the environment. 

3437 6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. As an alternative, EPA considered 

3438 proposing a minimum age of 18 for pesticide handlers, which would also include an exception 

3439 for persons performing handler tasks on a farm owned by an immediate family member. 

3440 Handlers must exercise good judgment and responsible behavior to best protect themselves and 

3441 others as they work with these potentially toxic materials. Research shows the differences in the 

3442 decision-making of adolescents and adults leads to the conclusion that handlers who are 

3443 adolescents may take more risks than those who are adults. The Department of Labor has 

3444 established a general rule, applicable to most industries, except agriculture, that workers must be 

3445 at least 18 years old to perform hazardous jobs (29 CFR 570.120) (75 FR 28458; May 20, 2010). 

3446 The use of agricultural pesticides presents demonstrable risks of significant harm to the 

3447 applicator, the public, and the environment, and these risks are significantly influenced by the 

3448 user’s judgment and decision-making skills. Requiring handlers to be 18 years of age or older 

3449 would prevent youth under 18 from being exposed while performing handling activities and 

3450 would reduce risks to other persons and the environment from misapplication owing to users’ 

3451 poor judgment or decision-making skills. This option would harmonize the age requirements for 

3452 pesticide handlers with the minimum age requirements for workers performing hazardous jobs in 

3453 other industries. This alternative would also align with society’s general trend toward increasing 

3454 the ages at which persons are eligible to do certain things that present recognized risks, such as 

3455 consuming alcohol or becoming a licensed driver. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 155 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3456 EPA estimates that requiring handlers to be at least 18 years old would cost about $3.1 

3457 million annually, or $11 per agricultural establishment and $320 per commercial pesticide 

3458 handling establishment per year. EPA proposes to follow the existing framework of the FLSA 

3459 and DOL’s rules to propose a minimum age of 16, based on the existing rules and the higher cost 

3460 of increasing the minimum age for handlers to 18. 

3461 7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

3462 • Are there alternatives that have not been considered that would improve protections for 

3463 adolescent handlers, either those under 16 or 18 years old, while allowing flexibility for pesticide 

3464 use for agriculture? 

3465 • What would be the impact on state programs of establishing a minimum age of either 16 

3466 or 18 for handlers? 

3467 • Would establishing a minimum age of 16 for handlers have an impact on state 

3468 requirements for certified applicators to be a minimum age? If so, please provide data to support 

3469 this position. 

3470 • Would establishing a minimum age of 18 for handlers have an impact on state 

3471 requirements for certified applicators to be a minimum age? If so, please provide data to support 

3472 this position. 

3473 • Are there additional benefits or burdens with establishing a minimum age of 16 or 18 

3474 for handlers? If so, please provide data to support either position. 

3475 XII. Restrictions for Worker Entry into Treated Areas 

3476 A. Establish Minimum Age of 16 for Workers Entering a Treated Area under an REI 

3477 1. Overview. The existing WPS does not establish age restrictions for workers entering a 

3478 treated area under an REI. EPA proposes to prohibit any worker under 16 years old from 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 156 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3479 entering a treated area under an REI. This proposal would include an exemption for persons 

3480 entering a treated area under an REI covered by the immediate family exemption [see Unit 

3481 XVIII.A]. 

3482 2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS establishes conditions for when a worker may 

3483 enter into a treated area under an REI (40 CFR 170.112). The conditions are related to the type of 

3484 work performed (often referred to as “early-entry” work) and the length of time the worker may 

3485 be in the treated area. However, the WPS establishes no minimum age for a worker sent into a 

3486 treated area under an REI. 

3487 3. Summary of the issues. In 2009, Earth Justice petitioned EPA to expand the protections 

3488 of children in agriculture (Ref. 78 p. 23). The petition referenced several studies suggesting 

3489 negative health impacts on youth workers less than 18 years of age who had been exposed to 

3490 pesticides (Ref. 78). These references linked pesticide exposure to childhood leukemia and 

3491 delayed neurological development in youth (Ref. 78 p. 8). The CHPAC also recognized that 

3492 “growth and development of many organ systems continues into late adolescence” and 

3493 recommended that EPA enhance protection for workers in the 16-20 year old age group (Ref. 74 

3494 pp. 2-3). 

3495 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to prohibit employers from directing 

3496 workers under 16 years old to enter a treated area to perform early-entry activities while an REI 

3497 is in effect. This prohibition would not apply to persons entering a treated area to perform early3498 entry activities while an REI is in effect on a farm owned by an immediate family member. To 

3499 verify compliance with this requirement, EPA also proposes to require the agricultural employer 

3500 to keep a record of the birth date of each worker trained. [See Unit VII.A.] While EPA believes 

3501 that the proposed protections required for entry into a treated area during an REI would mitigate 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 157 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3502 risks to the general worker population, concerns remain for children. Children may be more 

3503 susceptible to pesticides because their systems are developing, so a level of exposure considered 

3504 safe for an adult may not be safe for a child (Ref. 79 p. 51). See discussion in Unit XI.B. 

3505 Due to workers’ low income, farmworker families may face more pressure to have 

3506 children working in pesticide treated areas. While the DOL’s regulations generally permit 

3507 children to perform agricultural tasks in most situations, EPA has particular concern for children 

3508 working in a pesticide-treated area before the REI expires. As discussed earlier, the potential risk 

3509 for pesticide exposure is elevated when a treated area is under an REI. EPA considered this 

3510 elevated risk in combination with children’s potentially greater susceptibility to pesticide 

3511 exposure and developing decision-making capabilities, as well as the demographics of workers 

3512 when developing this proposal. EPA believes this proposal is necessary to prevent unreasonable 

3513 risks to children, taking into account the economic needs of farm worker families. 

3514 As discussed above, protections already exist under the FLSA for persons under 16 years 

3515 old working with pesticides in agriculture. Extending these protections to those who enter a 

3516 treated area during an REI could mitigate the potential effects of elevated pesticide exposure to 

3517 children under 16 while their systems are still developing. 

3518 EPA recognizes that farm family parents are in the best position to make decisions about 

3519 the types of activities in which their children can safely engage. EPA believes that persons 

3520 performing early-entry tasks who are on an establishment covered by the immediate family 

3521 exception would be adequately prepared and supervised by family members. Therefore, the 

3522 minimum age requirement for early-entry workers would not apply to persons performing early3523 entry tasks when covered by the immediate family exemption. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 158 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3524 The proposed regulatory text concerning a minimum age of 16 for entering a treated area 

3525 under an REI appears in §170.303 of today’s proposed rule. The exception for persons covered 

3526 by the immediate family exemption is found in §170.301(a)(1)(i). 

3527 5. Costs/Benefits. EPA estimates the cost of requiring early-entry workers to be at least 

3528 16 years old would be $156,000 annually, or less than $1 per WPS establishment per year. For a 

3529 complete discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of 

3530 Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

3531 EPA cannot quantify the benefits associated with this proposal; however, EPA is 

3532 committed to protecting the health of children. EPA believes that imposing this requirement 

3533 would reduce the number of children who suffer occupational pesticide-related illnesses, as well 

3534 as the chronic and developmental effects that may be associated with children’s exposure to 

3535 pesticides. 

3536 6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. EPA considered a minimum age of 

3537 18 for workers to enter treated areas under an REI, with an exception for persons covered by the 

3538 immediate family exception. Studies show that children’s systems continue developing until they 

3539 reach adulthood, increasing the potential for adverse outcomes from their exposure, as compared 

3540 to adults. Additionally, data show children’s maturity and comprehension are still developing 

3541 (Ref. 77 p. 2). Early entry workers are exposed to pesticides before the REI has expired, meaning 

3542 there may be higher levels of residues and more potential for exposure and negative health 

3543 impacts. Early entry workers must use PPE properly and comply with additional measures to 

3544 ensure they are protected from the higher potential risks. Adolescents may be less likely to 

3545 comply with these measures and more likely to take risks that put their health at risk because 

3546 their maturity and comprehension of risk are still developing. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 159 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3547 EPA estimates the cost of this option would be about $723,000 annually, or about $2 per 

3548 agricultural establishment. EPA does not have data to indicate that the anticipated additional 

3549 protection for children support increased costs of the higher minimum age. 

3550 7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following question: 

3551 • Are there other ways EPA could protect children less than 16 years old from pesticide 

3552 risks associated with entry into a treated area during an REI? If so, please describe. 

3553 • What would be the impact on state programs of establishing a minimum age for early 

3554 entry workers? 

3555 • Would establishing a minimum age of 16 or 18 for early entry workers have an adverse 

3556 impact on state requirements for certified applicators to be a minimum age, generally 16 or 18? 

3557 • Are there additional benefits or burdens with establishing a minimum age of 16? If so, 

3558 please provide data to support this position. 

3559 • Are there additional benefits or burdens associated with establishing a minimum age of 

3560 18? If so, please provide data to support this position. 

3561 B. Requirements for Entry During an REI 

3562 1. Overview. The WPS establishes specific exceptions to the prohibition on sending 

3563 workers into a treated area while an REI is in effect. Workers who enter pesticide-treated areas 

3564 during an REI (known as “early-entry workers”) without adequate protection may face an 

3565 elevated risk from pesticide exposure. EPA proposes to require employers (1) to inform workers 

3566 sent into a treated area while the REI is in effect of the specific exception under which they 

3567 would enter, (2) to describe the tasks permitted and any limitations required under that exception, 

3568 and (3) to explain the personal protective equipment required by the labeling. EPA also proposes 

3569 to require the employer to create a record of the oral notification, to obtain the signature of each 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 160 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3570 early-entry worker acknowledging the oral notification prior to the early entry, and to maintain 

3571 the record for 2 years. 

3572 2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS prohibits employers from directing workers to 

3573 enter a treated area where an REI is in effect except under specific early entry exceptions (40 

3574 CFR 170.112(a)). Recognizing some circumstances in which there may be a need to have work 

3575 performed in a treated area during the REI, EPA established exceptions to the general prohibition 

3576 for “no-contact,” “short-term,” and “agricultural emergency activities” (40 CFR 170.112). EPA 

3577 later established two administrative exceptions that are not in 40 CFR part 170, for “limited 

3578 contact” and irrigation activities (60 FR 21955; May 3, 1995) (60 FR 21960; May 3, 1995). Each 

3579 exception requires specific protective measures or limitations on work to protect early-entry 

3580 workers from unreasonable adverse effects from pesticide exposure. [For a complete discussion 

3581 of the exceptions and proposed revisions, see Unit XII.D.] The WPS requires employers to 

3582 provide workers with PPE, to assure that early-entry workers follow precautions listed on the 

3583 label, and to provide water and decontamination supplies nearby for when the worker exits the 

3584 treated area. 

3585 3. Summary of the issues. Farmworker Justice suggested that workers may not recognize 

3586 the elevated risk from early entry or understand the requirements of the exceptions, and therefore 

3587 may fail to appreciate the particular importance of complying with the terms of the early-entry 

3588 exception. Farmworker Justice recommended that workers receive information about the health 

3589 effects associated with the pesticides they may encounter while working (Ref. 35 p. 7). 

3590 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. In addition to what the WPS currently requires, EPA 

3591 proposes to require that agricultural employers: 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 161 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3592 • Provide oral notification to early-entry workers prior to each entry into an area under an 

3593 REI; 

3594 • Provide information (in addition to the current requirement to follow product labeling 

3595 instruction) about the pesticide application, the specific task to be performed, and the amount of 

3596 time that the worker is allowed to remain in the treated area; 

3597 • Collect written acknowledgement of receipt of the oral notification, including the date 

3598 of birth, printed name and signature of each worker, prior to his or her entry; and 

3599 • Retain for 2 years the worker-signed record of this notification. 

3600 When entering a treated area during an REI, the worker faces risk of exposure to 

3601 pesticides at concentrations with the potential for adverse health effects that are of specific 

3602 concern. Evaluation of incident reports has demonstrated that workers who enter a treated area 

3603 prior to the expiration of the REI are more adversely affected than those workers who enter the 

3604 treated area after the REI has expired, suffering from respiratory issues, rashes, and other illness 

3605 (Ref. 11). Results from a recent SENSOR-Pesticides/California Department of Pesticide 

3606 Regulation analysis of the most common factors contributing to incidents of pesticide poisoning 

3607 indicate that “early reentry into a recently treated area” was the second most common factor 

3608 (Ref. 11). The report cites early reentry as contributing to 17% (336) of all acute pesticide 

3609 poisoning cases for which a cause was identified in the agricultural industry between 1998 and 

3610 2005 (Ref. 11, p. 891). 

3611 EPA expects the proposed requirements to provide early-entry workers information about 

3612 the pesticide application, the specific task to be performed, and the amount of time that the 

3613 worker is allowed to remain in the treated area, and to obtain the early-entry worker’s signature 

3614 to increase the likelihood of those workers understanding and following the applicable risk 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 162 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3615 mitigation measures and assure that workers have information about what early-entry activities 

3616 they performed in the event they suffer a pesticide-related illness. Sending a worker into a treated 

3617 area under an REI to perform specific tasks with the appropriate knowledge and equipment to 

3618 protect him or herself decreases the likelihood that the worker would experience pesticide 

3619 poisoning. Further, the proposed requirement to create and maintain a record to verify the oral 

3620 notification would serve as a tool for inspectors to verify rule compliance. 

3621 This proposal would work in concert with two other proposed changes: requiring posting 

3622 of treated areas [Unit VIII.] and enhancing the content of worker training [Unit VII.]. The 

3623 Agency believes that training early-entry workers on what they should expect if the agricultural 

3624 employer requests that they enter a treated area under an REI, as well as posting all areas treated 

3625 with a product that has an REI of 48 hours or longer, would better prepare workers to protect 

3626 themselves while performing early-entry tasks. 

3627 EPA is proposing to require recordkeeping of oral notification to early-entry workers, but 

3628 not recordkeeping of oral notification of treated areas (discussed above in Unit VIII.A.6.ii.) 

3629 based on the elevated risks facing early-entry workers and importance of ensuring they have the 

3630 information necessary to protect themselves during the higher-risk early entry activities. Workers 

3631 receiving general notification of treated areas do not need to know how long they may be in the 

3632 area, types of exposure, or how best to protect themselves; they are instructed to keep out of 

3633 specific treated areas. EPA believes that the burden on employers to create and maintain a record 

3634 of the early-entry worker notification is balanced by the increased flexibility to employers, while 

3635 ensuring sufficient protection for early-entry workers. As discussed above, EPA does not believe 

3636 that the cost of creating and maintaining records of oral notification of pesticide-treated areas is 

3637 outweighed by the potential benefits. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 163 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3638 Additionally, the cost of creating and maintaining a record of oral notification for early 

3639 entry workers is substantially lower than the cost of creating and maintaining a record of oral 

3640 notification when the REI has expired. 

3641 The proposed regulatory text concerning early-entry requirements appears in §170.305 of 

3642 today’s proposed rule. 

3643 5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost of requiring employers to provide early3644 entry workers with oral notification would be about $700,000 annually, or about $2 per 

3645 establishment per year. 

3646 EPA estimates the cost of requiring employers to maintain records of oral notifications 

3647 provided to early-entry workers would be $470,000 annually, or about $1 per establishment per 

3648 year. 

3649 For a complete discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the 

3650 “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost 

3651 Analysis (Ref. 1). 

3652 EPA cannot quantify the benefits associated with this proposal; however, EPA recognizes 

3653 that entering a treated area during an REI is one of the primary identified sources of pesticide3654 related illness in workers. EPA believes this proposal would provide workers with more 

3655 information about the risks they may face and how to protect themselves from pesticide 

3656 exposure, and would ultimately lead to a reduction in the number of pesticide-related illnesses 

3657 associated with early entry into a pesticide-treated area. 

3658 6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. Many of the alternative options 

3659 considered are more fully discussed in other areas of this preamble. EPA considered the option 

3660 of eliminating early entry for no-contact, limited contact, irrigation and short-term exceptions as 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 164 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3661 recommended by worker advocacy organizations. [See Unit XII.D.] EPA also considered 

3662 requiring agricultural employers to distribute pesticide hazard information to each worker upon 

3663 entry into any treated area. [See Unit IX.A.] 

3664 EPA also considered requiring employers to keep records of the conditions of the 

3665 exception claimed and notification to workers for 5 years instead of the proposed requirement of 

3666 2 years. Because most of the costs associated with recordkeeping are incurred upon creating the 

3667 record, the incremental costs of retaining the records for a longer period are minimal. However, 

3668 as discussed earlier, it is not clear that the potential benefits associated with retaining the records 

3669 for a longer period justify the increased cost and burden on employers. 

3670 7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

3671 • Is there other information related to entry into a treated area under an REI that EPA 

3672 should require employers to document? If so, what information and why? 

3673 • Are there other ways EPA could verify that workers received notification and the proper 

3674 equipment to work in a treated area under an REI without the proposed recordkeeping? 

3675 C. Clarify Requirement for Decontamination Supplies for Workers Entering a Treated Area 

3676 under an REI 

3677 1. Overview. The existing WPS requires employers to provide early-entry workers with 

3678 “a sufficient amount of water” for decontamination. EPA proposes to clarify the meaning of “a 

3679 sufficient amount of water” for decontamination of workers entering a treated area under an REI. 

3680 EPA expects that the clarification would facilitate compliance and that adequate decontamination 

3681 supplies would reduce the likelihood that workers would suffer an illness from the exposure 

3682 during early-entry work and would protect worker families from take-home exposure. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 165 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3683 2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS requires the agricultural employers to provide 

3684 “soap, clean towels, and a sufficient amount of water so that the workers may wash thoroughly” 

3685 when workers perform tasks in a treated area while the REI is in effect (40 CFR 170.112(d)).

3686 3. Summary of the issues. Farmworker Justice and state regulators have requested that 

3687 EPA clarify what amount of water would be sufficient. 

3688 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to require that agricultural employers 

3689 provide at least 3 gallons of water per worker for decontamination after a worker has performed 

3690 tasks in a treated area under an REI. This amount is based on the 1993 EPA guidance document, 

3691 “How to Comply with the Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides: What 

3692 Employers Need to Know.” (Ref. 80 p. 25) EPA believes this amount of water would be 

3693 sufficient for a worker to wash exposed areas. This is the same amount of water being proposed 

3694 for handler decontamination. [See Unit XIV.A.] 

3695 The proposed regulatory text concerning the required amount of water appears in 

3696 §170.305(j) of today’s proposed rule. 

3697 5. Costs/Benefits. EPA estimates the cost of the proposal to increase the quantity of water 

3698 available for early-entry worker decontamination would be $2,500 annually, or less than $0.01 

3699 per WPS establishment per year. For a complete discussion of the costs of the proposals and 

3700 alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection 

3701 Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

3702 EPA expects that adequate decontamination supplies would reduce instances where 

3703 workers fail to wash after performing WPS tasks owing to insufficient supplies, thereby reducing 

3704 the likelihood that workers would suffer an illness from the exposure during early-entry work 

3705 and would protect worker families from take-home exposure. EPA also expects that the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 166 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3706 clarification would make it easier for employers to understand and comply with the WPS 

3707 decontamination supply requirements. 

3708 6. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

3709 • Is 3 gallons for decontamination a reasonable amount of water for an early-entry worker 

3710 who has been exposed to a pesticide? If not, why? 

3711 • What amount of water would be reasonable, or what other alternative is there? 

3712 D. Exception to the General Prohibition against Sending Workers into a Treated Area under an 

3713 REI 

3714 1. Overview. The existing WPS includes specific exceptions to the employer prohibition 

3715 against sending workers into a treated area during an REI. EPA proposes to clarify these 

3716 exceptions to make them more understandable and easier for employers to follow. 

3717 2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS prohibits employers from directing workers into a 

3718 treated area while an REI is in effect (40 CFR 170.112(a)). The regulation also provides for 

3719 exceptions to the entry restrictions so that certain activities considered critical to successful 

3720 agricultural production can take place during an REI. The exceptions to the entry restrictions 

3721 allow entry into an area under an REI for activities with no-contact, certain short-term activities, 

3722 and certain activities associated with agricultural emergencies (40 CFR 170.112(b)-(d)). EPA 

3723 added the exception provisions to the 1992 WPS to minimize potential adverse impacts on 

3724 agriculture that could occur because of the restrictions on entering treated areas while an REI is 

3725 in effect. The exceptions allow early-entry activities only under very limited circumstances. The 

3726 exception provisions include specific requirements and limitations intended to ensure that 

3727 workers are adequately protected during any allowed early-entry activities. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 167 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3728 In addition, the WPS includes an administrative process to allow additional exceptions to 

3729 the prohibition on early entry for activities critical to agricultural production that were not 

3730 addressed in the existing exceptions (40 CFR 170.112(e)). In 1995, the Agency granted 

3731 administrative exceptions for irrigation and limited contact activities. The rationale for and terms 

3732 and conditions of these administrative exceptions were included in the final Federal Register

3733 notice announcing the Agency’s approval of the request for the exceptions (60 FR 21955; May 3, 

3734 1995) (60 FR 21960; May 3, 1995). 

3735 3. Summary of the issues. In general, USDA has indicated support for revising the 

3736 regulation to clarify the requirements of the exception to enable worker reentry without 

3737 compromising human health. USDA said growers need maximum flexibility to direct workers to 

3738 reenter treated areas to perform tasks in a timely manner (Ref. 81). 

3739 EPA received a letter signed by a broad coalition of farmworker organizations that 

3740 opposed the inclusion of any exception to the prohibition on directing workers to enter a treated 

3741 area while an REI is in effect (Ref. 35). They suggested that REIs should protect post-application 

3742 workers by reducing their exposure to pesticides at a time when the residues are hazardous. 

3743 Farmworker advocates noted that creating exceptions to the REIs substantially weakens this 

3744 protection and increases the risk of injury to the workers, even if additional personal protective 

3745 equipment is required and provided. Farmworker organizations asserted that many worker 

3746 injuries occurred because workers were put back in the treated area before the REI had expired. 

3747 They also indicated a belief that required PPE is often not worn because it interferes with 

3748 workers’ ability to perform their tasks in an efficient manner. 

3749 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA agrees that some of the current exception 

3750 provisions contain vague or unenforceable language that may be confusing to agricultural 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 168 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3751 employers and the regulated community. Unclear regulations present compliance challenges for 

3752 employers and, if misunderstood, may place early-entry workers at risk of being sent into treated 

3753 areas to engage in tasks that should not take place during the REI. 

3754 Detailed descriptions of the proposed revisions and specifically related stakeholder input 

3755 are discussed below. 

3756 i. Clarify conditions of “No Contact” exception. 

3757 a. Existing WPS regulations. The no-contact exception permits entry into a treated area 

3758 under an REI for activities for which workers will have no contact with treated surfaces (40 CFR 

3759 170.112(b)). Examples of acceptable “no contact” activities include the following: 

3760 • Worker in an open-cab vehicle in a treated area where the plants and other treated 

3761 surfaces cannot brush against the worker and cannot drop or drip pesticides onto the worker; 

3762 • After a pesticide is correctly incorporated or injected into the soil, the worker is 

3763 performing tasks that do not involve touching or disrupting the soil surface other than walking 

3764 with shoes on the soil surface; and 

3765 • Worker in an enclosed cab vehicle in a treated area. 

3766 b. Summary of the issues. States and employers requested clarification from EPA on the 

3767 conditions of the no-contact exception and what tasks constituted no-contact activities. 

3768 Specifically, they suggested that wearing PPE to prevent contact with pesticide treated surfaces 

3769 does not constitute no-contact early entry. 

3770 A coalition of farmworker advocate groups requested that EPA impose greater 

3771 restrictions on the no-contact exception (Ref. 35). 

3772 c. Details of the proposal/rationale. The Agency proposes to clarify that activities 

3773 reasonably expected to involve contact with treated surfaces cannot be no-contact activities, even 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 169 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3774 if the contact is limited or mediated through the use of personal protective equipment. Wearing 

3775 PPE reduces exposure to pesticide residues, but it cannot be relied upon to reduce exposure to 

3776 the same level expected of a no-contact activity. Even with PPE, workers engaged in activities 

3777 involving treated surfaces still face a risk of greater exposure than they would if they did not 

3778 contact treated surfaces. 

3779 The proposed regulatory text concerning the no-contact exception appears in §170.303(a) 

3780 of today’s proposed rule. 

3781 d. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates there are no costs associated with this proposal since 

3782 it is merely a clarification of the existing regulations. 

3783 ii. Limit “agricultural emergency” exception. 

3784 a. Existing WPS regulations. The current WPS permits early entry into a treated area 

3785 during an REI in the event of an agricultural emergency. The emergency exception provision 

3786 applies only where a state, tribal or federal agency having jurisdiction has declared the existence 

3787 of circumstances that could cause an agricultural emergency to exist on the establishment. The 

3788 existing exception allows early entry for an unlimited duration and does not prohibit hand labor 

3789 activities. The agricultural emergency exception requires the employer to provide required PPE 

3790 to all workers who engage in early entry activities. 

3791 b. Summary of the issues. State regulators, farmworker groups, and agricultural 

3792 employers raised several concerns about the exception for agricultural emergencies (Ref. 82, p. 

3793 6). The primary issues concerned what constitutes an agricultural emergency, whether the state 

3794 or tribe’s lead agency for pesticide regulation is the only agency that can declare an agricultural 

3795 emergency, which types of other agencies may be authorized to declare an agricultural 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 170 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3796 emergency, and whether the lead agency may declare in advance conditions that would constitute 

3797 an agricultural emergency. 

3798 EPA has provided guidance through the IGW policy document that any federal agency or 

3799 state or tribal government may declare an agricultural emergency (Ref. 14). For example, the 

3800 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) may do so indirectly by declaring 

3801 that specific weather conditions could constitute an agricultural emergency. However, there are 

3802 no recordkeeping or reporting requirements, so EPA has no data available regarding the number 

3803 of times agricultural emergencies have been declared by states, tribes, or federal agencies. 

3804 A coalition of farmworker advocate groups requested that EPA impose greater 

3805 restrictions on the agricultural emergency exception (Ref. 35). 

3806 c. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to limit the organizations that can 

3807 declare an agricultural emergency and to limit the time a worker can be in the treated area in an 

3808 agricultural emergency exception when a product requiring double notification has been used. 

3809 Since issuing the IGW policy document, the Agency has come to doubt that agencies 

3810 other than EPA and state or tribal pesticide regulatory agencies have the background and 

3811 technical expertise to adequately assess the potential risks and benefits of early entry into 

3812 pesticide treated areas during REIs, or that they fully understand FIFRA’s statutory requirements 

3813 to balance risks and benefits when establishing conditions for workers to enter treated areas 

3814 while an REI is in effect. EPA therefore proposes to narrow the agricultural emergency 

3815 exception so that only EPA, a state department of agriculture, or the state or tribal lead agency 

3816 may declare an agricultural emergency under the WPS to allow early entry into pesticide treated 

3817 areas during the REI. The Agency has particular concerns about the potential risks to workers 

3818 entering areas under the agricultural emergency exception when the areas have been treated with 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 171 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3819 a pesticide requiring double notification (i.e., products whose labeling requires both oral and 

3820 posted notification of pesticide treatments because it presents a heightened risk to worker health). 

3821 This is especially the case when, as noted above, the current agricultural emergency exception 

3822 provides no time limits for worker entry and permits hand labor. EPA believes that, when such 

3823 high toxicity double-notification products are used, the potential pesticide exposure and risk to 

3824 workers engaging in hand labor activities during an REI is unreasonable. 

3825 EPA therefore proposes to limit the amount of time a worker is permitted to spend in an 

3826 area treated with a double-notification product to no more than 4 hours in any 24-hour period 

3827 during an agricultural emergency exception situation. EPA believes this change would preserve 

3828 the needed flexibility for agriculture to address the conditions of the agricultural emergency 

3829 while offering increased protections for workers potentially exposed to the most highly toxic 

3830 pesticides. Even though an individual worker is limited to 4 hours of early entry under such a 

3831 situation, an agricultural employer could rotate workers after each 4-hour interval. 

3832 The revised text for the agricultural emergency exception appears in §170.303(c) of 

3833 today’s proposed rule. 

3834 d. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost for limiting the organizations that can 

3835 declare an emergency and establishing a 4-hour time limit (in a 24-hour period) for entry into an 

3836 area treated with a double-notification chemical under an agricultural emergency would be 

3837 negligible. 

3838 e. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

3839 • Are there reasons EPA should consider eliminating the agricultural emergency 

3840 exception? 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 172 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3841 • What benefits and drawbacks are associated with limiting the agencies that can declare 

3842 an agricultural emergency? 

3843 • Please share any data on the use of the agricultural emergency exception, establishing a 

3844 time limit, or other restrictions associated with exceptions. 

3845 • Should EPA develop guidance on the criteria for declaring an agricultural emergency 

3846 and/or how a person or organization could request an eligible agency to declare an agricultural 

3847 emergency? 

3848 iii. Codify “Limited Contact” and “Irrigation” exceptions. 

3849 a. Existing WPS Regulations. EPA established two administrative exceptions to the WPS 

3850 prohibition against entry into treated areas during an REI for “limited contact” and “irrigation” 

3851 activities. (60 FR 21955; May 3, 1995) (60 FR 21960; May 3, 1995) However, these 

3852 administrative exceptions, including the terms and conditions of the exceptions, do not appear in 

3853 part 170. The language in the existing administrative exception for irrigation activities states that 

3854 the task must be unforeseen to meet the criteria for early entry. 

3855 b. Summary of the issues. Stakeholders, primarily state regulatory agencies, have raised 

3856 concerns about the use of the term “unforeseen” in the exception (Ref. 36 p. 27). Irrigation is 

3857 rarely an unforeseen event in most agricultural areas and it must take place to ensure crop 

3858 survival. During the National Assessment meetings, state regulatory officials and other 

3859 stakeholders noted that the need to irrigate is almost always foreseen, so the requirement for the 

3860 need for irrigation to be unforeseen limits the legitimate use of the exception. 

3861 A coalition of farmworker organizations recommended that EPA eliminate the irrigation 

3862 and limited contact exceptions (Ref. 35). Their recommendation was based on coalition 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 173 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3863 members’ belief that EPA underestimated the level of contact workers would have with treated 

3864 surfaces and the potential for pesticide exposure through contact with treated surfaces. 

3865 EPA’s FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel said that data generated by the Agricultural 

3866 Reentry Task Force and peer-reviewed by EPA have shown which activities may be classified as 

3867 no and low contact activities that do not jeopardize the well-being of workers (Ref. 83). 

3868 c. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to revise part 170 to codify the two 

3869 current administrative exceptions for “limited contact” and “irrigation” activities. In addition, 

3870 EPA proposes to remove the term “unforeseen” from the irrigation exception to make the text 

3871 more accurately reflect field practices. Finally, EPA proposes to prohibit early entry under the 

3872 limited contact and irrigation exceptions into areas treated with a pesticide requiring double 

3873 notification (i.e., products whose labeling requires both oral and posted notification of pesticide 

3874 treatments), owing to the higher potential for risks to workers’ health. 

3875 EPA believes that incorporating these exceptions into the rule, rather than having them in 

3876 separate Federal Register notices that employers may not be aware of, would increase the 

3877 regulated community’s awareness and understanding of the exceptions. 

3878 The proposed regulatory text concerning the “limited contact” and the “irrigation” 

3879 exceptions appear in §170.303(d) of today’s proposed rule. 

3880 d. Costs. EPA estimates there would be no costs associated with this proposal. 

3881 iv. Eliminate provision for exceptions requiring Agency approval. 

3882 a. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS permits persons or organizations to request the 

3883 Agency to grant an administrative exception to entry restrictions specific to certain crops and 

3884 activities and pesticide products (40 CFR 170.112(e)). This same type of process was used to 

3885 develop the “limited contact” and “irrigation” exceptions discussed above. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 174 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3886 b. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to eliminate the administrative 

3887 exception process. When the WPS was first promulgated, REIs for most pesticides subject to the 

3888 WPS were established generically through the WPS labeling provision in 40 CFR part 156, and 

3889 the administrative exception process was included in order to provide product-specific REIs. 

3890 However, as a result of the Agency’s pesticide reregistration efforts under section 4 of FIFRA, 

3891 REIs are now established for each individual pesticide product through the registration or re3892 evaluation processes. Through these processes, the specific needs of crop production are 

3893 considered in setting REIs for specific products and cropping practices. Accordingly, the Agency 

3894 believes it is more appropriate that such requests for adjusted REIs be addressed through 

3895 amendments to the registration of each specific pesticide product than as administrative 

3896 exceptions to the WPS. 

3897 Additionally, by proposing to codify the existing administrative exceptions as permanent 

3898 exceptions, the Agency believes that the current suite of available exceptions to the entry 

3899 restrictions would provide agriculture with the needed flexibility to address the range of potential 

3900 agricultural production problems that would warrant the need for an exception to the current 

3901 entry restrictions. The Agency has not received any requests for new administrative exceptions in 

3902 the last 15 years. 

3903 There is no proposed regulatory text associated with the removal of this provision. 

3904 c. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates there would be no costs associated with this 

3905 proposal. 

3906 5. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

3907 • Do you have factual information about the current frequency of use of any of the 

3908 exceptions? If so, please provide it to the Agency. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 175 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3909 • What are the benefits and challenges of the proposed amendments to each of the 

3910 exceptions? 

3911 • Are there other reasonable alternatives that EPA did not consider? If so, please describe 

3912 and provide a rationale for their consideration. 

3913 • Should EPA consider a different time limit for the agricultural emergency exception? 

3914 For other exceptions? 

3915 • Are there any drawbacks to adding the irrigation and limited contact exceptions into the 

3916 rule? 

3917 • For all comments, please provide factual information in support of your assertions. 

3918 E. Expansion of Entry-Restricted Areas 

3919 1. Overview. The existing WPS establishes entry-restricted areas adjacent to the treated 

3920 areas (i.e., adjacent to the areas where pesticides are actually applied) only in nurseries and 

3921 greenhouses. EPA proposes to establish similar entry-restricted areas during applications on 

3922 farms and in forests. EPA expects this change would result in reduced incidents of pesticide 

3923 exposure to workers and other persons from unintentional contact during application. 

3924 2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS requires agricultural employers to restrict nursery 

3925 and greenhouse workers and other persons on those establishments from entry-restricted areas, 

3926 defined as specific areas adjacent to those targeted for pesticide application (40 CFR 170.110). 

3927 The size of the entry-restricted area depends on the type of product applied and the application 

3928 method. For example, if a pesticide is applied as a mist in a nursery, the rule prohibits the 

3929 employer from directing any worker or other person from entering the area being treated and 

3930 within 100 feet of the treated area in all directions from the nursery. The entry-restricted area 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 176 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3931 applies only during application and is distinct from the REI, which limits entry into a treated area 

3932 for a specific period of time after the application ceases. 

3933 Entry-restricted areas are also relevant to handlers and handler employers since the WPS 

3934 prohibits handlers from applying pesticides in a manner that results in contact with workers or 

3935 other persons (40 CFR 170.210(a)). The handler and the handler employer are responsible for 

3936 ensuring that the pesticide application does not contact any person, which effectively requires the 

3937 handler to cease or suspend application if any persons are in areas where contact is possible. 

3938 3. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to expand the entry-restricted area 

3939 requirements currently applicable to nurseries to include farms and forests so that all production 

3940 applications are subject to similar requirements. The proposed entry-restricted areas for farms 

3941 and forests would range from the treated area alone to 100 feet beyond the treated area, 

3942 depending on the type of product applied and the application method. The proposed WPS entry3943 restricted areas would still be limited by the boundary of the establishment owner’s property, as 

3944 the establishment owner is subject to the current rule. For example, if the WPS requires the 

3945 entry-restricted area to extend 100 feet in all directions from the treated area, but there is only 50 

3946 feet between the treated areas and the boundary of the owner’s property, then the property line 

3947 would be the extent of the entry-restricted area under the WPS. WPS entry-restricted areas are 

3948 limited by the boundaries of the agricultural establishment to limit the employer’s responsibility 

3949 under the WPS to the people on his or her establishment. The Agency believes that the proposed 

3950 creation of entry-restricted areas for all farm and forest applications would reduce risk to workers 

3951 and other persons from pesticide exposure when they may be working in or nearby an area 

3952 adjacent to an ongoing pesticide application. The proposed revisions would also provide more 

3953 consistent protection across all establishments covered by the WPS. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 177 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3954 The existing part 170 does not require entry-restricted areas beyond the actual treated 

3955 area for farms and forests. A worker may be assigned to work in an area immediately adjacent to 

3956 an area being treated with pesticides. Many incidents of drift and off-target application have 

3957 resulted in reported worker illnesses. A recent study cited off-target drift as the leading cause of 

3958 reported agricultural worker exposure incidents, with 1,216 individual worker pesticide 

3959 exposures reported from 1998-2005 (Ref. 11 p. 891). 

3960 The proposed changes do not cover applications of soil fumigants or any other pesticides 

3961 that have buffer zones intended to protect human health included on the product labeling. Where 

3962 EPA has established entry-restricted areas for a specific pesticide or group of pesticides through 

3963 labeling, the labeling-specific restrictions supersede the generic requirements of the WPS. 

3964 The proposed entry-restricted areas would complement the existing WPS requirement 

3965 that prohibits handlers from applying pesticides in a way that results in contact with workers or 

3966 other persons and the proposal that would require handlers performing an application to cease or 

3967 suspend the application if workers or any persons are in the entry-restricted areas during 

3968 application. The proposal also works in concert with the prohibition on the agricultural employer 

3969 allowing or directing any worker or other person, other than an appropriately trained and 

3970 equipped handler, to enter or remain in the treated area or any applicable entry-restricted area 

3971 during application. 

3972 The proposed regulatory text concerning entry-restricted areas during applications on 

3973 farms and in forests and outdoor nurseries appears in §170.105(a) of today’s proposed rule. 

3974 4. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost for restricting entry to areas adjacent to an 

3975 area being treated would be negligible. There may be instances where worker tasks in these 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 178 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3976 adjacent areas must be stopped until the application is complete, but EPA believes employers can 

3977 generally reassign workers to other tasks for the duration of the pesticide application. 

3978 5. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

3979 • Is it reasonable for EPA to assume that workers can be reassigned for the duration of the 

3980 pesticide application? 

3981 • Are there any burdens to applying an entry-restricted area on farms and in forests? Are 

3982 there any other benefits? 

3983 XIII. Display of Basic Pesticide Safety Information 

3984 A. Location of Basic Pesticide Safety Information Display 

3985 1. Overview. The existing WPS requires employers to post a poster displaying basic 

3986 safety information in a single location on the establishment. EPA proposes to require that the 

3987 pesticide safety information also be displayed at the decontamination site(s). 

3988 2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS requires agricultural and handler employers to 

3989 display the pesticide safety poster at a central location on the establishment (40 CFR 170.135(d) 

3990 and 170.235(d)). 

3991 3. Summary of the issues. Farmworker organizations recommended additional posting 

3992 locations with the posted warning signs [see Unit VIII.] or at worker changing areas (Ref. 35) 

3993 (Ref. 74). They noted that having the pesticide safety poster in multiple places where workers are 

3994 likely to see it increases the chances for workers to absorb the messages and to know how to 

3995 contact emergency personnel. 

3996 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to require that employers display 

3997 pesticide safety information at decontamination sites in addition to a place on the agricultural 

3998 establishment where workers and handlers are likely to pass by or congregate and can be readily 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 179 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3999 seen and read. Adding the display of pesticide safety information to decontamination sites 

4000 improves workers’ and handlers’ access to the self-protective and decontamination information. 

4001 EPA believes that providing the pesticide safety information at the decontamination sites will not 

4002 only remind workers and handlers about self protection but will also ensure that emergency 

4003 contact information is immediately accessible at each decontamination site. It is likely that an 

4004 exposed worker or a colleague providing assistance would visit the nearest decontamination site. 

4005 Agricultural employers have told EPA that they generally have a set of materials, 

4006 sometimes on the back of a truck or on a mobile cart, for decontamination. Displaying the 

4007 pesticide safety information on such an apparatus would not seem to impose significant 

4008 additional burden. The current WPS requires employers to move the decontamination supplies to 

4009 locations where workers or handlers are engaged in WPS activities. Once added, the pesticide 

4010 safety information would move along with the decontamination supplies, imposing minimal 

4011 additional burden on the employer. 

4012 The proposed regulatory text concerning the locations to display pesticide safety 

4013 information appears in §170.11(a)(3) of today’s proposed rule. 

4014 5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost of requiring the basic pesticide information 

4015 display at decontamination sites for workers would be $2 million, or about $5 per agricultural 

4016 establishment per year. EPA estimates the cost of requiring the basic pesticide information 

4017 display at decontamination sites for handlers would be $780,000, or about $2 per agricultural 

4018 establishment per year. For a complete discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, 

4019 see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 

4020 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 180 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4021 EPA cannot quantify the benefits associated with this proposal. However, EPA believes 

4022 that providing a reminder of basic hygiene principles at places where workers and handlers wash 

4023 before leaving the treated area to eat and use the bathroom would increase the number of workers 

4024 and handlers following proper decontamination principles. Emergency response information 

4025 would have the maximum benefit if it is immediately available where workers and handlers 

4026 would go for decontamination supplies. EPA believes that displaying pesticide safety 

4027 information at decontamination sites would reduce the number of occupational pesticide-related 

4028 illnesses. 

4029 6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. Farmworker organizations 

4030 recommended two alternate options in addition to the current requirements for posting the 

4031 pesticide safety poster: requiring the pesticide safety poster with all posted warning signs or 

4032 requiring the pesticide safety poster at worker changing sites. Requiring that the pesticide safety 

4033 poster be displayed wherever a warning sign is posted would impose significant burden on 

4034 employers. The pesticide safety poster is much larger than the warning sign, so it would be 

4035 difficult for employers to put up and take down the pesticide safety poster with the same ease as 

4036 they handle the warning sign. In addition, because the poster is much less durable than the 

4037 warning sign, EPA believes that employers would have to replace the poster periodically when 

4038 the treated area has to be posted for more than a few days. EPA expects that employers would 

4039 need to obtain multiple copies of the poster and would have to replace them frequently. 

4040 The WPS does not require employers to provide facilities for workers to change clothes. 

4041 A requirement to place the pesticide safety poster at a site that may not exist at all establishments 

4042 would not be practical or feasible. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 181 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4043 For the reasons described above, EPA decided not to propose requirements for employers 

4044 to display the pesticide safety poster with all posted warning signs or at worker changing sites. 

4045 EPA believes that it is more important and practical for workers to review the pesticide safety 

4046 poster at the site of the decontamination supplies, where they can be reminded of safety and 

4047 hygiene principles while cleaning themselves after working in a treated area. 

4048 7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

4049 • What additional burden would employers face if the proposed option to require 

4050 pesticide safety information to be displayed at decontamination sites is implemented? Would 

4051 there be benefits to employers? 

4052 • Do data exist that show that access to information such as that on the pesticide safety 

4053 poster at the same location as decontamination supplies leads to more workers adopting hygiene 

4054 practices, thereby reducing the number of workplace illnesses? 

4055 B. Content of Basic Pesticide Safety Information Display 

4056 1. Overview. The existing WPS mandates specific content for the pesticide safety poster. 

4057 EPA proposes to require additional information so workers and handlers can contact the state or 

4058 tribal enforcement agency. 

4059 2. Existing WPS regulations. Under 40 CFR 170.135(b)(1) through (2) and 170.235(b)(1) 

4060 through (2), the pesticide safety poster must include the following content: 

4061 • Avoid getting on your skin or into your body any pesticides that may be on plants and 

4062 soil, in irrigation water, or drifting from nearby applications. 

4063 • Wash before eating, drinking, using chewing gum or tobacco, or using the toilet. 

4064 • Wear work clothing that protects the body from pesticide residues (long-sleeved shirts, 

4065 long pants, shoes and socks, and a hat or scarf). 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 182 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4066 • Wash/shower with soap and water, shampoo hair, and put on clean clothes after work. 

4067 • Wash work clothes separately from other clothes before wearing them again. 

4068 • Wash immediately in the nearest clean water if pesticides are spilled or sprayed on the 

4069 body. As soon as possible, shower, shampoo, and change into clean clothes. 

4070 • Follow directions about keeping out of treated or restricted areas. 

4071 • There are federal rules to protect workers and handlers, including a requirement for 

4072 safety training. 

4073 The WPS also requires the employer to provide contact information for the nearest 

4074 emergency medical care facility and to update workers and handlers if the information changes. 

4075 EPA has developed a poster that complies with the requirements of the regulation (except for the 

4076 site-specific information requirements) and makes it available to agricultural employers free of 

4077 charge. 

4078 3. Details of the proposal/rationale. The Agency proposes to amend the basic pesticide 

4079 safety content required to be displayed on an agricultural establishment to clarify the emergency 

4080 medical information section, and to include contact information for contacting the state or tribal 

4081 regulatory agency. The proposal no longer refers to a “pesticide safety poster.” Instead, the 

4082 proposed regulatory text refers to “pesticide safety information” to allow some flexibility in how 

4083 all the required information is displayed. EPA believes that most agricultural establishments will 

4084 choose to use EPA’s free pesticide safety poster to comply with the WPS pesticide safety 

4085 information; EPA would update the poster to include the proposed changes to the information. 

4086 However, the information does not have to be displayed as a poster as long as the display 

4087 includes the required information and meets the requirements of the section. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 183 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4088 Finally, the Agency proposes to require that the pesticide safety information display 

4089 contain contact information for the state or tribal regulatory agency for pesticide enforcement. 

4090 EPA believes that workers and handlers should have the opportunity to ask questions about 

4091 protections offered by the WPS and to report pesticide exposure incidents or suspected non4092 compliance that may endanger them. 

4093 The proposed regulatory text concerning the additional required content of the pesticide 

4094 safety information display appears in §170.11(a)(1) of today’s proposed rule. The text 

4095 concerning requirements when there are changes to the pesticide safety information appears in 

4096 §170.11(a)(2). 

4097 4. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost to revise the contents of the basic pesticide 

4098 safety information display would be $108,000 annually, or about $0.30 per WPS establishment 

4099 per year. EPA included in this estimate the cost for employers to purchase the poster. However, 

4100 EPA believes that many would obtain the updated poster free of charge from the Agency; as a 

4101 result the actual cost of this requirement may be lower. For a complete discussion of the costs of 

4102 the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker 

4103 Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

4104 5. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

4105 • What additional burden would employers face if the proposed option to require 

4106 pesticide safety information to be displayed at decontamination sites is implemented? Would 

4107 there be benefits to employers? 

4108 • Should EPA consider other changes to content of the pesticide safety information 

4109 display? If so, what changes and why? 

4110 XIV. Decontamination
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 184 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4111 Unit XII discussed proposed decontamination requirements specifically for workers who 

4112 enter a treated area in which an REI is in effect as part of a suite of proposed changes to the 

4113 protections for early entry workers. This Unit discusses routine and emergency decontamination 

4114 for workers and handlers. The proposals in this Unit would cover handlers and workers who are 

4115 not entering a treated area in which an REI is in effect. 

4116 A. Clarify the Quantity of Water Required for Decontamination. 

4117 1. Overview. The existing WPS requires employers to provide water for decontamination. 

4118 EPA proposes to clarify the quantity of water required for decontamination from “enough water 

4119 for routine washing and emergency eyeflush” to a specific quantity. 

4120 2. Current WPS regulations. The WPS requires agricultural employers to provide 

4121 decontamination supplies, including “enough water for routine washing and emergency 

4122 eyeflush,” when workers are performing activities in areas where a pesticide was applied or an 

4123 REI was in effect at any point in the last 30 days and come in contact with anything that has been 

4124 treated with a pesticide (40 CFR 170.150). The WPS also requires handler employers to provide 

4125 decontamination supplies, again including “enough water for routine washing, for emergency 

4126 eyeflushing and for washing the entire body in case of an emergency,” for handlers (40 CFR 

4127 170.250). Part 170 does not specify how much would constitute enough water to meet the 

4128 decontamination supplies requirement. 

4129 3. Summary of the issues. Agricultural employers have reported difficulty in ensuring that 

4130 they provide an adequate amount of water because the amount of water needed for each worker 

4131 or handler is not stated in the current regulation. When EPA implemented the WPS, state 

4132 regulatory agencies requested that the EPA clarify the quantity of water necessary to satisfy the 

4133 decontamination requirement. In guidance published in 1993, “How to Comply with the Worker 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 185 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4134 Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides: What Employers Need to Know,” EPA 

4135 recommended that employers provide 1 gallon of water per worker for routine decontamination 

4136 and 3 gallons per handler for routine washing and emergency decontamination (Ref. 80, p. 25). 

4137 This guidance was developed by experts from EPA’s program and enforcement offices and state 

4138 regulatory agencies. Further discussion about the amount of water required can be found in 

4139 “How to Comply with the Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides: What 

4140 Employers Need to Know.” 

4141 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to require that employers must 

4142 provide 1 gallon of water per worker for routine decontamination and 3 gallons of water per 

4143 handler for routine washing and emergency decontamination. By codifying the guidance 

4144 discussed above, EPA believes that employers would have no difficulty in determining the 

4145 amount of water for routine and emergency decontamination required for their workers and 

4146 handlers. This specificity would assist in providing workers and handlers with the amount of 

4147 water necessary for routine washing and provide handlers with a sufficient amount of water 

4148 should a pesticide emergency occur. Employers could be confident that they are complying with 

4149 the regulation and keeping their workers and handlers safe in the event of an exposure by 

4150 providing adequate supplies. 

4151 The proposed regulatory text concerning the required quantities of decontamination water 

4152 appears in today’s proposed rule §170.111(b) for workers and §170.209(b) for handlers. 

4153 5. Cost. EPA estimates the cost of this proposal would be negligible because it is a 

4154 codification of existing EPA policy interpretations of the WPS. 

4155 6. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 186 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4156 • Is 1 gallon for routine washing for workers and 3 gallons for handler emergency 

4157 decontamination, reasonable amounts of water for workers or handlers who have been exposed 

4158 to pesticides? If not, why? 

4159 • What amount of water would be reasonable, or what other alternative is there? 

4160 B. Eliminate the Substitution of Natural Waters for Decontamination Supplies. 

4161 1. Overview. The existing WPS permits employers to substitute clean, natural waters 

4162 from springs, streams, lakes or other sources for contained water supplies at decontamination 

4163 sites in specific circumstances. EPA proposes to eliminate the option to substitute clean, natural 

4164 waters for the potable water required for decontamination. The proposal would allow the 

4165 employer to supplement the required water supplies with clean, natural waters if necessary. 

4166 2. Current WPS regulations. The WPS allows employers to substitute clean waters from 

4167 springs, streams, lakes, or other sources for decontamination at remote work sites if such water is 

4168 more accessible than the water located at the nearest place of vehicular access (40 CFR 170.150 

4169 and 170.250). Generally, the WPS requires agricultural and handler employers to provide 

4170 decontamination supplies no farther than one quarter mile away from where workers are working 

4171 or from where handlers are performing handling activities. One exception to this requirement is 

4172 that if worker and handler activities occur more than one quarter mile from the nearest point of 

4173 vehicular access, soap, single-use towels, and water may be located at the nearest point of 

4174 vehicular access, but the employer may allow workers or handlers to use clean water from 

4175 springs, streams, lakes, or other sources if more accessible than the decontamination supplies. 

4176 3. Details of the proposal/rationale. The Agency proposes to eliminate the exemption 

4177 that allows agricultural and handler employers to use clean, natural bodies of water in lieu of the 

4178 required decontamination supplies. The Agency believes that vehicular access to worker and 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 187 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4179 handler sites is common and not likely more than a quarter mile distance from the worker 

4180 location. Modern agriculture is highly mechanized, and the Agency believes that workers and 

4181 handlers are routinely transported close to their work areas by vehicles. 

4182 EPA believes that workers and handlers would be better protected by ensuring access to 

4183 the required amount of potable water for routine and emergency decontamination, and allowing 

4184 the option to supplement those supplies with clean, natural waters in the event of an emergency. 

4185 4. Costs and benefits. EPA did not estimate the cost for this proposal because EPA 

4186 believes that a negligible number, if any, employers would be impacted by this proposal. 

4187 However, EPA has no data on the number of employers that may use this option and is seeking 

4188 data below. 

4189 5. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following: 

4190 • Please provide information on situations, if any, in which the proposed change would 

4191 significantly increase the burden on agricultural employers and offer alternative proposals. 

4192 • Please provide any information on the cost associated with the current situation and 

4193 proposed change. 

4194 • Would using natural waters for decontamination worsen a worker’s or handler’s 

4195 situation after pesticide exposure? 

4196 • Would it be beneficial to use any water in the event of a pesticide emergency or when 

4197 decontamination supplies cannot be located within one quarter mile because of limited vehicular 

4198 access? 

4199 C. Requirements for Ocular Decontamination in Case of Exposed Pesticide Handlers. 

4200 1. Overview. The existing WPS requires employers to provide a specific amount of water 

4201 to handlers that they can carry for use in the event of an ocular pesticide exposure. EPA proposes 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 188 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4202 to require employers to provide clean, running water at permanent (i.e., plumbed and not 

4203 portable) mixing and loading sites for handlers to use in the event of an ocular pesticide 

4204 exposure. 

4205 2. Current WPS regulations. The WPS requires handlers to carry water for eyewashing to 

4206 use in case of an ocular exposure if the pesticide label mandates the use of eye protection (40 

4207 CFR 170.250). The handler employer must assure that 1 pint of water is available for each 

4208 handler who is performing the tasks for which the pesticide label requires protective eyewear. 

4209 As discussed in Unit XIV.A., the WPS requires employers to provide water sufficient for 

4210 handlers to perform routine decontamination in addition to the requirement discussed in this 

4211 section to provide water for handlers’ eye washing in case of an ocular exposure. 

4212 3. Summary of the issues. Farmworker Justice provided the Agency with information 

4213 about several incidents of accidental ocular exposure (Ref. 36). They noted that even when 

4214 handlers use the PPE required on the label, they may be accidentally exposed to the pesticide. 

4215 For example, a pesticide may splash into a handler’s eye even if he or she wears proper PPE. The 

4216 eyes can suffer serious damage if exposed to certain pesticides. Farmworker Justice noted that 

4217 the WPS requirement for 1 pint of water would not satisfy EPA’s own current recommendations 

4218 in the Label Review Manual, which calls for a person who suffers ocular pesticide exposure to 

4219 “hold eye open and rinse slowly and gently with water for 15-20 minutes” (Ref. 84, pp. 7-12). In 

4220 addition, the American National Standards Institute standard for eyeflushing calls for a sufficient 

4221 quantity to rinse eyes continuously for 15 minutes (ANSI Z358.1-2009). Therefore, Farmworker 

4222 Justice recommended that EPA adopt a standard for ocular decontamination more protective than 

4223 the WPS’s current one pint requirement. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 189 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4224 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. In addition to the 1 pint of water already required to 

4225 be carried by the handler, the Agency proposes to require that at permanent mixing and loading 

4226 sites handler employers provide clean, running water sufficient to provide at a minimum of 1.5 

4227 liters (0.4 gallons) per minute for 15 minutes for handlers to use for eye flush purposes in the 

4228 event of an ocular pesticide exposure. EPA expects that adopting this standard would improve 

4229 the ability of handlers to mitigate damage to their eyes from accidental exposure. EPA expects 

4230 that most permanent mixing sites are plumbed to facilitate the dilution of concentrated pesticides 

4231 and to load application equipment and have the potential to provide clean water flowing at the 

4232 appropriate rate to comply with this requirement. For those handlers who may be exposed while 

4233 not working at the permanent mixing loading site, EPA believes the 3 gallons of water required 

4234 for routine decontamination would provide 7.5 minutes of rinsing, sufficient to clear the eyes 

4235 immediately at which point the handler can continue rinsing his or her eyes for the full 15 

4236 minutes at a permanent site. 

4237 The Agency based the proposed requirement on OSHA’s standard for ocular 

4238 decontamination. OSHA’s requirement for general industry states, “where the eyes or body of 

4239 any person may be exposed to injurious corrosive materials, suitable facilities for quick 

4240 drenching or flushing of the eyes and body shall be provided within the work area for immediate 

4241 emergency use” (29 CFR 1910.151(c)). Based on the OSHA standard, the American National 

4242 Standards Institute developed a water flow standard to address minimum operating requirements 

4243 for an eye flush. These operating standards establish a minimum of 1.5 liter (0.4 gallons) per 

4244 minute of flushing fluid, such as water, for 15 minutes (ANSI Z358.1-2009) (Ref. 85). Some 

4245 states have required handler employers to provide ocular decontamination conforming to the 

4246 OSHA standard. For example, Oregon implemented the same requirement proposed here in 2006 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 190 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4247 (OSHA 437-004-1305 K(5)). In FY 2007, Oregon reported 23 instances of non-compliance. By 

4248 FY 2010, only 5 establishments were cited for non-compliance (Ref. 86, p. 6).

4249 The proposed regulatory text concerning ocular decontamination for handlers appears in 

4250 §170.209(d) of today’s proposed rule.

4251 5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates that the cost of this proposal would be minimal 

4252 because mixing pesticides at a permanent site generally involves substantial quantities of water 

4253 and EPA believes that plumbed water is almost always available at those sites. EPA’s proposal 

4254 would not require employers to purchase a metered eyewash station; any water supply that meets 

4255 the proposed standards would comply. 

4256 6. Alternative options considered. EPA considered requiring portable eyewash stations at 

4257 all mixing or loading sites as an alternative to the proposed option. EPA believes that most 

4258 establishments mix and load at various sites and may move from day to day. The cost of 

4259 equipping each potential mixing or loading site (permanent and non-permanent) with a portable 

4260 eye wash station would be about $14 million per year for agricultural establishments and 

4261 commercial pesticide handling establishments. 

4262 As discussed above and in Unit XIV.A., handler employers are required to provide 3 

4263 gallons of water per handler for decontamination. EPA believes that if necessary, handlers could 

4264 use this decontamination water for about 7 minutes at the recommended rate of 1.5 liter (0.4 

4265 gallons) per minute, which would give them time to get to a location with sufficient water to 

4266 rinse their eyes for the recommended amount of time. EPA does not intend for the routine 

4267 decontamination water to be used for emergency eyeflush on a regular basis. However, the 

4268 Agency believes that it is appropriate to consider the existing availability of clean water where 

4269 the handler may be exposed as well as new requirements when considering alternatives to the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 191 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4270 current eyewash requirement. EPA believes that most handlers will have access to either a 

4271 permanent mixing or loading site or to the routine decontamination water. EPA believes the 

4272 benefits associated with a requirement to have a portable eyewash station at each mixing or 

4273 loading site is not reasonable in comparison with the cost and alternatives available. Therefore, 

4274 EPA decided not to propose a requirement for portable eyewash stations at all mixing or loading 

4275 sites. 

4276 7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

4277 • Is it reasonable to require that clean, running water be present and flowing at a 

4278 minimum of 1.5 liter (0.4 gallons) per minute for 15 minutes at permanent mixing and loading 

4279 stations? If not, why? 

4280 • Should EPA consider other ways to provide ocular decontamination for handlers? If so, 

4281 please provide specific details, including rationale and cost.

4282 • Do data exist on the relative number of mixing and loading activities that occur at 

4283 permanent sites and away from permanent sites? 

4284 • Are there other ways in which ocular decontamination might reasonably be improved at 

4285 temporary mixing and loading sites? 

4286 D. Showers for Handler Decontamination. 

4287 1. Overview. The existing WPS establishes specific requirements for routine and 

4288 emergency handler decontamination supplies, but these requirements do not include shower 

4289 facilities. EPA considered but is not proposing adding a requirement for handler employers to 

4290 provide shower facilities. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 192 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4291 2. Current WPS regulations. As discussed above in Unit XIV.A., the WPS specifies the 

4292 types and amounts of supplies handler employers must provide. The WPS does not require 

4293 handler employers to provide shower facilities. 

4294 3. Summary of the issues. Farmworker organizations have requested that EPA require 

4295 employers to provide showers for handlers to facilitate decontamination at the end of the work 

4296 day. They suggest that the use of showers after pesticide handling activities could decrease 

4297 pesticide exposure to handlers. Representatives of agricultural employers, the agricultural 

4298 employers, and others from the SBAR panel process, noted that in their experience even when 

4299 showers are available, handlers do not use them (Ref. 18, p. 21) (Ref. 87). Some stakeholders 

4300 reported that many workers may be reluctant to shower at the workplace because they believe 

4301 that showering immediately after work is detrimental to their health (Ref. 88). 

4302 As an alternative to imposing a requirement to provide showers, the SBREFA SERs 

4303 suggested that EPA expand training for pesticide handlers to include how to minimize take-home 

4304 exposure and how to use additional personal protective equipment (Ref. 18). 

4305 4. Rationale for not proposing. The Agency considered requiring showers but decided to 

4306 not propose it because EPA believes that the additional training content for handlers (Unit 

4307 VII.E.) and clarified decontamination provisions in Unit XIV.A., provide handlers with adequate 

4308 information on how to reduce take-home exposure and sufficient supplies for routine washing. 

4309 5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates that installing a shower on a single establishment 

4310 would cost about $105,000. Nationally, this would cost about $22.7 billion dollars for 

4311 construction. This estimate does not include future costs of maintenance. For a complete 

4312 discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed 

4313 Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 193 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4314 6. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

4315 • Is it reasonable to assume a significant percentage of handlers would not use a 

4316 permanent shower facility at a worksite? 

4317 • Would increased handler training, clarified amounts of water for routine 

4318 decontamination, and/or the use of additional PPE for handlers be sufficient to protect handlers 

4319 and their families from occupational and take-home pesticide exposure? If not, why? 

4320 • Are there other preventative measures that would provide comparable protection to 

4321 handlers and their families without incurring the same cost as requiring installation of shower 

4322 facilities? If so, please describe the preventative measures, estimated cost, and implementation. 

4323 • What other alternatives exist? 

4324 XV. Emergency Assistance

4325 A. Overview. The existing WPS requires employers to provide “prompt” transportation to 

4326 an emergency medical facility to workers or handlers who may have been exposed to pesticides. 

4327 EPA proposes to require employers to make transportation to a medical facility available to 

4328 workers and handlers within thirty (30) minutes of learning of the exposure. EPA also proposes 

4329 to require the employer to provide to the worker or handler or to treating medical personnel the 

4330 SDS and pesticide label, or all of the pertinent information in an alternate form.

4331 B. Existing WPS Regulations. The WPS requires employers to make transportation 

4332 available promptly to workers or handlers that have been “poisoned or injured by exposure to 

4333 pesticides” (40 CFR 170.160 and 170.260). Employers must provide the following information, 

4334 if available, to the exposed person or the treating medical personnel: name of the product, EPA 

4335 registration number, active ingredient, medical information from the label, circumstances of the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 194 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4336 pesticide application (or the handling of the pesticide), and circumstances of the pesticide 

4337 exposure.

4338 C. Summary of the issues. State enforcement agents have reported to EPA that the vague 

4339 timeframe has prevented them from verifying whether a worker was provided transportation to 

4340 the medical facility in conformance with the WPS, and recommended that EPA adopt a more 

4341 specific timeframe for transportation. They contend that the existing requirement is vague and 

4342 leads to various interpretations of the timeframe. Without a formal definition of “prompt,” 

4343 compliance and enforcement become more difficult for inspectors. In addition, varying 

4344 interpretations of “prompt” could lead to conflict between employers, agricultural workers and 

4345 handlers, and medical personnel about how quickly necessary information and transportation 

4346 must be provided in an emergency situation. 

4347 Farmworker advocacy organizations have noted the difficulty in obtaining proper medical 

4348 treatment for workers and handlers without all of the relevant information from the label and 

4349 circumstances of the incident. Given the difficulty of diagnosing an illness or injury related to a 

4350 pesticide exposure, treating physicians need information related to the pesticide products 

4351 potentially involved and circumstances of the incident to initiate proper treatment. In addition, 

4352 the sooner a person exposed to pesticides is transported for, and thus receives, treatment, the 

4353 more likely the diagnosis and treatment will lead to a successful medical outcome. Farmworker 

4354 advocacy organizations recommended that EPA require the employer to provide the information 

4355 whether requested or not. They also recommended adding an option for the employer to satisfy 

4356 the requirement by providing the information in the current regulations, a copy of the label, or a 

4357 copy of the SDS.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 195 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4358 D. Details of the Proposal/Rationale. EPA proposes to require agricultural employers and 

4359 handler employers to provide emergency medical assistance within thirty (30) minutes after 

4360 learning that an employee has been poisoned or injured by exposure to pesticides as a result of 

4361 his or her employment, replacing the current standard of “prompt.” The emergency medical 

4362 assistance includes both providing the required information and making transportation to a 

4363 medical facility available to the affected worker or handler. Although the intent of the proposal 

4364 is for the injured party to receive medical attention as soon as possible, this requirement does not 

4365 establish a time frame for reaching the medical facility. 

4366 The proposal would require employers to provide to the worker, handler, or treating 

4367 medical personnel information on each pesticide to which the worker or handler might have been 

4368 exposed. The employer could satisfy this requirement by providing copies of both the SDS and 

4369 the pesticide labeling. Alternatively, the employer could provide all of the following information: 

4370 product name, EPA registration number, active ingredient(s), antidote, first aid, and any other 

4371 medical treatment information from the label or the SDS. The employer would also be required 

4372 to provide to the worker, handler, or treating medical personnel the circumstances of the 

4373 pesticide application(s) or use(s) and the circumstances of the pesticide exposure. 

4374 Pesticide workers and handlers are instructed to wash their bodies and clothing 

4375 immediately if they come into contact with a pesticide. The existing regulation requires 

4376 agricultural employers and commercial pesticide handler employers to provide sufficient water 

4377 and soap to workers and handlers for routine and emergency decontamination. In the event of a 

4378 more serious illness or injury that requires immediate medical attention, however, it is critical for 

4379 the worker or handler to be evaluated and treated quickly. When medical treatment is provided 

4380 soon after the illness or injury, the effects of the pesticide exposure can be minimized. The 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 196 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4381 longer the illness- or injury-causing exposure persists, the more likely the worker or handler will 

4382 suffer more severe effects. EPA believes that requiring transportation and information about the 

4383 pesticide(s) and circumstances of the exposure to be provided within thirty minutes after learning 

4384 of the exposure would reduce the effects of pesticide exposure and improve the ability of the 

4385 medical personnel to provide appropriate treatment. 

4386 EPA does not have data on the number of requests for information in the event of an 

4387 accidental pesticide exposure by exposed persons or treating medical personnel. Medical 

4388 personnel need relevant information to treat people who may have been exposed to pesticides. 

4389 Treatment protocol varies by pesticide and type of exposure; for example, the recommended 

4390 treatment for one pesticide may be to induce vomiting immediately, while for another pesticide 

4391 this treatment could do more harm to the exposed person. Many of the recommendations for 

4392 medical care listed in the “Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisoning” manual depend 

4393 on the time between initial exposure and medical treatment (Ref. 12). Some treatments are not 

4394 effective unless provided within a specific timeframe of exposure (generally 1 hour). In addition, 

4395 recommended treatments for different types of exposure vary and sometimes conflict with each 

4396 other; therefore, it is essential that the medical personnel have as much information as possible 

4397 about the likely pesticide(s) to which the patient may have been exposed in order to provide the 

4398 proper treatment. 

4399 Amending the existing regulation to require provision of information relevant to the 

4400 exposure circumstances and pesticide’s properties would ensure that medical personnel are 

4401 properly informed at the time of beginning treatment or soon afterward. With timely and proper 

4402 treatment, many acute pesticide exposures may be mitigated before they cause more long-lasting 

4403 effects. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 197 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4404 Providing workers transportation to a medical facility in the event of a workplace injury 

4405 is the responsibility of employers in almost all industries. OSHA requires that a worker injured 

4406 on the job receive medical treatment, clarifying the requirement to mean within 3-4 minutes if 

4407 the injury is life-threatening or 15 minutes if it is not life-threatening (29 CFR 1926.50(a)). 

4408 OSHA requires employers in all industries to provide transportation for emergency medical 

4409 assistance if it is not possible to use public services, for example, an ambulance (29 CFR 

4410 1926.50(e )). EPA recognizes the differences between agriculture and other industries. WPS 

4411 establishments can be very large compared to the types of locations covered by OSHA standards, 

4412 for example, factories, office buildings, and similar self-contained areas. Whereas the foreman or 

4413 manager at a factory is likely to be on site or nearby at the time of an employee’s injury, an 

4414 agricultural or commercial pesticide handler employer could be significantly farther away. Based 

4415 on the physical differences between a WPS establishment and typical industrial locations 

4416 covered by OSHA, EPA believes it is reasonable to allow agricultural employers and handler 

4417 employers a longer timeframe to reach an exposed worker or handler to provide transportation. 

4418 In developing this proposal, EPA was mindful of the demographics of the worker and 

4419 handler populations. Some do not have their own vehicle and rely on an employer, co-worker, or 

4420 labor contractor to provide transportation to and from the agricultural establishment. Some may 

4421 not be able to secure transportation to a medical facility outside of working hours. The injured 

4422 person may be too compromised to safely drive to the medical facility. Without a requirement for 

4423 the employer to provide transportation, some workers and handlers might be stranded in the 

4424 treated area or might wait longer than necessary or advisable to seek medical attention. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 198 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4425 The regulatory text concerning emergency assistance appears in today’s proposed rule at 

4426 §170.9(f) for workers and handlers and at §170.13(k) for handlers employed by a commercial 

4427 pesticide handling establishment. 

4428 E. Costs. When compared to current practices, the Agency estimates the cost of 

4429 complying with the proposed requirements to provide the information and to transport exposed 

4430 workers or handlers within thirty minutes of learning of the exposure would be negligible. The 

4431 Agency believes that many agricultural employers and commercial handler employers already 

4432 meet this standard. Under other proposed changes, agricultural employers and commercial 

4433 handler employers would be required to maintain copies of the SDS or pesticide label in an 

4434 office for the workers to review. [See Unit IX.] Agricultural employers and commercial handler 

4435 employers are also required to maintain copies of the application records. Providing these 

4436 documents, copies, or information from them, would impose minimal additional burden on the 

4437 employer. Agricultural employers and commercial handler employers are already required to 

4438 provide transportation to a medical treatment facility for workers or handlers who are exposed to 

4439 pesticides. Changing the timeframe for providing transportation from “prompt” to within 30 

4440 minutes is a technical clarification and EPA believes it would impose minimal burden. For a 

4441 complete discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of 

4442 Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1).

4443 F. Alternative Options Considered but Not Proposed. The Agency considered two 

4444 alternative options to the timeframe for providing transportation. First, the Agency considered 

4445 replacing “prompt” with “immediate.” Using “immediate” might convey the urgency of the 

4446 situation and encourage agricultural employers and commercial handler employers to transport 

4447 exposed workers or handlers as quickly as possible. However, this change would not address the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 199 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4448 vagueness in the regulation or impose a timeframe in which the agricultural employer or 

4449 commercial pesticide handler employer must make available the proposed required information 

4450 and transportation to a medical facility. Second, the Agency considered imposing a timeframe of 

4451 one hour for the agricultural employer or commercial pesticide handler employer to make 

4452 transportation available. Based on the guidance under OSHA for providing medical treatment to 

4453 an injured employee, the Agency believes that an hour would be too long to allow a worker or 

4454 handler to wait for transportation to a medical treatment facility to be made available to worker 

4455 or handler. 

4456 G. Request for Comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

4457 • Is 30 minutes a reasonable timeframe for an agricultural employer or commercial 

4458 handler employer to make transportation available to a worker or handler who has been exposed 

4459 to pesticides to a medical treatment facility? If the timeframe is too long or short, please explain 

4460 why. What would be a reasonable alternative? 

4461 • Do medical personnel treating a worker or handler for occupational pesticide exposure 

4462 need more information than what is proposed to evaluate, diagnose, and treat the patient? If so, 

4463 what additional information would be necessary? 

4464 • If time is of the essence in determining the proper course of treatment, should EPA 

4465 consider requiring the agricultural employer to report the estimated time of the incident in 

4466 addition to the information proposed above? 

4467 XVI. Personal Protective Equipment 

4468 A. Chemical-Resistant PPE 

4469 1. Overview. The existing WPS requires employers to provide “chemical-resistant” PPE 

4470 in certain circumstances but does not provide a practical method for evaluating whether the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 200 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4471 material meets the standard. EPA proposes to clarify how to determine whether PPE is 

4472 “chemical-resistant.” This clarification would ensure that compliance with the WPS chemical4473 resistant garment standard can be objectively determined and would provide appropriate 

4474 protection to workers or handlers. 

4475 2. Existing WPS regulations. Under the WPS, “chemical-resistant” material means a 

4476 “material that allows no measurable movement of the pesticide being used through the material 

4477 during use” (40 CFR 170.240(c)(1)). 

4478 3. Summary of the issues. State agencies have informed the EPA that they cannot enforce 

4479 the current standard. It can be difficult to determine, without significant and costly testing, 

4480 whether a material is permeable to a pesticide. Inspectors noted that they cannot verify 

4481 compliance at the time of a field inspection. Similarly, employers attempting to comply with the 

4482 requirement face difficulty in determining whether a garment meets the criteria. 

4483 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. The Agency proposes to redefine “chemical4484 resistant” to mean that the PPE must be identified by the manufacturer as chemical resistant. 

4485 EPA believes that PPE manufacturers will only identify items as chemical resistant if they 

4486 provide a significant barrier to chemicals. 

4487 Changing from the current standard to one that requires the employer to provide PPE that 

4488 the manufacturer calls “chemical-resistant” would allow employers and enforcement personnel a 

4489 clear standard for determining compliance with the WPS. 

4490 The proposed regulatory text concerning chemical-resistant PPE appears in 

4491 §170.207(b)(1) of today’s proposed rule. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 201 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4492 5. Costs. The estimated cost of this clarification is considered to be negligible. The EPA 

4493 believes most employers currently purchase garments labeled as chemical-resistant for their 

4494 employees. 

4495 6. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following question: 

4496 • Are there alternatives to this proposal for determining chemical resistance of a garment 

4497 that are both cost-effective and protective? Please provide details and any data that may apply. 

4498 B. Closed Systems 

4499 1. Overview. The existing WPS permits exceptions to the label-specified PPE when using 

4500 a closed system for certain handling activities. A closed system is an apparatus designed for 

4501 mixing and loading pesticides that enables transfer of a pesticide from its original container into 

4502 a new container, mix tank, or application equipment, while limiting the handler’s exposure to the 

4503 pesticide. But the existing WPS fails to provide specific criteria for an acceptable closed system, 

4504 thereby limiting the practical availability and utility of the exception. EPA proposes to establish 

4505 specific criteria for closed systems based on California’s existing standard that would ensure 

4506 protections for handlers, bystanders, and the environment during mixing and loading. EPA 

4507 expects that this change would increase the number of establishments that use closed systems for 

4508 pesticide mixing and loading activities because employers would have a clear description of the 

4509 requirements on which to rely, thereby decreasing the potential for exposure. 

4510 2. Existing WPS regulations. The existing WPS provides only a description of a closed 

4511 system as one that “...enclose[s] the pesticide to prevent it from contacting handlers or other 

4512 persons.” Use of a properly functioning closed system that meets this description allows handlers 

4513 to substitute the label-required PPE with alternative PPE when the system is used and maintained 

4514 in accordance with the manufacturer's written operating instructions (40 CFR 170.240(d)(4)). 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 202 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4515 The existing description does not adequately describe the specific characteristics of a closed 

4516 system. 

4517 3. Summary of the issues. State regulators have reported problems with the ability to 

4518 determine compliance with WPS requirements for closed systems. The current description lacks 

4519 specific criteria for the characteristics necessary for a protective enclosed system, inhibiting the 

4520 ability of inspectors to ensure that the system is in compliance. State regulators have asked EPA 

4521 to establish practical, enforceable criteria for closed systems that will enable them to better 

4522 determine which types of systems qualify for the exception. 

4523 California is the only state with specific closed system standards. The California 

4524 Department of Pesticide Regulation requires applicators to use a closed system when handling 

4525 products with a signal word of “Danger” or “Warning” (Ref. 89). The closed system standards 

4526 are required for liquid pesticides and may be used, but are not required, for other pesticide 

4527 formulations. The definition of a “closed system” references a “Director’s Memo,” which 

4528 outlines the standards for closed systems (Ref. 90). The Director’s Memo establishes the 

4529 following criteria: 

4530 1. The liquid pesticide must be removed from its original shipping container and 

4531 transferred through connecting hoses pipes, and/or couplings that are sufficiently tight to prevent 

4532 exposure of any person to the concentrate, use dilution, or rinse solution. 

4533 2. All hoses, piping, tanks, and connections used in conjunction with a closed system 

4534 must be of a type appropriate for the pesticide being used and the pressure and vacuum of the 

4535 system. 

4536 3. All sight gauges must be protected against breakage. Sight gauges must be equipped 

4537 with valves so the pipes to the sight gauge can be shut off in case of breakage or leakage. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 203 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4538 4. The closed system must adequately measure the pesticide being used. Measuring 

4539 devices must be accurately calibrated to the smallest unit in which the material is being weighed 

4540 or measured. Pesticide remaining in the transfer lines may affect the accuracy of measurement 

4541 and must be considered. 

4542 5. The movement of a pesticide concentrate beyond a pump by positive pressure must not 

4543 exceed 25 pounds per square inch (psi) of pressure. 

4544 6. A probe must not be removed from a container except when: 

4545 a. The container is emptied and the inside, as well as the probe, have been rinsed in 

4546 accordance with item 8. 

4547 b. DPR has evaluated the probe and determined that, by the nature of its construction or 

4548 design, it eliminates significant risk of worker exposure to the pesticide when it is withdrawn 

4549 from a partial container. 

4550 c. The pesticide is used without dilution and the container has been emptied. 

4551 7. Shut-off devices must be installed on the exit end of all hoses and at all disconnect 

4552 points to prevent the pesticide from leaking when the transfer is stopped and the hose is removed 

4553 or disconnected. 

4554 a. If the hose carried pesticide concentrate and has not been rinsed in accordance with 

4555 item 8, a dry break coupler that will minimize pesticide loss to not more than two milliliters per 

4556 disconnect must be installed at the disconnect point. 

4557 b. If the hose carried a pesticide use dilution or rinse solution, a reversing action pump or 

4558 a similar system that will empty the hose may be used as an alternative to a shutoff device. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 204 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4559 8. When the pesticide is to be diluted for use, the closed system must provide for 

4560 adequate rinsing of containers that have held less than 60 gallons of a liquid pesticide. Rinsing 

4561 must be done with a medium, such as water, that contains no pesticide. 

4562 a. The system must be capable of spray-rinsing the inner surfaces of the container and the 

4563 rinse solution must go into the pesticide mix tank or applicator vehicle via the closed system. 

4564 The system must be capable of rinsing the probe, if used, and all hoses, measuring devices, etc. 

4565 b. A minimum of 15 psi of pressure must be used for rinsing. 

4566 c. The rinsing must be continued until a minimum of 10 gallons or one-half of the 

4567 container volume, whichever is less, has been used. 

4568 d. The rinse solution must be removed from the pesticide container concurrently with 

4569 introduction of the rinse medium. 

4570 e. Pesticide containers must be protected against excessive pressure during the container 

4571 rinse operation. The maximum container pressure must not exceed five psi. 

4572 9. Each commercially produced closed system or component to be used with a closed 

4573 system must be sold with: 

4574 a. Complete instructions consisting of a functional operating manual and a decal(s) 

4575 covering the basic operation. The decal(s) must be placed in a prominent location on the system. 

4576 b. Specific directions for cleaning and maintenance of the system on a scheduled basis. 

4577 c. Information on any restrictions or limitations relating to the system, such as pesticides 

4578 that are incompatible with materials used in the construction of the system, types (or sizes) of 

4579 containers or closures that cannot be handled by the system, any limits on ability to correct or 

4580 over measurement of a pesticide, or special procedures or limitations on the ability of the system 

4581 to deal with partial containers. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 205 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4582 Operating Requirements: 

4583 10. The system must be cleaned and maintained according to the manufacturer's 

4584 instructions. If the system is not a commercially produced system it must be maintained on a 

4585 regular basis. A record of cleaning and maintenance must be maintained. 

4586 11. All labeling required personal protective equipment (PPE) must be present at the 

4587 work site. Protective eyewear must be worn while using a closed system that operates under 

4588 pressure. While using a closed system, PPE requirements may be reduced or modified as 

4589 provided in Title 3 California Code of Regulations, section 6738. 

4590 Information about closed systems which have been evaluated and found to meet these 

4591 criteria is available from DPR (Ref. 91). 

4592 California’s standard also allows for PPE to be modified or substituted when using a 

4593 closed system that meets the established criteria. 

4594 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to adopt the California closed system 

4595 standards as outlined in the Director’s Memo, except where there are specific references to 

4596 California-specific information. The proposed criteria are based on research by the California 

4597 Department of Pesticide Regulation. California has indicated that it is considering changes to the 

4598 Director’s Memo criteria. EPA will consider any changes made to California’s standard and the 

4599 supporting rationale when developing a final standard for closed systems in the WPS. 

4600 In addition to establishing standards for the system, the proposal establishes requirements 

4601 for the use of the closed system. To be eligible for the exceptions to the label-specified PPE 

4602 requirements when a handler uses a closed system, EPA proposes to require that the handler 

4603 employer ensure that the handler receives training on use of the closed system, perform 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 206 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4604 maintenance according to the manufacturer’s written instructions, and maintain records of all 

4605 maintenance for 2 years. 

4606 The proposed rule would retain the following current requirements: (1) label-mandated 

4607 PPE must be immediately available for use in an emergency; (2) handlers must use protective 

4608 eyewear for closed systems that operate under pressure; and (3) a respirator must be worn if 

4609 required by the label. 

4610 EPA believes that the existing WPS standard for closed systems, if applied strictly, may 

4611 be difficult to meet and could limit the exception from being used because it requires that no 

4612 pesticide escape during the transfer. As a result, some agricultural establishments may be 

4613 forgoing the WPS closed system exception, despite the availability of closed systems that can be 

4614 reasonably expected to meet the performance criteria. Additionally, other establishments may be 

4615 employing systems that they believe qualify as closed, yet nevertheless expose handlers to 

4616 elevated risk because the criteria for closed systems have not been adequately described. EPA is 

4617 aware of closed systems currently manufactured and available to agricultural and handler 

4618 employers that meet the California closed system criteria. 

4619 EPA believes a properly designed and functioning closed system provides benefits to the 

4620 pesticide handler, bystanders, and the environment. Studies show that PPE may be discarded if 

4621 uncomfortable, such as when temperatures are high, or may be worn when contaminated or 

4622 damaged, reducing its protective value. Additionally, PPE can only protect the wearer, but 

4623 pesticide exposure to bystanders and the environment can be minimized through the use of a 

4624 closed system. Industrial hygiene principles detail the use of the “hierarchy of controls” to 

4625 manage chemical exposure. The hierarchy includes controlling chemical exposures from the 

4626 source as a preferred approach, through substitution of a safer chemical or process, mechanizing 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 207 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4627 the process, or isolating/enclosing the process. The use of closed systems fits this latter category 

4628 by enclosing the chemical and substantially reducing the potential for exposure at the source, 

4629 thereby reducing the potential for subsequent exposure to handlers, other people, and the 

4630 environment. 

4631 Closed systems are considered an important protection against hazards in other industries. 

4632 For example, health care workers working with hazardous drugs can experience exposures to 

4633 those drugs that can result in illness. In 2004, CDC-NIOSH published an alert to healthcare 

4634 workers, identifying the risks of exposure to these drugs (Ref. 92). The alert recommended a 

4635 closed system drug transfer device (CSTD) to reduce exposure. CDC-NIOSH defines a CSTD as 

4636 a system that "mechanically prohibits the transfer of environmental contaminants into the system 

4637 and the escape of hazardous drug or vapor concentrations outside the system," thereby limiting 

4638 the occupational exposure to a healthcare provider (Ref. 92). 

4639 The proposed rule would replace the current performance standard with a set of specific 

4640 criteria that a closed system would be required to meet. Because it will be easier to demonstrate 

4641 compliance with these criteria, EPA expects this proposed revision to increase the number of 

4642 establishments that use sufficiently protective closed systems for pesticide handling tasks 

4643 involving mixing and loading, thereby reducing the potential for handlers and others to be 

4644 exposed to pesticides during such activities. 

4645 The proposed regulatory text concerning closed systems appears in §170.307(d) of 

4646 today’s proposed rule. 

4647 5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost of the proposed standards for closed 

4648 systems would be $6.9 million annually, or about $25 per agricultural establishment per year and 

4649 about $48 per commercial pesticide handling establishment per year. The cost estimate is based 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 208 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4650 on conservative estimates of the number of establishments that currently use closed systems. 

4651 EPA believes that some establishments that currently use closed systems that do not meet the 

4652 proposed standards would upgrade and some would elect not to use a closed system, reverting to 

4653 the label-required PPE. The Agency is not aware of sources of information that provide estimates 

4654 of the number of establishments that use these systems for pesticide handling. Therefore, EPA 

4655 has made assumptions about their numbers. The Agency believes these assumptions are 

4656 conservative and that the actual cost of implementing this clarification of the requirements would 

4657 be significantly lower. 

4658 The proposed requirement would not require employers to use closed systems if they 

4659 have not already chosen to use closed systems in their operation, but will allow more flexibility 

4660 for employers to use a broader range of closed systems. EPA believes that more closed systems 

4661 will now be able to meet the criteria for the exception because it is proposing to replace language 

4662 that implies a complete prohibition of exposure with more practical criteria that will enable more 

4663 closed systems to meet the requirements for the exception. For a complete discussion of the costs 

4664 of the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the 

4665 Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

4666 6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. The Agency considered eliminating 

4667 the exception for closed systems based on reports of improper uses of the closed system 

4668 exception. However, EPA expects that properly defined and employed closed systems afford 

4669 superior protection for handlers, other individuals, and the environment. In order to support the 

4670 use of properly designed and operated closed system, EPA instead proposes to clarify the WPS 

4671 criteria for closed systems. 

4672 7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 209 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4673 • Are the proposed standards for closed systems reasonable and achievable? 

4674 • Are the proposed standards for closed systems too specific? If so, please describe what 

4675 aspects are too specific, why, and how to achieve sufficient protection while reducing the 

4676 specificity. 

4677 • Do data exist on the number of establishments that use closed systems, the number that 

4678 do not use closed systems because the current standard is not clear, and/or the number of 

4679 establishments that use closed systems that meet the California criteria? 

4680 • Would people who currently use closed systems that do not meet the proposed standard 

4681 upgrade their closed system or opt to use the label-required PPE? What information would 

4682 impact this decision? 

4683 • What would be the cost to convert an existing system that does not meet the proposed 

4684 standard to one that does? 

4685 • Should EPA consider eliminating any of the criteria listed in the proposal? If so, which 

4686 criteria and why? 

4687 • What would be the benefits and draw backs of the requirement for the closed system to 

4688 triple rinse the container? Is the technology available to provide this element at a reasonable 

4689 cost? 

4690 • Would it be possible for agricultural and handler employers, handlers, and inspectors to 

4691 measure the closed system’s PSI while the system is in use? If it would not be possible, should 

4692 EPA consider eliminating this element? 

4693 C. Contaminated PPE 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 210 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4694 1. Overview. The current WPS requires employers either to clean or properly dispose of 

4695 contaminated PPE. EPA proposes to require that contaminated PPE be rendered unusable before 

4696 disposal. 

4697 2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS requires employers either to clean contaminated 

4698 PPE or to dispose of it properly (40 CFR 170.240(f)). PPE can become contaminated with 

4699 pesticides from routine use or spills, and if re-worn, can expose the wearer to those pesticide 

4700 residues. 

4701 3. Summary of the issues. State agencies have raised concerns that contaminated PPE 

4702 may be reused if not destroyed. 

4703 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to require employers to render 

4704 unusable before properly disposing of PPE that cannot be decontaminated according to the 

4705 manufacturer’s instructions. This would protect workers, handlers and others from unnecessary 

4706 exposure resulting from the wearing of contaminated garments. For example, if absorbent 

4707 coveralls contaminated from overuse or soaked in pesticide from a spill are accidentally placed 

4708 in a laundry bin instead of the trash bin, a person in need of protective clothing may find the 

4709 discarded garment and attempt to wear it. Cutting the garment apart would make it less likely 

4710 that a person would attempt to wear it and be exposed to the pesticide residues. 

4711 The proposed regulatory text concerning rendering PPE unusable before disposal appears 

4712 in §170.207(d)(2) of today’s proposed rule. 

4713 5. Costs and benefits. The cost of this proposal is expected to be negligible, because 

4714 employers are required to dispose of contaminated PPE under the existing requirement. There is 

4715 expected to be minimal additional burden on the employer to render the PPE unusable. For a 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 211 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4716 complete discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of 

4717 Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

4718 6. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following question: 

4719 • Are there better ways to mitigate the risks associated with reuse of discarded PPE? 

4720 Please provide rationale and data, as applicable, with your response. 

4721 D. Eyewear Protection for Open Cockpits 

4722 1. Overview. The existing WPS allows pilots applying pesticides from an open cockpit 

4723 aircraft to substitute a visor for label-required eye protection. The Agency proposes to replace 

4724 the option to use visors in open cockpit aerial applications with the option of using a helmet with 

4725 the face shield lowered as a substitute for the eye protection required on the label. EPA expects 

4726 this proposal would balance the needs for adequate eye protection and suitable visibility among 

4727 handlers that apply pesticides aerially from open cockpit aircraft. 

4728 2. Existing WPS regulations. 40 CFR 170.240(d)(6)(ii) requires that pilots applying 

4729 pesticides from an open cockpit wear PPE in accordance with the label but allows pilots to 

4730 substitute a visor for label-required eye protection. Depending on the particular pesticide 

4731 product, the label-required eye protection might be goggles; a face shield; safety glasses with 

4732 front, brow, and temple protection; or a full-face respirator. 

4733 3. Details of the proposal/rationale. The Agency intended the existing open cockpit 

4734 exception to relax certain PPE requirements, but EPA nevertheless intended to convey that some 

4735 covering extending over the eyes was necessary. While a face shield might be characterized as a 

4736 visor, the term can also reasonably be interpreted as the brim of a cap that provides the eyes 

4737 shade and protection from rain, but little other protection. Such a visor does not provide 

4738 meaningful protection against pesticide sprays or spills. This protection is especially important 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 212 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4739 for pilots applying in an open cockpit because they may be exposed to drift while making aerial 

4740 applications. In order to assure aerial applicators have adequate eye protection, the Agency 

4741 proposes to replace the option to use visors in open cockpit aerial applications with the option to 

4742 use a helmet with the face shield lowered. 

4743 The proposed regulatory text concerning eyewear protection for open cockpits appears in 

4744 §170.307(f)(2) of today’s proposed rule. 

4745 4. Costs and benefits. EPA expects this proposal to have negligible costs because the 

4746 pesticide label already mandates that employers provide specific PPE. This proposal merely 

4747 changes the option for what PPE can be substituted for the label-mandated PPE. For a complete 

4748 discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed 

4749 Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

4750 5. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following question: 

4751 • Is the estimate of the cost reasonable? Please provide rationale and data to support your 

4752 information. 

4753 E. Respirators: Fit Testing, Training, and Medical Evaluation 

4754 1. Overview. The existing WPS requires handler employers to ensure that handlers’ 

4755 respirators fit correctly. EPA proposes to clarify this requirement to expressly include medical 

4756 evaluation, fit testing, and training for respirator users. In addition, EPA proposed to require that 

4757 handler employers retain records of compliance with these requirements. EPA expects that these 

4758 changes will result in fewer incidents of exposure and improvements to the health of respirator4759 wearing handlers covered by the WPS. 

4760 2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS requires handler employers to ensure that each 

4761 handler’s respirator fits correctly (40 CFR 170.240(c)(9)). However, part 170 does not provide 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 213 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4762 specific details on how to ensure that a respirator fits properly, conducting medical evaluation, 

4763 periodically refitting the handler for respirator use, training requirements for proper use of 

4764 respirators, or retaining fit test records. 

4765 3. Summary of the issues. The CHPAC, a Federal Advisory Committee, and Farmworker 

4766 Justice noted that OSHA’s standards for respirator fit testing, training, and medical monitoring 

4767 are absent from part 170 and recommended incorporating the OSHA requirements (Ref. 74) 

4768 (Ref. 35, p. 2). They expressed concern that the level of protection for handlers using respirators 

4769 under the WPS requirements is inadequate. 

4770 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to require handler employers to 

4771 comply with the respirator fit testing, training, and medical evaluation requirements set by 

4772 OSHA at 29 CFR 1910.134 whenever a respirator other than a dust or mist filtering mask is 

4773 required by the labeling. The OSHA standard includes a specific standard for fitting a user for 

4774 respirator use, training on recognizing when the respirator seal may be broken, and what steps to 

4775 take to properly use and maintain respirators. OSHA also requires respirator users to be 

4776 medically evaluated to ensure the respirator use does not cause undue stress on their bodies. The 

4777 adoption of the OSHA standard into part 170 would ensure that handlers understand how to wear 

4778 respirators properly, are medically fit to use respirators, and receive training on respirator use. It 

4779 would also ensure that if technology advances lead OSHA to amend its standard, the change 

4780 would automatically apply to pesticide uses subject to the WPS as well. EPA believes this 

4781 proposal would better protect handlers from respiratory hazards. This requirement would be 

4782 limited to products covered by the WPS. 

4783 In order for respirators to provide the intended protection, they must be fitted to the 

4784 specific user. Fit testing ensures that the respirator seals completely on the face. Respirator 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 214 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4785 wearers must be able to recognize when the seal is broken so that they may correct the fit or 

4786 remove themselves from the exposure area. 

4787 The respirator wearer’s respiratory system can be stressed because intake of breath is 

4788 more difficult while wearing a respirator. For example, persons with medical limitations may be 

4789 at risk of cardiac problems from the stress of the additional effort to inhale. Other potential 

4790 negative impacts for respirator wearers include stress on the pulmonary system and even 

4791 claustrophobia (Ref. 93). These potential negative health impacts can be avoided by doing a fit 

4792 test of the respirator and if necessary, a medical evaluation. 

4793 In other industries where respirators are required for work around hazardous chemicals, 

4794 OSHA requirements ensure that users wear them appropriately. Because pesticide use in 

4795 agriculture is outside of OSHA’s scope [see Unit IV.D.], handlers of pesticides who use 

4796 respirators are not protected to the same degree as workers in other industries although they face 

4797 similar risks. Handlers can be exposed to significant inhalation risks during pesticide mixing, 

4798 loading, and application. 

4799 EPA believes incorporation of the OSHA standard will provide employers and handlers 

4800 with more specific information on what it means to ensure that a respirator fits correctly and 

4801 ensure that respirators are maintained properly to protect handlers. 

4802 The proposed regulatory text concerning respirator use requirements appears in 

4803 §170.207(b)(9) of today’s proposed rule. 

4804 5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost to employers of complying with the 

4805 clarification of the WPS respirator requirements to reference the OSHA standard would be $10.6 

4806 million annually, or about $54 for agricultural establishments per year and $3 for commercial 

4807 pesticide handling establishments per year. The cost to commercial pesticide handling 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 215 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4808 establishments only reflects the cost of recordkeeping because EPA assumes that they already 

4809 comply with OSHA’s respirator requirements because they engage in activities outside of the 

4810 scope of the WPS that are covered by OSHA. EPA believes the cost estimates for agricultural 

4811 establishments are very conservative because EPA believes that many establishment owners 

4812 already are required to comply with OSHA requirements related to respirator use for other 

4813 reasons. This proposal clarifies the existing requirement, which requires employers to ensure that 

4814 handlers’ PPE fits properly and to perform proper maintenance. 

4815 EPA cannot quantify the benefits associated with this proposal. However, EPA believes 

4816 ensuring that handlers can safely use respirators and those respirators fit properly would increase 

4817 effectiveness of the protections offered by respirators. This would ultimately lead to a reduction 

4818 in occupational pesticide-related illnesses. 

4819 6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. The Agency considered amending 40 

4820 CFR part 156, which addresses labeling requirements, to require respirator fit testing, training, 

4821 and medical evaluation requirements in accordance with OSHA standard 29 CFR 1910.134 on 

4822 all labeling for pesticide products that require respirators other than filtering face pieces or dust 

4823 masks. This proposal, however, would go beyond the scope of the WPS rule amendments, which 

4824 focuses on agricultural pesticide use. Implementing this option would require changes to all 

4825 pesticide labeling with respirator requirements and would likely take over three years to 

4826 implement, based on necessary rulemaking for all labeling and the process for realizing changes 

4827 on labeling of products in the field. The relabeling process would significantly delay protections 

4828 to handlers. EPA may consider whether to take this action independently from the changes 

4829 proposed in this proposed rule. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 216 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4830 The Agency also considered the option of only establishing these requirements on 

4831 individual WPS product labeling, on a product-by-product basis. Some proportion of the 

4832 products covered by the WPS may already have these requirements on their labeling. For those 

4833 products that lack the requirements, EPA recognized that it may take significantly longer for 

4834 these protections to be added to labeling, and so opted to propose the revisions in part 170, where 

4835 adherence to the OSHA standard would have the legal effect of labeling instructions without the 

4836 need for re-labeling. 

4837 XVII. Monitoring Handler Exposure to Cholinesterase-Inhibiting Pesticides 

4838 1. Decision Not to Propose. EPA considered proposing cholinesterase (ChE) monitoring 

4839 of handlers to support mitigation of handlers’ exposure to ChE-inhibiting pesticides. Currently, 

4840 part 170 has no requirement to monitor ChE levels in workers or handlers. EPA believes that its 

4841 product-specific risk assessment and registration process described in Unit III establishes 

4842 adequate protections for handlers from undue risk of pesticide exposure. Additionally, other 

4843 proposed changes proactively address some of the risks to handler health that have been 

4844 identified by state-based ChE monitoring programs. The Agency does not believe that the 

4845 anticipated benefits of a ChE monitoring program would justify the costs to handlers and 

4846 employers and would be reactive, catching incidents after they occur rather than working to stop 

4847 them from happening. Therefore, the Agency is not proposing to add a requirement for 

4848 monitoring ChE inhibition in handlers at this time. 

4849 2. Background. ChE refers to a family of enzymes that are critical to proper nerve 

4850 function in insects and humans. ChE permits the transmission of signals across the space 

4851 between the nerves called the synapse. ChE-inhibiting pesticides block the transmission of these 

4852 signals, resulting in adverse symptoms. Acute poisoning symptoms include nausea, dizziness, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 217 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4853 shortness of breath, fatigue, excessive salivation, and, in extreme cases, death. Except in severe 

4854 cases, the treatment for persons who have been exposed to ChE-inhibiting pesticides usually 

4855 involves removal from the work activities that result in the exposure. 

4856 Organophosphate (OP) and N-methyl carbamate (carbamate) pesticides, which are widely 

4857 used in agriculture, are known inhibitors of ChE levels in humans. The OPs and carbamate 

4858 pesticides that present the highest acute toxicity are in EPA’s Toxicity Categories I and II, 

4859 indicated by the signal words “DANGER” and “WARNING”, respectively, on the product’s 

4860 label. Tests for ChE depression exist only for these types of pesticides; therefore, the 

4861 development and implementation of a monitoring system would only provide information related 

4862 to the use of a small subset of products, not a general workplace hazard monitoring program. 

4863 An individual’s ChE level can be determined with a blood test. There is no universal 

4864 normal range for ChE levels because baseline levels vary widely between individuals; therefore, 

4865 it is important that an individual’s initial baseline level be established before exposure to ChE4866 inhibiting pesticides. Comparison of this baseline level to the ChE level from the handler post4867 exposure can determine the level of inhibition. 

4868 Stakeholders have recommended ChE monitoring for handlers. In a 2006 letter to the 

4869 Administrator, Farmworker Justice recommended medical monitoring of pesticide handlers who 

4870 mix, load or apply Toxicity Category I or II OPs or carbamates for 30 hours or more in a 30-day 

4871 period (Ref. 35). 

4872 Some states, including California and Washington, have adopted rules to require ChE 

4873 monitoring. EPA reviewed California and Washington State’s ChE monitoring rules when 

4874 considering ChE monitoring on a national level. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 218 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4875 Established in 1974, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation program requires 

4876 monitoring for handlers of OPs and carbamate products with the signal word “DANGER” or 

4877 “WARNING” on their labels (Ref. 94 p. Section 6728). For handlers who work with the types of 

4878 pesticides listed above for more than 6 days in a 30-day period, California’s regulations require 

4879 that employers have the handlers tested to establish baseline ChE levels and to monitor any 

4880 change after handling activities. Employers must retain records of handler activities related to 

4881 these pesticides as well. To avoid the expense of sending a handler for blood testing, California 

4882 believes that many employers limit handlers’ exposures to these pesticides to less than six days 

4883 in a 30-day period. 

4884 Washington State’s Department of Labor and Industries established a voluntary ChE 

4885 monitoring system for handlers in 2004. Employers must offer the option of monitoring to the 

4886 handlers, who may decline after they have received training on the hazards posed by ChE 

4887 inhibition and a consultation with a health care practitioner. In addition, for handlers who use 

4888 Toxicity Category I or II OP or carbamate pesticides, employers must: 

4889 • Record the number of hours employees spend handling these pesticides. 

4890 • Implement a medical monitoring program for handlers who could meet or exceed the 

4891 handling threshold of 30 or more hours in any consecutive 30-day period. 

4892 • Identify a medical provider to provide medical monitoring services. 

4893 • Make baseline and periodic ChE testing available to employees who could meet or 

4894 exceed the handling threshold. 

4895 • Investigate work practices when a handler’s red blood cell (RBC) or serum ChE level 

4896 drops more than 20 percent below the employee’s personal baseline. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 219 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4897 • Remove employees from handling and other exposures to organophosphate and N4898 methyl-carbamate pesticides when recommended by the health care provider. 

4899 • Provide training on ChE monitoring to covered employees. 

4900 • Report employee handling hours to the medical provider with each periodic test. 

4901 • Maintain medical monitoring and other records for seven years (Ref. 95). 

4902 For those handlers who opt for monitoring, the rule also requires that handlers with red 

4903 blood cell ChE depressions of greater than 30% or serum depressions greater than 40% from 

4904 their personal baseline be removed from handling the listed pesticides until the handler’s ChE 

4905 levels have returned to within 20% of his or her personal baseline and that the employer conduct 

4906 a work practice investigation. 

4907 Washington State provides reimbursement to agricultural employers for testing services 

4908 and related administrative program costs. In 2009, Washington State reimbursed 61 employers 

4909 with $129,000 of costs (Ref. 96 p. 3). The reimbursement costs included baseline testing for 

4910 2,060 handlers and at least one additional test for 249 of the handlers who had a baseline test 

4911 (Ref. 96, p. 3). 

4912 Washington State’s Department of Labor and Industries ChE monitoring Cost Benefit 

4913 Determination and Small Business Impact Statement identified the following benefits of ChE 

4914 monitoring: 

4915 • Prevention of illness after over-exposure. 

4916 • Increased hazard awareness and improve workplace safety related to pesticide use. 

4917 • Improved pesticide illness diagnosis and reporting. 

4918 • Greater certainty about frequency of pesticide over-exposure. 

4919 • Decreased risk of unintended exposures to handlers’ families. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 220 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4920 3. Details of decision not to propose. After reviewing the experiences of Washington 

4921 State and California, as well as the estimated costs of a national ChE monitoring program, the 

4922 Agency has decided not to propose establishing a ChE monitoring program for handlers. EPA 

4923 believes that the existing risk assessments and label-based risk mitigation measures, in 

4924 combination with the proposed changes to expand handler training and to adopt OSHA respirator 

4925 standards, would be sufficient to prevent unreasonable adverse effects to handlers working with 

4926 OPs and carbamates. 

4927 The Agency believes that Washington State’s efforts have identified the primary reasons 

4928 for ChE inhibition among pesticide handlers. In Washington State, the Department of Labor and 

4929 Industries conducts follow up investigations when monitoring indicates ChE inhibition is greater 

4930 than 20%. Review of pesticide worker protection programs highlighted potential exposure 

4931 scenarios and violations of the WPS requirements including areas such as decontamination, PPE, 

4932 and respiratory protection (Ref. 97). The findings from the follow-up suggest that in many cases 

4933 ChE depression was caused by handlers not following basic safety and hygiene procedures , e.g., 

4934 not wearing the label-required PPE and failing to wash before meals or bathroom breaks (Ref. 

4935 97, pp. 10-11). Additionally, several handlers, who did wear respirators as required by labeling, 

4936 had beards, which compromised the seal between the face and the respirator and reduced the 

4937 protection intended to be afforded by the equipment. Using this information, Washington State 

4938 developed training for handlers specifically on decontamination and proper use of PPE. 

4939 This proposed rule would address Washington State’s findings by requiring expanded 

4940 handler training that covers reducing take-home exposure, proper use and decontamination of 

4941 PPE, and more frequent handler training. [See Unit VII.E.] The Agency is also proposing 

4942 requirements for fit testing and training on proper respirator use for handlers. [See Unit XVI.E.] 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 221 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4943 As a result of the reregistration process for the OPs and carbamates, revised labeling with 

4944 increased protections is replacing the older labeling in the field. EPA expects that many of the 

4945 new mitigation measures will result in lowered handler exposure. Key improvements include 

4946 requirements for closed system mixing and loading, additional PPE, and reductions to rates of 

4947 application and number of annual applications permitted. Moreover, the uses of some highly 

4948 acutely toxic OPs are being phased out (Ref. 98). EPA recognizes that some products with the 

4949 most current label language have not yet reached field users. For example, in the first years 

4950 (2004 and 2005) of the Washington State program, many applicators were not wearing 

4951 respirators when applying the OP pesticide Lorsban via air blast (Ref. 99) (Ref. 100). Inspectors 

4952 learned that applicators were still using old product and the corresponding labeling, which did 

4953 not require respirator use for handlers. This use resulted in higher exposure to the pesticide 

4954 handlers as a result. EPA expects that as product labels with additional risk mitigation measures 

4955 reach the field handlers complying with the new requirements would have a lower potential for 

4956 exposure. 

4957 EPA believes that product-specific risk mitigation measures combined with increased 

4958 handler protections outlined in this proposal would appropriately address the elevated potential 

4959 for ChE inhibition in handlers. Moreover, the training and PPE elements of the proposed rule are 

4960 expected to have the combined effect of providing important protective benefits to all pesticide 

4961 handlers through increased knowledge of exposure risks and prevention strategies, ultimately 

4962 leading to a reduction of pesticide exposures. EPA favors this approach over ChE monitoring 

4963 because it prevents handler exposure rather than addressing it after it occurs. EPA does not 

4964 believe that the cost and burden of implementing a national ChE monitoring program, which 

4965 would only identify a problem after the exposure has occurred, would be justified by the limited 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 222 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4966 benefits achieved by removing a handler from the treated area once pesticide exposure has 

4967 inhibited ChE levels. 

4968 4. Costs and benefits. In 2003, Washington State developed a Benefit-Cost Determination 

4969 document to estimate the costs of implementing their ChE monitoring program. The central 

4970 estimated compliance cost in year one was $848,490, and $1,272,487 in year two (Ref. 101 p. 

4971 23). The costs for which employers can be reimbursed under Washington’s program include 

4972 medical (consultations, follow-up visits and procedures, and blood draws), recordkeeping to 

4973 record handling hours for monitored handlers, wages for time spent in training for ChE 

4974 monitoring, and mileage for travel costs associated with evaluations and training. The expenses 

4975 for which employers are reimbursed by Washington State provide insight as to the costs and 

4976 activities of the employers and handlers participating in the ChE program, but do not estimate the 

4977 cost of a national ChE monitoring program. 

4978 In the proposal’s “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection 

4979 Standard,” the incremental cost of a monitoring program, based primarily on California’s and 

4980 Washington’s programs, is estimated to be $15.2 million annually, or about $53 per agricultural 

4981 establishment per year and $120 per commercial pesticide handling establishment per year. The 

4982 requirements of a national ChE monitoring program have not been developed sufficiently to 

4983 provide a precise cost analysis, but it would likely include program components such as training, 

4984 recordkeeping, clinical testing, and field investigations. The estimated costs do not include the 

4985 states’ costs to build infrastructure to support ChE monitoring or to cover continued laboratory 

4986 costs such as equipment maintenance and administrative support. 

4987 For more discussion of the costs of the proposal, see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed 

4988 Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 223 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4989 The proposed handler training and PPE requirements are proactive and are expected to 

4990 prevent handler exposure whereas cholinesterase monitoring would only identify a problem after 

4991 the exposure has occurred. As a result, EPA concludes that the cost of implementing a national 

4992 cholinesterase monitoring program is not justified by its limited benefits for a subpopulation of 

4993 the nation’s pesticide handlers. The training and PPE elements of the proposed rule, however, are 

4994 expected to have the combined effect of providing important protective benefits to all pesticide 

4995 handlers through increased knowledge of exposure risks and prevention strategies, ultimately 

4996 leading to a reduction of pesticide exposures. 

4997 5. Alternative options considered. EPA considered restricting the number of hours 

4998 handlers may work with OPs and carbamates in a given timeframe (for example, no more than 

4999 30 hours of handling these pesticides over a 30-day period). However, EPA is not aware of data 

5000 that would provide a basis for establishing this type of proposal. 

5001 6. Request for comment. EPA specifically seeks feedback on its decision not to propose a 

5002 requirement for mandatory ChE monitoring, including comment on the following questions: 

5003 • Do you believe the costs and burdens of a national ChE monitoring program would be 

5004 justified by the protections to handler health? If so, please provide justification. 

5005 • Do you agree that it is more protective to prevent handler exposure than to address it 

5006 after it occurs? If so, why? If not, do you have an alternative proposal to address handler 

5007 exposure? 

5008 • Does other information exist on the benefits or challenges of ChE monitoring that the 

5009 Agency has not presented in this proposal? If so, please provide. 

5010 XVIII. Exemptions and Exceptions 

5011 A. Immediate Family 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 224 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5012 1. Decision not to propose. EPA considered eliminating the existing exemption for 

5013 workers and handlers under age 16 employed (receiving a wage or salary) by immediate family 

5014 members; however, the available information may not be sufficient to support this option. 

5015 Accordingly, EPA is not proposing to amend the immediate family exemption to impose any age 

5016 requirements on establishments that qualify for the immediate family exemption to the WPS. 

5017 [Note: EPA is proposing to expand the definition of “immediate family” to better reflect the 

5018 range of familial relationships that could occur. See Unit XIX.A., for a discussion of the revised 

5019 definition.]

5020 2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS exempts the owners of agricultural establishments 

5021 from providing certain WPS protections to themselves and their immediate family members (40 

5022 CFR 170.104(a) and 170.204(a)). Specifically, the agricultural establishment owner is exempt 

5023 from complying with the following requirements for immediate family members performing 

5024 tasks as workers: Sections of the early-entry restrictions; providing pesticide safety training or 

5025 other safety information; cleaning, storing, and maintaining PPE; maintaining decontamination 

5026 sites and supplies; providing notice of and specific information about applications; and providing 

5027 emergency assistance. Similarly for immediate family members performing handler tasks, the 

5028 agricultural establishment owner is exempt from the following requirements: Providing pesticide 

5029 safety training and other safety information such as restrictions during applications, knowledge 

5030 of labeling and site-specific information, and safe operation of equipment; ensuring proper use, 

5031 cleaning, and maintenance of PPE and avoiding heat-related illness while using PPE; 

5032 maintaining decontamination sites and supplies; and providing emergency assistance. The 

5033 agricultural establishment owner must comply with all other sections of the WPS. The immediate 

5034 family includes only the spouse, parents, stepparents, foster parents, father-in-law, mother-in-
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 225 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5035 law, children, stepchildren, foster children, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law, grandparents, 

5036 grandchildren, brothers, sisters, brothers-in-law, and sisters-in-law of the owner of the 

5037 agricultural establishment. 

5038 In addition, the definitions of workers and handlers require that they are employed for 

5039 compensation in order to receive protection under the WPS. Therefore, any person performing 

5040 worker or handler tasks who does not receive a wage or salary is not covered by any aspect of 

5041 the WPS. 

5042 3. Summary of the issues. Stakeholder feedback, reports from the GAO, the CHPAC and 

5043 recent research have indicated an increased awareness of the need to protect all children from 

5044 adverse health effects of pesticide exposure (Ref. 20) (Ref. 74) (Ref. 102) (Ref. 103). [See Unit 

5045 V.C. and V.E.] During the National Assessment, EPA did not seek specific stakeholder feedback 

5046 on the existing immediate family exemption and whether it should be amended. 

5047 Input from the agricultural community indicates that emergency assistance and other 

5048 protections are among the reasonable steps an owner of an agricultural establishment would take 

5049 to protect family members. 

5050 4. Options considered and not proposed. The Agency considered narrowing the 

5051 immediate family exemption in two ways: (1) limiting it only to immediate family members of 

5052 an owner of an agricultural establishment who are at least 16 years old, and (2) modifying the 

5053 scope of the requirements that are exempted by eliminating from the list emergency assistance 

5054 for workers and handlers and handler monitoring during fumigant application. 

5055 Limiting the exemption to employed family members who are at least 16 years old would 

5056 not prohibit agricultural establishment owners from allowing their immediate family members 

5057 under 16 years old to perform WPS tasks. The proposed definition of “employ” specifies salary 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 226 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5058 or wages; other forms of compensation are not included in the definition. Therefore, immediate 

5059 family members who are compensated in other ways besides salary or wages, but not 

5060 “employed” by the WPS definition, would continue to be exempted from certain specified 

5061 provisions of the WPS. As under the current rule, any person, including immediate family 

5062 members under 16 years old, who does not receive a wage or salary would not be covered by any 

5063 provisions of the WPS. See tables 1 and 2. 

5064 Table 1. Considered Changes to the WPS Immediate Family Exemption – Minimum 

5065 Age, Emergency Assistance and Handler Monitoring During Fumigant Applications 

5066

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 

5067

5068 EPA acknowledges requests from a range of stakeholders to ensure protection of all 

5069 children working with or around pesticides. Recent findings suggest that working with or around 

5070 pesticides may increase potential risks of harm to children’s developing systems and that 

5071 children’s maturity and decision-making skills are not fully developed. EPA believes that owners 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 227 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5072 of agricultural establishments generally protect family members independent of government 

5073 regulation. It is not clear from the available information that the burdens associated with 

5074 narrowing the existing exemption would produce commensurate risk reductions. Although EPA 

5075 has not proposed changing the existing exemption from the requirement to provide certain WPS 

5076 protections to immediate family members, EPA is requesting comment on this issue. 

5077 EPA also considered eliminating the current exemption at §170.204(a)(i) in the case of 

5078 immediate family members who are handling highly toxic pesticides or working in enclosed 

5079 fumigated areas. EPA believes that owners of agricultural establishments generally protect 

5080 family members independent of government regulation. It is not clear from the available 

5081 information that the burdens associated with narrowing the existing exemption would produce 

5082 commensurate risk reductions. Although EPA has not proposed eliminating the current 

5083 exemption in the case of immediate family members who are handling highly toxic pesticides or 

5084 working in enclosed fumigated areas, EPA is requesting comment on this issue. 

5085 Lastly, EPA considered eliminating the exemption for establishment owners to provide 

5086 emergency assistance for immediate family members who are workers or handlers. In the event 

5087 of a pesticide poisoning, certain symptoms, such as respiratory distress, need to be addressed 

5088 promptly to avoid more serious problems, such as heart failure or an inability to breathe. Again, 

5089 the Agency recognizes that establishment owners working with immediate family members have 

5090 a vested interest in their family members’ well being. EPA believes that additional regulation is 

5091 not necessary to ensure that immediate family members who are workers or handlers receive 

5092 assistance in the event of a pesticide-related emergency. It is not clear from the available 

5093 information that the burdens associated with narrowing the existing exemption would produce 

5094 commensurate risk reductions. Although EPA has not proposed eliminating the current 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 228 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5095 exemption to providing emergency assistance to workers and handlers, EPA is requesting 

5096 comment on this issue. 

5097 5. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the immediate family 

5098 exemptions in the WPS. 

5099 • Would this requirement have a different impact on small farms than on larger 

5100 establishments? If so, please explain the likely impact. 

5101 • Does exempting agricultural establishment owners from the requirements to provide 

5102 certain protections to immediate family members present unreasonable risks to family members 

5103 who are under 16 years old? 

5104 • What would be the impact of limiting the immediate family exemption to family 

5105 members who are at least 16 years old and who are employed by the owner? 

5106 • How many agricultural establishments would be affected if EPA decided to limit the 

5107 exemption to immediate family members at least 16 years old? 

5108 B. Crop Advisors and Employees 

5109 1. Overview. The existing WPS allows exemptions from some requirements for crop 

5110 advisors and their employees. The Agency proposes to eliminate exemptions from protections 

5111 for employees directly supervised by certified or licensed crop advisors. The Agency also 

5112 proposes to eliminate the exemption from the worker decontamination and emergency assistance 

5113 provisions for certified or licensed crop advisors employed as workers on agricultural 

5114 establishments. 

5115 2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS allows crop advisor tasks to be conducted during 

5116 pesticide application and during subsequent REIs. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 229 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5117 As outlined in 40 CFR 170.5, crop advisor tasks include assessing pest numbers or 

5118 damage, pesticide distribution, or the status or requirements of agricultural plants, but not 

5119 performing hand labor tasks. When performing crop advising tasks after the REI has expired or 

5120 performing hand labor tasks, and employed by the agricultural establishment, a crop advisor is 

5121 considered a worker under the WPS. A person employed by a commercial pesticide handling 

5122 establishment performing crop advising tasks after expiration of an REI is not subject to any 

5123 provisions of the rule. 

5124 The WPS exempts the employer from complying with some handler requirements when 

5125 the employee performs crop advising tasks during an REI and that is a certified or licensed crop 

5126 advisor or directly supervised by a certified or licensed crop advisor. To qualify for this 

5127 exemption, the crop advisor certification or licensing program must include, at a minimum, all 

5128 information listed under handler training, 40 CFR 170.230(c)(4). Under the current WPS, the 

5129 certified crop advisor must make specific determinations regarding the appropriate PPE, 

5130 decontamination and safe method of conduct for those working under his or her direct 

5131 supervision. This information, as well as information regarding the product, method and time of 

5132 application, REI, tasks, and contact information, must be conveyed by the certified crop advisor 

5133 to each person under his supervision. Currently, the WPS exempts employers from complying 

5134 with worker requirements such as providing decontamination supplies and emergency assistance 

5135 for certified or licensed crop advisors and persons they directly supervise. 

5136 3. Summary of the issues. State regulatory agencies and their representatives have 

5137 expressed concerns with the current crop advisor exemptions, noting that those working under 

5138 the supervision of the crop advisors may be unaware of the risks posed by pesticides. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 230 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5139 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. The Agency proposes to limit this exemption to crop 

5140 advisors only, eliminating from the exemption employees directly supervised by certified or 

5141 licensed crop advisors. The Agency believes employees who are not certified or licensed as crop 

5142 advisors but who are performing crop advising tasks may be unable to make appropriate 

5143 judgments regarding personal risk because they are not required to receive information about the 

5144 risks of working around pesticide-treated areas and how to protect themselves from exposure. 

5145 If a person performs crop advising activities under the supervision of a certified crop 

5146 advisor, he or she may not understand the factors influencing the risks well enough to take 

5147 appropriate protective measures or to alert the supervising crop advisor to observations that 

5148 could alter the initial decisions about the protective measures to be taken. 

5149 The Agency also proposes to eliminate the exemption for certified or licensed crop 

5150 advisors employed as workers on agricultural establishments from the worker decontamination 

5151 and emergency assistance provisions. While EPA believes this exemption applies to a small 

5152 number of people it is important that all workers on agricultural establishments have access to 

5153 decontamination supplies and emergency assistance. 

5154 The rule would retain the exemption for certified or licensed crop advisors to enter and 

5155 perform crop advising tasks during an REI. 

5156 The Agency has discussed these exemptions with the National Alliance of Independent 

5157 Crop Consultants (NAICC). NAICC representatives indicated that entry to perform crop advising 

5158 tasks during an REI is a rare event, especially for persons who are not certified or licensed crop 

5159 advisors (Ref. 104). Overall, the Agency believes that the proposed revision would not have a 

5160 significant impact on the majority of crop advisors. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 231 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5161 The proposed regulatory text concerning the crop advisor exemption appears in 

5162 §170.301(b) of today’s proposed rule. 

5163 5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost of amending the exemption for crop 

5164 advisors would be $1,400, or less than $0.01 per establishment. NAICC representatives noted 

5165 that there may be some cost to provide the WPS protections to currently-exempt supervised 

5166 employees. The Agency believes that there are few certified crop advisors retained directly by 

5167 agricultural establishments. For a discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the 

5168 “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost 

5169 Analysis (Ref. 1). 

5170 6. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

5171 • Should EPA consider an alternative to this proposal? If so, what alternative and why? 

5172

5173 C. Revise the Exception to the Requirement for Workers to be Fully Trained before Entering 

5174 Pesticide-Treated Areas

5175 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 5176 day of entry into a treated 

5177 area providing the full required pesticide safety training to workers performing WPS-covered 

5178 activities (referred to as the “grace period”). During the grace period, the current WPS requires 

5179 agricultural employers to provide an abbreviated training covering two major points: where 

5180 pesticides may be encountered and how to prevent pesticides from entering a worker’s body. In 

5181 order to balance the need for workers to receive sufficient information to protect themselves and 

5182 the need for agricultural employers to have flexibility in employing workers, EPA proposes to 

5183 shorten the grace period to two days and to require that workers receive training on protecting 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 232 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5184 themselves and their families from pesticide exposure prior to entering a pesticide-treated area 

5185 during the grace period. In essence, this exception to the general requirement that all workers be 

5186 fully trained prior to entering a pesticide-treated area to perform WPS tasks would allow 

5187 agricultural employers who have provided workers with certain essential safety information to 

5188 direct those workers to perform WPS tasks for no more than 2 days before providing them with 

5189 the full WPS pesticide safety training, and require the employer to maintain records of the 

5190 information transfer for 2 years. The agricultural employer would be required to provide each 

5191 such worker full pesticide safety training before allowing the worker to enter a treated area for a 

5192 third day. This proposal would provide the agricultural employer with the flexibility to choose 

5193 whether to provide workers with full pesticide safety training immediately upon employment or 

5194 to utilize the 2 day grace period, provided they comply with the conditions of the exception. EPA 

5195 expects this change would improve workers’ understanding of the risks they may face and how 

5196 to protect themselves when they work in areas treated with WPS-covered pesticides, while 

5197 maintaining flexibility for agricultural employers. 

5198 2. Existing WPS regulations. When EPA was developing the 1992 WPS, agricultural 

5199 employers argued that they needed a training grace period because qualified trainers were not 

5200 available in sufficient numbers to meet the need for worker training. To accommodate the need 

5201 for flexibility for agricultural employers and in recognition of the high turnover in the workforce 

5202 on some establishments, EPA adopted the grace period. The 1992 rule allowed agricultural 

5203 employers to direct workers to perform work in pesticide-treated areas for up to 15 days before 

5204 the employer was required to provide the full pesticide safety training outlined in §170.130 (57 

5205 FR 38151; August 21, 1992). On January 1, 1996, EPA reduced the grace period to 5 days (60 

5206 FR 21944; May 3, 1995). 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 233 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5207 Under 40 CFR 170.130(a)(3)(ii), agricultural employers may direct workers to perform 

5208 work (except for early-entry activities) in areas that, within the last 30 days, have been treated 

5209 with a pesticide bearing a label requiring compliance with the WPS or have been under an REI 

5210 for such pesticide for up to 5 days before the employer must provide the full pesticide safety 

5211 training outlined in 40 CFR 170.130. During the grace period, employers must inform workers of 

5212 the following points: 

5213 • Pesticides may be on or in plants, soil, irrigation water, or drifting from nearby 

5214 applications; 

5215 • Prevent pesticides from entering your body by: 

5216 - Following directions and/or signs about keeping out of treated or restricted areas. 

5217 - Washing before eating, drinking, using chewing gum or tobacco, or using the toilet. 

5218 - Wearing work clothing that protects the body from pesticide residues. 

5219 - Washing/showering with soap and water, shampoo hair, and put on clean clothes after 

5220 work. 

5221 - Washing work clothes separately from other clothes before wearing them again. 

5222 - Washing immediately in the nearest clean water if pesticides are spilled or sprayed on 

5223 the body. As soon as possible, shower, shampoo, and change into clean clothes. 

5224 • Further training will be provided within 5 days. 

See 40 CFR 170.130(c). Before the 6th 5225 day that workers remain on the establishment working in 

5226 areas that, within the last 30 days, have been treated with a pesticide bearing a label requiring 

5227 compliance with the WPS or have been under an REI for such pesticide, the agricultural 

5228 employer must provide the full pesticide safety training. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 234 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5229 3. Summary of the issues. Stakeholders, including Farmworker Justice and Migrant 

5230 Clinicians Network, have repeatedly raised concerns for workers entering the pesticide-treated 

5231 treated areas without receiving the full pesticide safety training (Ref. 35). They noted that the 

5232 basic safety information provided prior to entry into a treated area does not describe the hazards 

5233 associated with pesticides, how to recognize pesticide poisoning symptoms, or how to access 

5234 emergency medical care. The lack of information may be of particular concern for workers 

5235 performing tasks in recently treated areas or adjacent to an area being treated because they may 

5236 not know what to do if they are sprayed or feel sick. Stakeholders also noted that a worker may 

5237 be employed for fewer than 5 days on each of a series of farms and, as a result, may be at risk of 

5238 significant pesticide exposure without ever receiving the full pesticide safety training. 

5239 Many of the SERs consulted by the SBAR panel requested that EPA retain the current 5 

5240 day grace period (Ref. 18, p. 21). They noted that employers have many legal obligations related 

5241 to hiring a new employee, and pesticide worker safety training is just one element. In comments 

5242 submitted to EPA, SERs informed EPA that the grace period offered agricultural employers 

5243 flexibility about when to provide full training to workers without negatively impacting the 

5244 performing of WPS tasks essential to agricultural production. 

5245 OSHA requires that employers provide training on potential chemical hazards that 

5246 employees may face in the workplace before allowing employees to enter the area to begin work. 

5247 These standards require employers to provide hazard information to workers before they begin 

5248 any tasks that may expose them to a hazardous material or activity, rather than allowing them to 

5249 work for a period before receiving the hazard information. See, e.g., the training requirements for 

5250 employees that may encounter lead, 29 CFR 1962.62(l)(1), asbestos, 29 CFR 1926.1127(m)(4), 

5251 and cadmium, 29 CFR 1926.1101(k)(9).
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 235 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5252 4. Details of the proposal/rationale. The exception would allow agricultural employers to 

5253 postpone providing full pesticide training for up to 2 days after the worker begins work in WPS5254 covered areas. In order to qualify for the exception, agricultural employers would be required to 

5255 provide certain safety information, which would incorporate both the information currently 

5256 required by the regulation and additional content, to workers in a language and manner they 

5257 understand before workers perform any WPS tasks in a treated area. Agricultural employers 

5258 would also be required to maintain records of the information provided to workers for 2 years. 

5259 Finally, agricultural employers would be required to provide the full pesticide safety training to 

5260 workers before sending them into any treated area for a third day where within the last 30 days a 

5261 pesticide product bearing a label requiring compliance with the WPS has been used, or an REI 

5262 for such a pesticide has been in effect. 

5263 EPA proposes to re-characterize the grace period as an exception to the requirement that 

5264 employers provide workers the full pesticide safety training before the worker may enter a 

5265 pesticide-treated area. EPA believes that the shortened grace period and the requirement that 

5266 employers provide certain basic safety information to workers before they enter a treated area 

5267 (detailed below), and requiring recordkeeping would balance the need for workers to be 

5268 informed about risks to which they may be exposed and the need for agricultural employers to 

5269 have some flexibility regarding pesticide safety training. EPA believes re-characterizing the 

5270 grace period as an exception would also make the regulation easier to understand. 

5271 In order to utilize the proposed exception, agricultural employers would need to provide 

5272 certain safety information to the workers in a language and manner they understand before the 

5273 workers enter any pesticide-treated area. The required information would cover four areas: (1) 

5274 employer responsibilities for providing worker protections, (2) information about potential 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 236 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5275 hazards in the workplace, (3) how to protect oneself from pesticide exposure and hazards in the 

5276 workplace, and (4) emergency first aid procedures for pesticide poisonings or injuries. Under the 

5277 four areas, the full list of topics to be conveyed to workers would be: 

5278 • Employer Responsibilities for Providing Worker Protections 

5279 - Agricultural employers are required to provide workers with information and 

5280 protections designed to reduce work-related pesticide exposures and illnesses. This includes 

5281 providing pesticide safety information to workers before being directed to work in pesticide 

5282 treated areas if they have not received full pesticide safety training; providing full pesticide 

safety training to workers before their 3rd 5283 day of work in pesticide treated areas; providing 

5284 pesticide hazard information for products used on the establishment, decontamination supplies, 

5285 and emergency medical assistance, and notifying workers of restrictions during applications and 

5286 on entering pesticide treated areas. 

5287 - Agricultural employers must inform workers how to recognize and understand the 

5288 meaning of the warning sign used for notifying workers of restrictions on entering pesticide 

5289 treated areas on the establishment. Workers must follow employer directions and/or signs about 

5290 keeping out of entry restricted or pesticide treated areas. 

5291 - Agricultural employers must not allow or direct any worker who has not received full 

5292 pesticide safety training and additional early entry worker notification to work in any area that is 

5293 currently under an REI. Employers must comply with minimum age restrictions and notification 

5294 requirements in order to direct workers to perform early-entry activities. 

5295 - Agricultural employers must not allow or direct any worker to mix, load, or apply 

5296 pesticides or assist in the application of pesticides unless the worker has been trained as a 

5297 handler. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 237 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5298 - Agricultural employers are prohibited from intimidating, threatening, coercing, or 

5299 discriminating against any worker for the purposes of interfering with any attempt to comply 

5300 with the requirements of this part, or because the worker has made a complaint, testified, 

5301 assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing pursuant to this 

5302 part. 

5303 • Information about Potential Pesticide Hazards in the Workplace 

5304 - There are potential sources of pesticide exposure on agricultural establishments and 

5305 pesticides and/or pesticide residues may be encountered during work activities. This includes 

5306 pesticides drifting from nearby applications, and that pesticide residues may be on or in plants, 

5307 soil, irrigation water, tractors, application equipment, or used personal protective equipment. 

5308 - Pesticides can cause illness or injury if they enter your body. Pesticides can enter the 

5309 body by getting them on your skin or in your eyes, by swallowing them, or by breathing in their 

5310 vapors. 

5311 - There are potential hazards from toxicity and exposure that pesticides present to 

5312 workers, including acute and chronic illnesses/effects, delayed effects, and sensitization. 

5313 - There are potential hazards to children and pregnant women from pesticide exposure. 

5314 • How to Protect Yourself from Pesticide Exposure and Hazards in the Workplace 

5315 - When working near pesticides or in pesticide treated areas, wear work clothing that 

5316 protects the body from pesticide residues and always wash hands before eating, drinking, using 

5317 chewing gum or tobacco, or using the toilet. 

5318 - Wash or shower with soap and water, shampoo hair, and change into clean clothes as 

5319 soon as possible after working near or in pesticide treated areas. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 238 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5320 - There are potential hazards from the pesticide residues that may be on work clothing. 

5321 Wash work clothes before wearing them again, and always wash work clothes separately from 

5322 other clothes. 

5323 • Emergency First Aid Procedures for Pesticide Poisonings or Injuries 

5324 - Pesticides may cause skin rashes or hurt your eyes, nose or throat. Pesticides can make 

5325 you feel sick in different ways, such as headache or dizziness, muscles pain or cramps, nausea or 

5326 vomiting, sweating, drooling, fatigue, or trouble breathing. 

5327 - Wash immediately in the nearest clean water if pesticides are spilled or sprayed on the 

5328 body and as soon as possible, shower, shampoo hair, and change into clean clothes. If a pesticide 

5329 gets in your eyes, hold them open and rinse with a gentle stream of cool water. Rinse eyes for 15 

5330 minutes if possible. 

5331 - If you or someone you work with gets sick while working, tell your employer right 

5332 away. If you suspect you have been injured or made ill from pesticides, get medical help as soon 

5333 as possible. If you have been injured from pesticides while working, your employer must provide 

5334 emergency transportation to a nearby medical facility and provide information about the 

5335 pesticide or pesticides that may have made you sick. 

5336 After the employer provides the workers with the safety information in a language and 

5337 manner they understand, the employer must create a record of the information provided and 

5338 provide a copy of the record to the worker. The record would include the safety information 

5339 conveyed to the worker, an affirmation that the worker has been provide a copy of the safety 

5340 information sheet and that the information was communicated to the worker orally in a language 

5341 the worker understands, the worker’s name, signature, date of birth, the date the information was 

5342 provided, the employer’s name, and employer’s phone number or phone number of the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 239 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5343 establishment. The employer can have all workers sign the record and acknowledgement before 

5344 providing copies to each worker. 

5345 Finally, EPA is committed to protecting vulnerable populations. Workers face risk of 

5346 occupational exposure to pesticides. Through this proposed change, EPA seeks to mitigate the 

5347 elevated risk associated with entering a treated area without training on what pesticide risks may 

5348 be encountered in the workplace and how to protect oneself from pesticide exposure. EPA 

5349 believes this proposal is consistent with the principles of environmental justice, providing a 

5350 population that may face disproportionate risks of exposure based on the nature of their tasks, 

5351 limited understanding of English, low literacy, and low education level with information in 

5352 advance of the potential for exposure. 

5353 The proposed regulatory text establishing a 2 day grace period, altering the requirements 

5354 for training under the grace period, and establishing a requirement to maintain records for 2 years 

5355 appears in §170.309 of today’s proposed rule.

5356 5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates that replacing the current 5-day grace period with 

5357 the proposed 2-day exception to the requirement for employers to provide full pesticide safety 

5358 training to workers before directing workers to enter a pesticide treated area would cost $2.3 

5359 million, or about $6 per agricultural establishment. This cost estimate does not include 

5360 recordkeeping; the cost of the recordkeeping for worker training is discussed in Unit VII.B. For a 

5361 complete discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of 

5362 Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

5363 EPA could not estimate specific benefits associated with this proposal. However, EPA 

5364 believes that providing certain safety information to workers before they perform WPS tasks and 

5365 shortening the interval before they receive full training would decrease the number of 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 240 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5366 occupational pesticide-related illnesses because workers would be better informed on how to 

5367 protect themselves before entering a pesticide-treated area. 

5368 6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. As an alternative, EPA is considering 

5369 eliminating the grace period. Under this option, agricultural employers would be required to 

5370 provide all workers with full pesticide training before sending them into any treated area where 

5371 within the last 30 days a pesticide product bearing a label requiring compliance with the WPS 

5372 has been used, or an REI for such a pesticide has been in effect. Eliminating the grace period 

5373 would ensure that all workers are fully trained on how to protect both themselves and their 

5374 family members before entering an area covered by the WPS. The estimated cost for eliminating 

5375 the grace period for worker training would be $2.8 million, or about $7 per establishment. The 

5376 increased cost comes from the employer having to provide full pesticide safety training sessions 

5377 every time workers enter the establishment to perform WPS tasks, rather than waiting and 

5378 holding a larger training session for workers hired over a period of a few days. EPA does not 

5379 have sufficient data to compare the benefits of providing the pesticide safety training before 

5380 workers enter the treated area to ensure that workers are fully prepared and aware of the potential 

5381 risks they may encounter in the workplace, and the costs that agricultural employers might incur 

5382 if the grace period were eliminated. 

5383 Information exists that supports the alternative option to eliminate the grace period 

5384 entirely. First, the number of trainers may be sufficient. EPA reduced the grace period from 15 to 

5385 5 days over 10 years ago in recognition that employers had less difficulty finding someone to 

5386 provide pesticide safety training to workers. Based on significant outreach and support provided 

5387 by EPA to training organizations, such as AFOP, sufficient trainers may be available nationally 

5388 to meet the needs of agricultural employers without a grace period. Second, 90% of workers 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 241 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5389 report employment by 1 or 2 establishments a year (Ref. 3, p. 23). Employers now may deal with 

5390 less worker turnover and therefore may not need to provide multiple trainings throughout the 

5391 year. The lower burden on employers makes the call for a grace period less compelling. Lastly, 

5392 small business representatives advised EPA that they generally provide training to workers upon 

5393 employment to comply with other regulations or for general orientation (Ref. 18). Under the 

5394 proposal for worker pesticide safety training, once a worker is trained in a particular year, he or 

5395 she would receive a record of the training to show subsequent employers, thereby eliminating the 

5396 need for subsequent employers to repeat the training. 

5397 EPA notes that OSHA requires employers in almost all industries to notify their workers 

5398 of the hazards that may be encountered in the workplace before the work begins (29 CFR 

5399 1910.1200(h)). This requirement has been in place since 1983. OSHA established the standard 

5400 based on the belief that, without adequate knowledge of the potential dangers in the workplace, 

5401 workers would not be able to take protective measures or avoid hazards (52 FR 31852; August 

5402 24, 1987)(59 FR 6126; February 9, 1994) (Ref. 63). 

5403 7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following: 

5404 • Supply of trainers and how quickly they can be available. 

5405 • Frequency of hiring new workers during the year. 

5406 • Evidence about the frequency of illness for workers who receive basic vs. full pesticide 

5407 safety training. 

5408 • Should EPA eliminate the grace period? Why or why not? 

5409 • What would be the impact of eliminating the grace period on agricultural employers, 

5410 trainers, and/or workers? 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 242 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5411 • What would be the impact of a shorter grace period on agricultural employers and 

5412 trainers? 

5413 • Would retaining a shorter grace period as proposed negatively impact workers? If so, 

5414 how? 

5415 XIX. General Revisions to the WPS 

5416 A. Improved Definitions 

5417 The Agency proposes to revise 40 CFR 170.3 by revising certain definitions to provide 

5418 greater clarity, by adding several new definitions, and by eliminating several unnecessary 

5419 definitions. EPA believes that improved definitions would reduce the likelihood of alternative 

5420 interpretations, while improving compliance and enforceability. 

5421 The Agency believes these proposed revisions to the definitions adopt more widely used 

5422 and commonly accepted “plain English” language, and add clarity and consistency to the rule. 

5423 The proposed revisions to the definitions also help address regulatory or policy issues raised by 

5424 state regulatory partners and other program stakeholders. The Agency does not believe the 

5425 proposed revisions to the definitions will add new regulatory requirements on the regulated 

5426 community or substantially increase regulatory burden. 

5427 The following definitions appear in §170.5 of today’s proposed rule. 

5428 1. Revised definitions. The Agency proposes to revise the following existing definitions: 

5429 “agricultural employer,” “agricultural establishment,” “agricultural plant,” “commercial pesticide 

5430 handling establishment,” “crop advisor,” “farm,” “hand labor,” “handler,” “handler employer,” 

5431 “immediate family,” “nursery,” and “worker.” 

5432 The Agency proposes to change the existing definition of “immediate family” as follows: 

5433 “...includes only spouse, parents, stepparents, foster parents, father-in-law, mother-in-law, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 243 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5434 children, stepchildren, foster children, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law; grandparents, 

5435 grandchildren, brothers, sisters, brothers-in-law, and sisters-in-law.” The remaining revisions to 

5436 the existing definitions are simply intended to clarify those terms, rather than substantively alter 

5437 them. Substantive changes to the immediate family exemption considered but not proposed are 

5438 discussed in Unit XVIII.A. 

5439 2. New definitions. The Agency also proposes to add the following new definitions: 

5440 “authorized representative,” “closed system,” “commercial pesticide handler employer,” 

5441 “commercial production,” “enclosed space production,” “employ,” “enclosed cab,” “entry5442 restricted area,” “forest operation,” “labor contractor,” “outdoor production,” “personal 

5443 protective equipment,” “safety data sheet,” “use,” and “worker housing area.” 

5444 As an example of the changes to the definitions, the Agency proposes to define “employ” 

5445 as the receipt of either wages or salary for work. Under the current rule, a person is covered by 

5446 the WPS if he or she receives any type of compensation. Current interpretations of 

5447 compensation include students receiving credits and garden club members receiving benefits 

5448 such as coffee and cake at meetings. The proposed definition would limit WPS coverage to only 

5449 those who receive pay and perform worker or handler tasks when a pesticide has been applied or 

5450 an REI in effect on the establishment within the past 30 days. 

5451 3. Definitions to be deleted. The Agency proposes to delete the definition of 

5452 “greenhouse” because it is no longer necessary as a result of the proposed addition of “enclosed 

5453 space production.” The agency also proposes to delete the definition of “forest” because it is 

5454 being replaced with “forest operation.” Additional details regarding significant proposed 

5455 definition changes are discussed above. 

5456 4. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 244 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5457 • What impact do you expect on employers, workers, handlers, or other stakeholders as a 

5458 result of replacing the terms “farms,” “forests,” “nurseries,” and “greenhouses” with the terms 

5459 “outdoor production” and “enclosed space production”? 

5460 • What are the impacts of revising the definition of “immediate family”? 

5461 • Should EPA consider including cousins in the definition of immediate family? Why or 

5462 why not? 

5463 • What are the impacts of adding a definition of “employ”? 

5464 • What are the impacts of adding a definition of “authorized representative”? 

5465 • Are there other terms that the Agency should consider clarifying, redefining, or 

5466 eliminating from the rule? If so, please provide detail about the term(s) and rationale for change. 

5467 B. Restructuring of Part 170 

5468 In order to improve clarity and implement the principles of using plain language in 

5469 regulations, EPA proposes to reorganize the structure of part 170 and to rename the rule. EPA 

5470 expects the revised part 170 will be easier to read and understand, thereby improving compliance 

5471 by worker and handler employers. 

5472 1. Existing part 170. Part 170, the Worker Protection Standard, is organized into three 

5473 subparts: “General Provisions,” “Standard for Workers,” and “Standard for Handlers.” Often, 

5474 content that applies to both workers and handlers is repeated in two sections. The exemptions 

5475 and exceptions are listed throughout the rule. EPA has received feedback from states, 

5476 farmworker groups, employers, trainers, and other stakeholder groups that part 170 is difficult to 

5477 follow (Ref. 44). 

5478 2. Details of today’s proposal. EPA proposes to rename the regulation “Requirements for 

5479 Protection of Agricultural Workers and Pesticide Handlers.” The proposal would reorganize the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 245 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5480 rule into four subparts: “General Provisions,” “Requirements for Protection of Agricultural 

5481 Workers,” “Requirements for Protection of Pesticide Handlers,” and “Exemptions and 

5482 Exceptions.” The “General Provisions” subpart would describe certain obligations for 

5483 agricultural employers, handler employers, and those requirements that apply to both. The 

5484 subparts “Requirements for Protection of Agricultural Workers” and “Requirements for 

5485 Protection of Pesticide Handlers” would provide information that supplements the general duties 

5486 and obligations for employers and outline the content of the training and decontamination 

5487 supplies that the employer must provide for workers and handlers respectively. Finally, EPA 

5488 consolidated most of the exceptions and exemptions into a separate subpart to make them easier 

5489 to find and reference. 

5490 EPA believes that the restructured rule will facilitate better understanding of the rule by 

5491 employers and state and tribal regulatory agencies. EPA specifically requests comment on the 

5492 following questions: 

5493 • Is the restructuring clearer and easier to read and understand? 

5494 • Are there other ways that part 170 could be simplified or made clearer? If so, please 

5495 provide suggested language and rationale 

5496 XX. Implementation of this Proposal

5497 EPA proposes to make the final rule effective 60 days after the date of publication in the 

5498 Federal Register; however, compliance with certain provisions, including the additional pesticide 

5499 safety training content and pesticide safety information and new signs for posting, would not be 

5500 required until 2 years after the publication date of the final rule. The 2 year delay between 

5501 publication of the final rule and the effective date of the changes would give state and tribal 

5502 regulators, employers, trainers, and other stakeholders time to make the necessary changes to 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 246 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5503 their daily activities and for materials and signs to be developed and made available. EPA 

5504 expects that employers would need new signs and training materials to transition to new 

5505 requirements. State regulators would need to become familiar with the new regulation and 

5506 conduct outreach to the regulated community. Trainers would have to become familiar with the 

5507 additional training content, to ensure that they meet any eligibility requirements, and to obtain 

5508 new training materials. 

5509 To facilitate implementation, EPA plans to issue a “how to comply” guidance document 

5510 at the time the final rule is published, to develop and disseminate new training materials, to 

5511 conduct outreach to all potentially affected parties, and to provide assistance to states. 

5512 XXI. Reference List 

5513 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs. 2013. Economic 

5514 Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard. Washington, D.C. 

5515 2. Lee, S-J, Mehler, L, Beckman, J, Diebolt-Brown, B, Prado, J, Lackovic, M, et al. 

5516 “Acute Pesticide Illnesses Associated with Off-Target Pesticide Drift from Agricultural 

5517 Applications.” Environ Health Perspect 119 (2011):1162-1169. 

5518 3. U.S. Department of Labor. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy. Office of 

5519 Programmatic Policy. 2005. Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 

5520 2001-2002: A Demographic and Employment Profile of United States Farm Workers. Research 

5521 Report No. 9. 

5522 4. S. Rep. No. 92-883 (Part II), 92nd Congress, 2nd Session at 43-46 (1972). U.S. Code 

5523 Congressional and Administrative News 1972, p. 4063. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 247 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5524 5. Rosenbaum, S and Shin, P. “Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers: Health Insurance 

5525 Coverage and Access to Care.” The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. May 3, 

5526 2005. Pub no. 7314. 

5527 6. Kandel, W. 2008. Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update. Economic Research 

5528 Report No. 60. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. 

5529 7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs. 2007. OPP 

5530 Report on Incident Information: The Baseline. 

5531 8. Harchelroad, F, et al. “Treated vs. Reported Toxic Exposures: Discrepancies Between 

5532 a Poison Control Center and a Member Hospital.” Vet Hum Toxicol 32 (1990): 156-159. 

5533 9. Chafee-Bahamon, C, Caplan, DL and Lovejoy, Jr, FH. “Patterns in Hospitals' Use of a 

5534 Regional Poison Information Center.” Am J Public Health 73 (1983): 396-400. 

5535 10. Veltri, JC, McElwee, NE and Schumacher, MC. “Interpretation and uses of data 

5536 collection in poison control centers in the United States.” Med Toxicol Adverse Drug Exp 2 no.6 

5537 (1987): 389-397. 

5538 11. Calvert, G M, et al. “Acute pesticide poisoning among agricultural workers in the 

5539 United States, 1998-2005.” American J Ind Med 51, no. 12 (December 2008): 883-898. 

5540 12. Reigart, JR and Roberts, JR. 1999. Recognition and Management of Pesticide 

Poisonings. 5th 5541 Ed. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs. EPA# 

5542 735-R-98-003. 

5543 13. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Inspection Procedures for the 

5544 Hazard Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200, 1915.99, 1917.28, 1918.90, 1926.59, and 

5545 1928.21. March 20, 1998. CPL 02-02-038. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 248 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5546 14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Agricultural Worker Protection Standard 40 

5547 CFR Parts 156 & 170 Interpretive Policy, Question and Answers Website.” Retrieved August 25, 

5548 2011. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/workers/wpsinterpolicy.htm. 

5549 15. ARI/EPA General Training Issues Workgroup. 2003. Recommendations to the U.S. 

5550 Environmental Protection Agency for Improving Farmworker Pesticide Safety Training from the 

5551 ARI/EPA General Training Issues Workgroup.

5552 16. Council for Agricultural Sciences and Technology and U.S. Environmental Protection 

5553 Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs. 2004. Train the Trainer Pilot Project Final Report. 

5554 17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs. 2005. Report 

5555 on the National Assessment of EPA’s Worker Safety Program.

5556 18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs. 2008. Small 

5557 Business Advocacy Review Panel on EPA Planned Revisions to Two Related Rules: Worker 

5558 Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides (RIN 2070-AJ22); and Certification of Pesticide 

5559 Applicators (RIN 2070-AJ20). Washington, DC. 

5560 19. U.S. Government Accounting Office. 1992. Hired Farmworkers: Health and Well5561 Being at Risk. Report to Congressional Requesters. GAO/HRD-92-46. 

5562 20. U.S. Government Accounting Office. 2000. Pesticides: Improvements Needed to 

5563 Ensure the Safety of Farmworkers and their Families. Report to Congressional Requesters. 

5564 GAO/RCED-00-40. 

5565 21. Ward, MH, et al. “Proximity to Crops and Residential Exposure to Agricultural 

5566 Herbicides in Iowa.” Environ Health Perspect 114, no. 6 (2006): 893-897. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 249 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5567 22. McCauley, LA, et al. “Work Characteristics and Pesticide Exposures Among Migrant 

5568 Agricultural Families: a Community-based Research Approach.” Environ Health Perspect 109, 

5569 no. 5 (2001): 533-538. 

5570 23. McCauley, L A, et al. “Pesticide Exposure and Self Reported Home Hygiene: 

5571 Practices in Agricultural Families.” AAOHN Journal. 51, no. 3 (2003):113-119. 

5572 24. Rao, P, et al. “Pesticide Safety Behaviors in Latino Farmworker Family Households.” 

5573 Am J Ind Med. 49, no. 4 (2006): 271-280. 

5574 25. Bradman, A, et al. “Community-Based Intervention to Reduce Pesticide Exposure to 

5575 Farmworkers and Potential Take-home Exposure to their Families.” J Expo Sci Environ 

5576 Epidemiol 19, no.1 (2009):179-189. 

5577 26. Natural Resources Defense Council. Comments from the Natural Resources Defense 

5578 Council on the Revised Risk Assessment Methods for Workers, Children of Workers in 

5579 Agricultural Fields, and Pesticides with No Food Uses (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0889-0002). April 

5580 2010. 

5581 27. Human Rights Watch. Fingers to the Bone: United States Failure to Protect Child 

5582 Farmworkers. 2000. Washington, D.C. 

5583 28. Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee. 1998. Report of the Children's 

5584 Health Protection Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regarding 

5585 the Selection of Five Regulations for Re-Evaluation. 

5586 29. Calvert, GM, et al. “Acute Pesticide-related Illnesses Among Working Youths, 1988-

5587 1999.” Am J Public Health 93, no. 4 (2003): 605-610. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 250 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5588 30. Curl, CL, et al. “Evaluation of Take-home Organophosphorus Pesticide Exposure 

5589 Among Agricultural Workers and their Children.” Environ Health Perspect 110, no. 12 (2002): 

5590 A787-A792. 

5591 31. Coronado, GD, et al. “Agricultural Task and Exposure to Organophosphate Pesticides 

5592 Among Farmworkers.” Environ Health Perspect 112, no. 2 (2004): 142–147. 

5593 32. Sánchez Lizardi, P, O'Rourke, MK and Morris, RJ. “The Effects of Organophosphate 

5594 Pesticide Exposure on Hispanic Children's Cognitive and Behavioral Functioning.” J Pediatr 

5595 Psychol 33, no. 1 (2007): 91-101. 

5596 33. Das, R, et al. “Pesticide-related Illness Among Migrant Farm Workers in the United 

5597 States.” Int J Occup Environ Health 7, no. 4 (2001): 303-312. 

5598 34. Goldman, L, et al. “Risk Behaviors for Pesticide Exposure Among Pregnant Women 

5599 Living in Farmworker Households in Salinas, California.” Am J Ind Med. 45, no. 6 (2004): 491-

5600 499. 

5601 35. Davis, S., et. al. Letter to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator 

5602 Stephen Johnson. On behalf of Farmworker Justice et al. December 15, 2006. 

5603 36 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs. 2007. Compiled 

5604 Comments of the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee on May 2007 Issue Papers. 

5605 Washington, DC.

5606 37. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs. 2007. Pesticide 

5607 Program Dialogue Committee Worker Safety Regulation Change Subgroup, Summary of PREP 

5608 and PPDC Comments. Washington, DC. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 251 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5609 38. Calabro, K, Bright, K and Kouzekanani, K. “Long-term Effectiveness of Infection 

5610 Control Training among Fourth Year Medical Students.” Medical Education Online. 5, no. 1, 

5611 (2000): 1-7. http://www.med-ed-online.org 

5612 39. Spradley, Ples. Correspondence to Kathy Davis, U.S. Environmental Protection 

5613 Agency on Pesticide Worker Safety Program Enhancement. American Association of Pesticide 

5614 Safety Educators. June 7, 2007. 

5615 40. Glasnapp, J., Nakamoto, J. 2007. Hazard Communications for Agricultural Workers. 

5616 JBS International, Inc. Aguirre Division. 

5617 41. Adams, S. “Improving safety instruction and results: Five principles of sound 

5618 training. Professional Safety.” Professional Safety. December 1, 2000. Article available at 

5619 http://www.allbusiness.com/education-training/employee-training-assistance5620 employee/11442447-1.html. 

5621 42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs. 2008. 

5622 Summary of Potential SER Written and Oral Comments Received in Response to Small Business 

5623 Advocacy Review Panel Outreach Meetings. Washington, DC. 

5624 43. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs. 2010. Worker 

5625 Pesticide Safety Training Verification Card Order Report. Washington, DC. 

5626 44. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs. 2000. The 

5627 National Assessment of the Worker Safety Program, Stakeholder Workshop #1. 

5628 45. Dubberly, D. Email correspondence to Elizabeth Evans, U.S. Environmental 

5629 Protection Agency. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. July 18, 2006. 

5630 46. American Association of Pesticide Safety Educators. 2006. FL SDA Comments on 

5631 EPA’s Plans for Proposed C&T and WPS Rule Changes. Washington, DC. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 252 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5632 47. NASDAF Workgroup. National Worker Safety Trainer Handbook: Pesticide Safety 

5633 for Agricultural Workers. (Washington, DC: National Association of State Departments of 

5634 Agriculture Foundation, 2008). EPA Cooperative agreement no. X8-83235401. 

5635 48. Wallerstein, N and Rubenstein, H. Teaching about Job Hazards, A Guide for Workers 

5636 and Their Health Providers. (Washington, DC, American Public Health Association, 1993.) 

5637 49. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Centers for Disease Control and 

5638 Prevention. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. Report to Congress on 

5639 Workers’ Home Contamination Study Conducted Under the Workers’ Family Protection Act (29 

5640 U.S.C. 671a). September 1995. Publication No. 95-123. 

5641 50. Lu, C, et al. “Pesticide Exposure of Children in an Agricultural Community: 

5642 Evidence of Household Proximity to Farmland and Take Home Exposure Pathways.” 

5643 Environmental Research 84, no. 3 (2000):b290-302. 

5644 51. Lambert, W E, et al. “Variation in Organophosphate Pesticide Metabolites in Urine of 

5645 Children Living in Agricultural Communities.” Environ Health Perspect 113, no. 4 (2005): 504-

5646 508. 

5647 52. Arcury, T A, et al. “Pesticide Urinary Metabolite Levels of Children in Eastern North 

5648 Carolina Farmworker Households.” Environ Health Perspect 115, no. 8 (2007): 1254–1260. 

5649 53. Liebman, A K, et al. “A Pilot Program using Promotoras de Salud to Educate 

5650 Farmworker Families About the Risks from Pesticide Exposure.” J Agromedicine 12, no. 2 

5651 (2007):33-43. 

5652 54. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Children's Environmental Health Centers 

5653 (CEHCs) Website.” Retrieved April 21, 2011. http://www.epa.gov/ncer/childrenscenters/. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 253 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5654 55. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Children's Environmental Health Centers 

5655 (CEHCs): University of California at Berkeley Center for Children's Environmental Health 

5656 Research Website” Retrieved August 5, 2011. 

5657 http://www.epa.gov/ncer/childrenscenters/berkeley.html. 

5658 56. Bradman, M A, et al. “Pesticide Exposures to Children from California's Central 

5659 Valley: Results of a Pilot Study.” J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 7, no. 2 (1997): 217-234. 

5660 57. Quandt, S A, et al. “Agricultural and Residential Pesticides in Wipe Samples from 

5661 Farmworker Family Residences in North Carolina and Virginia.” 112, no. 3 (2004): 382-387. 

5662 58. Coronado, G D, et al. “Organophosphate Pesticide Exposure and Work in Pome Fruit: 

5663 Evidence for the Take-home Pesticide Pathway.” Environ Health Perspect 114, no. 7 (2006): 

5664 999-1006. 

5665 59. Wolgalter, S, Sojourner, J and Brelsford, J. “Comprehension and retention of safety 

5666 pictorials.” Ergonomics. 40, no. 5 (1997): 531-542. 

5667 60. Spencer, J R. November 2, 2001. Health and Safety Report: Analysis of the Impact of 

5668 the Federal Worker Protection Standard and Recommendations for Improving California’s 

5669 Worker Protection Program Regarding Field Posting. California Environmental Protection 

5670 Agency Department of Pesticide Regulation. HS-1819. 

5671 61. U.S. Department of Labor. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy. Office of 

5672 Program Economics. 2000. Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 

5673 1997-1998. Research Report No. 8. 

5674 62. Davis, TC, et al. “Low Literacy Impairs Comprehension of Prescription Warning 

5675 Labels.” J Gen Intern Med 21, no. 8 (2006): 847-851. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 254 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5676 63. U.S. General Accounting Office . 1992. Employers' Experiences in Complying with 

5677 the Hazard Communication Standard. Briefing Report to Congressional Requesters. GAO/HRD5678 92-63BR. 

5679 64. U.S. Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. “State 

5680 Occupational Safety and Health Plans Website.” Retrieved September 14, 2011. 

5681 http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/index.html. 

5682 65. U.S. Department of Labor. Employment and Training Administration. “The National 

5683 Agricultural Workers Survey Website.” Retrieved January 11, 2011. 

5684 http://www.doleta.gov/agworker/naws.cfm. 

5685 66. North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 2, Chapter 9, Subchapter L, Part 1807. 

5686 2009. 

5687 67. Cotto-Febo, S. “Portable Central Location Project.” (Presentation, Presented 

5688 October,3, 2007 at Worker Safety and Health Symposium, U.S. Environmental Protection 

5689 Agency, Arlington VA. October 3, 2007.) 

5690 68. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

5691 Assurance. 2006. Overview of WPS Violations During 2006 Inspections.

5692 69. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

5693 Assurance. 2007. Overview of WPS Violations during 2007 Inspections.

5694 70. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

5695 Assurance. 2008. Overview of WPS Violations during 2008 Inspections.

5696 71. Calvert, G M, et al. “Case Report: Three Farmworkers Who Gave Birth to Infants 

5697 with Birth Defects Closely Grouped in Time and Place—Florida and North Carolina, 2004–

5698 2005.” Environ Health Perspect 115, no. 5 (2007): 787-791. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 255 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5699 72. Cline, JS. Letter to Jim Jones, Director of the Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. 

5700 Environmental Protection Agency. On behalf of North Carolina Department of Health and 

5701 Human Services. February 2007. 

5702 73. Washington State Department of Health. 2010. 2009 Annual Report: Pesticide 

5703 Incident Reporting and Tracking Review Panel.

5704 74. Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee. Letter to Administrator Stephen J. 

5705 Johnson, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Recommendations Regarding 

5706 Protecting Farmworker Children. November 15, 2005.

5707 75. Krieger, R, et al. “Gauging Pesticide Exposure of Handlers 

5708 (mixers/loaders/applicators) and Harvesters in California Agriculture.” Med Lav 81, no. 6 

5709 (1990): 474-479. 

5710 76. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for 

5711 Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. National 

5712 Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Recommendations to the U.S. Department 

5713 of Labor for Changes to Hazardous Orders. May 3, 2002. 

5714 77. Casey, BJ, Jones, RM and Hare, T A. “The Adolescent Brain.” Ann N Y Acad Sci

5715 March (2008): 111-126. 

5716 78. Farmworker Justice et al. Pesticides In the Air – Kids at Risk: Petition to EPA to 

5717 Protect Children from Pesticide Drift. October 13, 2009. 

5718 79. Young, M and Rischeitelli, D G. “Occupational Risks and Risk Perception among 

5719 Hispanic Adolescents.” McGill J Med 9, no. 1 (2006): 49-53. 

5720 80. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. How to Comply with the Worker Protection 

5721 Standard for Agricultural Pesticides: What Employers Need To Know. Revised 2005. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 256 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5722 81. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. USDA Comments for the PPDC 

5723 Worker Safety Regulation Change Subgroup. Washington, D.C. 

5724 82. Freeman Adcock, R, McAllister, R and Kelly, A. Letter to Kathy Davis, Certification 

5725 and Worker Protection Branch, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; Comments on Position 

5726 Papers Relating to Worker Protection Standards (WPS). Pesticide Policy Coalition. August 31, 

5727 2007. 

5728 83. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Transmittal of Meeting minutes of the FIFRA 

5729 Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting Held December 2-5, 2008 on the Scientific Issues Associated 

5730 with Worker Reentry Exposure Assessment. February 19, 2009. 

5731 84. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs. Updated 

5732 August 2010. Label Review Manual Chapter 7: Precautionary Statements.

5733 85. American National Standards Institute. American National Standard for Emergency 

5734 Eyewash and Shower Equipment. ANSI Z358.1-1990. 

5735 86. Cooke, G, et al. 2011. Oregon OSHA Pesticide Emphasis Program Annual Report: 

5736 Federal Fiscal Year 2010. Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services. Information 

5737 Management Division. 

5738 87. Matoian, R. Letter to Joe Hogue, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Small 

5739 Business Representative comments on WPS. July 14, 2008. 

5740 88. Arcury, T A, et al. “Farmworker reports of pesticide safety and sanitation in the work 

5741 environment.” Am J Ind Med 39, no. 5 (2001): 487-498. 

5742 89. California Department of Pesticide Regulation. California Code of Regulations. Title 

5743 3. Food and Agriculture. Division 6. Pesticides and Pest Control Operations; Section 6746. 2012. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 257 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5744 90. California Department of Pesticide Regulation. California Code of Regulations. Title 

5745 3. Food and Agriculture. Division 6. Pesticides and Pest Control Operations; Section 6000. 2012. 

5746 91. California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Worker Health and Safety Branch. 

5747 Closed Systems Director’s Memo. January 2, 1998. 

5748 92. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and 

5749 Prevention. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 2004. NIOSH Alert:

5750 Preventing Occupational Exposures to Antioplastic and other Hazardous Drugs in Health Care 

5751 Settings. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication Number 2004−165. 

5752 93. Minnesota Department of Health. “Medical Screening Website: Physiologic effects of 

5753 respirator use.” Retrieved November 17, 2010. Calvert, G M and Higgins, S A. “Using 

5754 Surveillance Data to Promote Occupational Health and Safety Policies and Practices at the State 

5755 Level: a Case Study.” Am J Ind Med 53, no. 2 (2010): 188-193. 

5756 94. California Department of Pesticide Regulation. California Code of Regulations. Title 

5757 3. Food and Agriculture. Division 6. Pesticides and Pest Control Operations; Section 6720-6746. 

5758 95. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. “Cholinesterase Monitoring 

5759 Website.” Retrieved March 15, 2011. 

5760 http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/Topics/AtoZ/Cholinesterase/. 

5761 96. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. Division of Occupational 

5762 Safety and Health. 2009. Cholinesterase Monitoring of Pesticide Handlers in Agriculture: 2009 

5763 Report.

5764 97. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. Division of Occupational 

5765 Safety and Health. January 2007. Cholinesterase Monitoring of Pesticide Handlers in 

5766 Agriculture: Report to the Legislature.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 258 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5767 98. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs. “Pesticide 

5768 Reregistration Status for Organophosphates Website.” Retrieved May 10, 2011. 

5769 http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status_op.htm. 

5770 99. Washington State Department of Health. Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking 

5771 Review Panel 2005 Annual Report. December 2005.

5772 100. Washington State Department of Health. Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking 

5773 Review Panel Annual Report. May 2007. 

5774 101. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. 2003. Benefit-Cost 

5775 Determination: Cholinesterase Monitoring in Agriculture. WAC 296-307-148. 

5776 102. Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs. 2011. Dangerous Exposure: 

5777 Farmworker Children and Pesticides. Health and Safety Programs Annual Report, Vol. 1. 

5778 103. Eskenazi, B, Bradman, A and Castorina, R. “Exposures of Children to 

5779 Organophosphate Pesticides and their Potential Adverse Health Effects.” Environ Health 

5780 Perspect Environ Health Perspect 107, Suppl. 3 (1999): 409-419. 

5781 104. Jones, A and Smith, L. Letter to Kevin Keaney, Branch Chief, Certification & 

5782 Worker Protection Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Comments regarding Issue 

5783 Paper, "Making the Regulatory Requirements for Certified Crop Advisors, Crop Advisor 

5784 Employees & Aerial Apps.” On behalf of National Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants, 

5785 Certified Crop Advisors. 2006. 

5786 105. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Agricultural Worker Protection Standard 

5787 Training and Notification (Proposed Rule). EPA ICR No. 2491.01 and OMB Control No. 2070-

5788 NEW. 2013. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 259 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5789 106. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Agricultural Worker Protection Standard 

5790 Training and Notification.EPA ICR number 1759.07 and OMB Control No. 2070-0148. 2013. 

5791 XXII. FIFRA Review Requirements 

5792 Under FIFRA section 25(a), EPA has submitted a draft of the proposed rule to the 

5793 Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and the appropriate Congressional Committees. Their 

5794 comments on this proposed rule and EPA’s responses are located in the docket for this 

5795 rulemaking. 

5796 The Science Advisory Panel waived its review of this proposal on February 7, 2013.

5797 XXIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

5798 A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review; and, Executive Order 13563: 

5799 Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

5800 Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993), this action is a 

5801 "significant regulatory action" because it may raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of 

5802 legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. 

5803 Accordingly, EPA submitted this proposed rulemaking to the Office of Management and Budget 

5804 (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821; January 21, 2011), 

5805 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the 

5806 public docket for this action. 

5807 Each of the WPS provisions is intended to do one of the following: (1) inform farm 

5808 workers and pesticide handlers about the hazards and risks from pesticides they use or with 

5809 which they come into contact in the workplace, (2) protect workers and handlers from 

5810 occupational exposure to pesticides and the potential adverse effects, or (3) mitigate the potential 

5811 adverse effects of unavoidable pesticide exposure, including accidents. Within these categories, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 260 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5812 EPA evaluated the costs and benefits of alternative requirements and is proposing a set of 

5813 requirements that, in combination, is expected to achieve substantial benefits at minimum cost. 

5814 In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this 

5815 proposed action, titled “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection 

5816 Standard” (Ref. 1). A copy of the analysis is available in the docket for this action and is briefly 

5817 summarized here. 

5818 EPA estimates the incremental cost of the proposed revisions to be between about $62 

5819 million and $72 million annually. These costs are almost entirely borne by farms that hire labor 

5820 and use pesticides, which account for about 25 percent of all crop farms in the United States. 

5821 Commercial pesticide handling establishments, which contract to apply pesticides on farms, may 

5822 see an incremental cost of $170 to $190 per year per firm. The cost to individual farms will 

5823 depend on the number and type of employees employed. EPA estimates that larger farms will 

5824 incur costs of $350 to $400 per year. Smaller operations are estimated to incur costs between 

5825 $130 and $150 per year, which amounts to less than 0.1 percent of average annual revenue. 

5826 The incremental cost to employ a worker is estimated to be less than $5 per year, which 

5827 would not be expected to have an impact on employment. The incremental cost to employ a 

5828 pesticide handler is estimated to be about $60 per year, which represents 0.3 percent of the total 

5829 cost of a part-time employee, a marginal increase that would not be expected to have an impact 

5830 on job availability. 

5831 The benefits of the proposed rule would accrue to agricultural workers, pesticide handlers 

5832 and, indirectly due to reduced take-home pesticide exposure, to their families. The revised rule is 

5833 expected to substantially mitigate the potential for adverse health effects (both acute and chronic) 

5834 for these workers and handlers from occupational exposures to pesticides. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 261 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5835 It is difficult to quantify a specific level of risk and project the risk reduction that will 

5836 result from this rule, because workers and handlers are potentially exposed to a wide range of 

5837 pesticides with different toxicities and risks; however, the proposed changes to the WPS are 

5838 designed to reduce occupational exposure to all pesticides. EPA believes there is sufficient 

5839 evidence in the peer-reviewed literature to suggest reducing pesticide exposure would result in a 

5840 benefit to public health through reduced acute and chronic illness. 

5841 Overall, the weight of evidence suggests that the proposed requirements would result in 

5842 long-term health benefits to agricultural workers and pesticide handlers. EPA is not able to 

5843 estimate the dollar value of the benefits that accrue from reducing chronic exposure to pesticides 

5844 but there are well-documented associations between pesticide exposure and certain cancer and 

5845 non-cancer chronic health effects in the peer-reviewed literature. The proposed requirements 

5846 provide benefits to the 2.3 million workers and pesticide handlers, not only by reducing their 

5847 daily risk of pesticide exposures but also by improving quality of life throughout their lives, 

5848 resulting in a lower cost of healthcare and a healthier society. Many of the changes to current 

5849 WPS requirements specifically mitigate the potential for workers to transport pesticide residues 

5850 home to their families. Thus, the proposed requirements are expected to reduce children’s 

5851 exposure to pesticides. The agency believes the unquantified benefits to children of workers and 

5852 handlers are great, and reducing exposure to pesticides could translate into fewer sick days, 

5853 fewer days missed of school, improved capacity to learn, and better long-term health. Parents 

5854 and caregivers reap benefits by having healthier families, fewer missed workdays, and better 

5855 quality of life, as well. 

5856 EPA does estimate a value of avoided acute incidents as a result of the proposed rule, 

5857 although this estimate is biased downward by an unknown degree for several reasons. First, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 262 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5858 pesticide incidents, like many illnesses and accidents, are underreported because sufferers may 

5859 not seek medical care, cases may not be correctly diagnosed, and correctly diagnosed cases may 

5860 not be filed with the central reporting database. Second, our approach only measures avoided 

5861 medical costs and lost wages, not the willingness to pay to avoid possible symptoms due to 

5862 pesticide exposure, which could be substantially higher. Just the small amount EPA is able to 

5863 monetize accrues to be between $1.2 million and $2.8 million annually. The effect of 

5864 underreporting can be significant. If only 25% of poisonings are reported (within the range of 

5865 estimates in the literature), the quantified estimated benefits of the rule would be about $11.4 

5866 million annually. This conservative estimate only includes the avoided costs in medical care and 

5867 lost productivity to workers and handlers. It does not include quantification of the reduction in 

5868 chronic effects of pesticide exposure to workers and handlers, reduced effects of exposure 

5869 including developmental impacts, to children and pregnant workers and handlers, or willingness 

5870 to pay to avoid symptoms of pesticide exposure. 

5871 Because the proposed changes to the requirements for protection of workers and handlers 

5872 apply to many different pesticides in many different situations, EPA is not able to quantify the 

5873 benefits expected to accrue from reducing chronic exposure to pesticides; however, well5874 documented associations between pesticide exposure and certain cancer and non-cancer chronic 

5875 health effects exist in peer-reviewed literature. EPA conducted a “break even” analysis to 

5876 demonstrate the potential benefits that would result from reducing a very small number of 

5877 chronic illnesses that have well-documented associations with pesticide exposure. Under this 

5878 analysis, avoiding only 53 total cases of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, prostate cancer, Parkinson’s 

5879 disease, lung cancer, bronchitis, and asthma (under 0.8 % of total cases among workers) would 

5880 bridge the gap between the estimated benefits from reducing acute incidents and the cost of the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 263 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5881 rule, about $63.7 million. Overall, the weight of evidence suggests that the proposed 

5882 requirements would result in long term health benefits to agricultural workers and pesticide 

5883 handlers, not only by reducing their daily risk of pesticide exposures, but also by improving 

5884 quality of life throughout their lives, resulting in a lower cost of health care and a healthier 

5885 society. 

5886 In addition, changes to the current WPS requirements, namely improved training on 

5887 reducing pesticide residues brought from the treated area to the home on workers and handlers’ 

5888 clothing and bodies and establishing a minimum age for handlers and early entry workers, other 

5889 than those covered by the immediate family exemption, specifically mitigate the potential for 

5890 children to be exposed to pesticides directly and indirectly. The unquantified benefit to 

5891 adolescent workers and handlers, as well as children of workers and handlers is great; reducing 

5892 exposure to pesticides could translate into fewer sick days, fewer days missed of school, 

5893 improved capacity to learn, and better long-term health. Parents and caregivers reap benefits by 

5894 having healthier families, fewer missed workdays, and better quality of life. 

5895 B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

5896 The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for 

5897 approval to OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. EPA has prepared an Information 

5898 Collection Request (ICR) document to replace the existing approved ICR. The new ICR 

5899 document, which is titled “Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Training and Notification 

5900 (Proposed Rule)” and is identified by EPA ICR No. 2491.01 and OMB Control No. 2070-NEW, 

5901 has been placed in the docket for this proposed rule (Ref. 105). Responses to the proposed 

5902 amendments would be mandatory. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 264 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5903 The information activities related to the current WPS requirements are already approved 

5904 by OMB in an ICR entitled, “Worker Protection Standard Training and Notification” (EPA ICR 

5905 No. 1759; OMB Control No. 2070-0148) (Ref 106). The proposed rule replacement ICR 

5906 addresses the information collection requirements contained in the current regulations as well as 

5907 in the amendments identified in this proposed rule. The amendments include: 

5908 • Increasing the amount of training handlers and workers receive 

5909 • Establishing a minimum age for pesticide handlers and workers engaged in early-entry 

5910 activities 

5911 • Increasing record-keeping responsibilities of the agricultural employers and handler 

5912 employers. 

5913 The replacement ICR addresses adjustments to the estimated number of respondents, time 

5914 for activities, and wage rates related to the current regulatory requirements as approved under 

5915 OMB Control No. 2070-0148. In addition, the replacement ICR addresses program changes 

5916 related to the proposed amendments, including modifications to restrictions in field entry 

5917 activities during restricted entry intervals; increased hazard communications; increased training 

5918 (for both workers and handlers); provisions for information during emergency assistance; and 

5919 recordkeeping for respirator requirements and for workers performing early entry activities. The 

5920 estimated annual burden approved by OMB under OMB Control No. is 1,776,131 hours. The 

5921 total estimated annual respondent burden being proposed in the replacement ICR is 8,355,847 

5922 hours, a net increase of 6,579,716 hours. 

5923 The estimated burden represents the total to comply with the full WPS, including all 

5924 proposed revisions and those that are unchanged by this proposal. This differs from the estimated 

5925 incremental cost of the proposal, which only considers the net cost of the proposed revisions. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 265 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5926 The burdens of the various activities range from 30 seconds per respondent for workers to 

5927 provide acknowledgements to their employers to an hour per respondent for handler training. 

5928 This estimate includes third-party WPS training and notification requirements. Burden is defined 

5929 at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

5930 An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 

5931 collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB 

5932 control numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

5933 Any comments on the Agency’s need for information, the accuracy of the provided 

5934 burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, should be 

5935 directed to the public docket for this proposed rule, under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP5936 2011-0184. See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit 

5937 comments to EPA. In addition, please submit a copy of your comments on the ICR directly to 

5938 OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 

725 17th 5939 Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is 

5940 required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after [insert date of 

5941 publication], a comment to OMB is best assured of having the full effect if OMB receives it by 

5942 [insert 30 days after the date of publication]. The final will address any comments received 

5943 regarding the information collection requirements contained in this proposal. 

5944 C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

5945 The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 

5946 flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

5947 Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 266 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5948 not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities 

5949 include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. 

5950 For purposes of assessing the impacts of today’s proposed rule on small entities, small entity is 

5951 defined in accordance with the RFA as: 

5952 1. A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations 

5953 at 13 CFR 121.201. The SBA’s definitions typically are based upon either a sales or an 

5954 employment level, depending on the nature of the industry. 

5955 2. A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school 

5956 district or special district with a population of less than 50,000. 

5957 3. A small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned 

5958 and operated and is not dominant in its field. 

5959 Pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, 5 USC 601 et seq., the Agency hereby certifies 

5960 that this action will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of 

5961 small entities. The factual basis for the Agency’s determination is presented in the small entity 

5962 impact analysis prepared as part of the economic analysis for this proposed rule and a copy of 

5963 which is available in the docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 18). The following is a brief summary 

5964 of the factual basis for this certification. 

5965 Although not required by the RFA to convene a Small Business Advocacy Review 

5966 (SBAR) Panel for this particular proposed rule because EPA has ultimately determined that this 

5967 proposal would not have a significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small 

5968 entities, EPA convened a SBAR Panel to obtain advice and recommendations from small entities 

5969 representatives potentially subject to the proposed rule’s requirements. EPA’s subsequent small 

5970 business analysis demonstrates that there will not be a significant impact on a substantial number 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 267 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5971 of small entities. Nevertheless, a Panel consisting of the following four individuals was 

5972 convened: 

5973 • EPA’s Small Business Advocacy Chairperson, 

5974 • Director of the Field and External Affairs Division of EPA’s Office of Pesticide 

5975 Programs, 

5976 • Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of 

5977 Management and Budget, and 

5978 • Acting Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. 

5979 The Panel was convened to consider revisions to two related rules, which were being revised by 

5980 EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs: Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides; and 

5981 Certification of Pesticide Applicators. 

5982 The Worker Protection Standard applies to the following agricultural establishments 

5983 engaged in the production of agricultural commodities: farms, forests, nurseries, and 

5984 greenhouses. 

5985 Since many agricultural establishments are small entities, the WPS would potentially 

5986 impact a large number of small entities. After extensive research from several sources, including 

5987 the National Agricultural Statistics Service, state pesticide usage data, the Bureau of Labor 

5988 Statistics, and internet research, EPA assembled a list of industries that could be affected by the 

5989 regulation. EPA then reviewed qualifications for small and large entities. The number of entities 

5990 by industry is listed in the Final Report of the SBAR Panel for the two rules (Ref. 18). 

5991 In January 2008, EPA began an informal outreach process to potential Small Entity 

5992 Representatives (SERs, representatives of the small entities who may be subject to the 

5993 requirements of the proposed rule) as part of the pre-SBAR panel planning process. SERs 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 268 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5994 participate in the process to ensure that EPA hears the concerns and suggestions of small entities. 

5995 EPA contacted States, agricultural extension agents, and organizations known to represent 

5996 affected small business, such as grower associations, and various pest control industry 

5997 associations to ask them to submit the names of potential SERs. EPA looked for representatives 

5998 from differing types of businesses involved in pesticide application and/or different crops or 

5999 agricultural commodities. EPA also sought to have representatives from a number of geographic 

6000 areas of the nation. 

6001 In February 2008, EPA sent an e-mail to the 20 potential SERs identified by that point 

6002 and provided background on the proposed changes and a description of the SBAR Panel Process. 

6003 EPA held an informal outreach meeting on June 30, 2008. The SBAR Panel convened on 

6004 September 4, 2008. The Panel decided to add one additional SER, for a total of 21, prior to the 

6005 Panel meeting with the SERs. The Panel held a formal panel outreach meeting/teleconference 

6006 with SERs on September 25, 2008. Two weeks before the panel outreach meeting EPA sent 

6007 materials to each of the SERs via email. A list of all materials shared with the SERs before the 

6008 outreach meeting is contained in the pre-proposed rule portion of the docket for this action. 

6009 The outreach meeting was held to solicit feedback from the SERs on their suggestions for 

6010 the upcoming rulemaking. EPA asked the SERs to provide feedback on ideas under 

6011 consideration for the proposed rulemaking and to respond to questions regarding their experience 

6012 with the implementation of the current WPS. Specifically, the Panel asked the SERs to provide 

6013 any alternate solutions to the potential proposals presented by EPA that would provide flexibility 

6014 or would decrease the economic impact on small entities while still accomplishing the goal of 

6015 improved safety. The Agency received written comments from SERs which are Appendix B to 

6016 the Panel’s Report. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 269 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6017 The Panel evaluated the assembled materials and small entity comments and prepared a 

6018 report for the Agency’s consideration titled: “Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on EPA’s 

6019 Planned Revision to Two Related Rules: Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides; 

6020 and Certification of Pesticide Applicators.” A copy of the Panel report is included in the docket 

6021 for this proposed rule. 

6022 The SBAR Panel recommended that as part of the proposal for revising the Worker 

6023 Protection Standard in 40 CFR part 170, EPA specifically request comments on the following 

6024 regulatory flexibility options: 

6025 a. Oral notifications. The Panel recommended that EPA permit oral notifications without 

6026 posted notifications for those pesticide applications with REIs of 48 hours or less. EPA is 

6027 proposing and also requesting comments on allowing oral notification for products with REIs of 

6028 48 hours or less, unless the pesticide label specifically requires both oral and posted notification.

6029 b. Annual training. The Panel recommended that EPA consider ways to reduce the 

6030 burden of annual training for workers and handlers on entities with fewer than 10 employees if 

6031 they maintain written documentation that: (1) there has been no worker turnover, (2) no new or 

6032 different pesticides have been applied, and (3) all workers and handlers were previously trained 

6033 on the establishment. EPA is proposing annual training for all workers and handlers regardless of 

6034 the number of employees and requesting comment on this recommendation. 

6035 c. Grace period. The Panel recommended that EPA consider programmatic flexibilities 

6036 for small entities related to the grace period before employers must be trained. For example, 

6037 consider collaboration between the Agency and states to increase the use of training verification 

6038 programs to reduce the need for unnecessary retraining and use of the grace period. EPA is 

6039 proposing a 2 day grace period and training verification records. EPA is also requesting 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 270 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6040 comments on making mandatory the current optional training verification program and flexibility 

6041 for small entities. 

6042 d. Shower facilities. The Panel recommended that EPA limit consideration of shower 

6043 facilities to establishments with permanent mixing-loading sites. EPA is not proposing to require 

6044 showers on any establishment. EPA is requesting comments from the public on an alternative 

6045 requirement for employers to provide showers at permanent mixing-loading sites. 

6046 The Agency invites comments on all aspects of the proposal and its impacts on small 

6047 entities. 

6048 D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

6049 Title II of UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to 

6050 assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the 

6051 private sector. This proposed rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result in 

6052 expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

6053 the private sector in any 1 year. The total estimated cost of the proposed rule is between $65 

6054 million and $75 million per year, with most requirements on agricultural employers, who would 

6055 bear most of the cost. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 

6056 or 205 of UMRA. This proposed rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of 

6057 UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 

6058 small governments.

6059 E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

6060 This action does not have federalism implications. It would not have substantial direct 

6061 effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 271 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6062 the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 

6063 specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). 

6064 Although this action does not have federalism implications, EPA worked extensively 

6065 with state partners when considering revisions to the existing regulations. As discussed in Unit 

6066 V.B., EPA has solicited feedback from states in a number of ways. The two primary avenues 

6067 through which EPA sought state comments were the National Assessment of EPA’s Pesticide 

6068 Worker Safety Program (National Assessment) and the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee 

6069 workgroup on proposed changes to the Worker Protection Standard and Certification Rule. 

6070 The Agency initiated the National Assessment of EPA’s Pesticide Worker Safety 

6071 Program (National Assessment) in 2000. Through this process, EPA convened stakeholder 

6072 meetings in Texas, California, and Florida. States participated substantially throughout the 

6073 National Assessment. State regulators served on workgroups related to specific areas of change 

6074 (pesticide safety training, hazard communication, and train-the-trainer programs). States 

6075 provided feedback to EPA about the strengths and weaknesses of the rule as implemented and 

6076 made suggestions for improving the protections and enforceability of the WPS. 

6077 Recommendations from States and other stakeholders were included in the “Report on the 

6078 National Assessment of EPA’s Pesticide Worker Safety Program” (Ref. 17). 

6079 In 2006, during the initial stages of the framing of this proposal, EPA’s Federal Advisory 

6080 Committee, the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC), formed a workgroup to provide 

6081 feedback to EPA on different areas for change. The workgroup had over 70 members 

6082 representing a wide range of stakeholders, including State representatives. EPA shared with the 

6083 workgroup suggestions for regulatory change identified through the National Assessment and 

6084 solicited comments. The workgroup convened for a series of meetings and conference calls to 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 272 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6085 get more information on specific parts of the regulation and provided its thoughts to the Agency. 

6086 States provided comments individually and through the Association of American Pesticide 

6087 Control Officials. Comments from the PPDC workgroup members have been compiled into a 

6088 single document and posted in the docket. 

6089 In the spirit of the Order, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications 

6090 between the Agency and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this 

6091 proposed rule from State and local officials. 

6092 F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

6093 This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 

6094 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The proposed rule would not regulate tribal governments 

6095 directly; agricultural employers are the directly affected entities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 

6096 does not apply to this action. 

6097 EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal officials. 

6098 G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

6099 Risks 

6100 This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

6101 because it is not economically significant as defined by Executive Order 12866. However, EPA 

6102 believes that the environmental health or safety risks addressed in this proposed rule have a 

6103 disproportionate effect on children. 

6104 Children face the risk of pesticide exposure from work in pesticide-treated areas, from the 

6105 use of pesticides near their homes, and from residues of pesticides brought home by family 

6106 members after a day of working with pesticides or in pesticide-treated areas. The proposed rule is 

6107 intended to reduce these exposures and risks. By establishing a minimum age for certain 

6108 pesticide-related activities in agriculture, children would receive less exposure to pesticides that 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 273 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6109 may lead to chronic or acute pesticide-related illness. Another proposal to reduce risk to children 

6110 is training workers and handlers on the risks presented by take-home pesticide exposure and how 

6111 best to reduce it. 

6112 Like the Department of Labor’s regulations that implement the Fair Labor Standards Act, 

6113 the proposed rule seeks to regulate the ages at which children can work in agriculture, at least for 

6114 certain activities. Currently, children as young as 10 and occasionally even younger can work in 

6115 agriculture, unnecessarily exposing them to many hazards. The proposed rule would establish a 

6116 minimum age of 16 for pesticide handlers and for early-entry workers, except those working on 

6117 an establishment owned by an immediate family member. Since children in agriculture are at 

6118 such great risk, EPA feels that they warrant special consideration in light of the Executive Order 

6119 on children’s health. EPA expects that many of the proposed changes would mitigate or 

6120 eliminate many risks faced by youths. 

6121 The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed studies and data that 

6122 assess effects of early life exposure to pesticides. 

6123 H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy 

6124 Supply, Distribution, or Use

6125 This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 

6126 FR 28355; May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 

6127 supply, distribution, or use of energy. The revisions to part 170 are intended to improve the 

6128 standards of protection offered to agricultural workers, and do not affect the use of oil, coal, or 

6129 electricity. 

6130 I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 274 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6131 Section 12(d) of the NTTAA, Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

6132 directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so 

6133 would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus 

6134 standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 

6135 procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 

6136 standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations 

6137 when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. 

6138 EPA considered adopting the American National Standards Institute Standard for eye 

6139 flushing in the event of ocular contamination, which calls for a minimum of 1.5 liter (0.4 

6140 gallons) per minute of flushing fluid, such as water, for 15 minutes (ANSI Z358.1-2009). EPA 

6141 adopted this standard only at permanent mixing loading sites on agricultural establishments, 

6142 rather than for all handler eye flush decontamination because the Agency believes it would be 

6143 impractical for employers to achieve at non-permanent sites. EPA is requesting comments on the 

6144 incorporation of this standard into the regulation. 

6145 J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

6146 Populations and Low-Income Populations 

6147 Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 ;February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive 

6148 policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

6149 practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by 

6150 identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

6151 environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low6152 income populations in the United States. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 275 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6153 EPA has determined that this proposed rule would not have disproportionately high and 

6154 adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it 

6155 increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any 

6156 disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, 

6157 including any minority or low-income population. In fact, the population of agricultural workers 

6158 and handlers that the rule seeks to protect is comprised primarily of minority and low-income 

6159 individuals. As reviewed in Unit IV. A., the farmworker community, due to occupation, 

6160 economic status, health, language and other sociodemographic characteristics, faces an increased 

6161 risk of pesticide exposure which this rulemaking seeks to reduce through improving 

6162 communication and protections. 

6163 The Agency engaged with stakeholders from affected communities extensively in the 

6164 development of this rulemaking, in order to obtain meaningful involvement of all parties. EPA 

6165 believes that the proposed changes would improve the health of agricultural workers and 

6166 handlers by, among other things, increasing the frequency of training, enhancing training content 

6167 to include ways to minimize pesticide exposure to children and in the home, adding posting of 

6168 treated areas near worker and handler housing to prevent accidental entry, and establishing a 

6169 minimum age for pesticide handlers and early-entry workers. 

6170 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 276 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6171 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 170 

6172 Environmental protection, pesticides, agricultural worker, pesticide handler, employer, 

6173 farms, forests, nurseries, greenhouses, worker protection standard. 

6174

6175 Dated: ___________________ 

6176

6177 ________________________________________________ 

6178 Administrator. 

6179 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 277 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6180

6181 Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter E, part 170 is revised to read as 

6182 follows: 

6183 PART 170 -- WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD 

6184 Subpart A – General Provisions

6185 Sec. 

6186 170.1 Scope and purpose. 

6187 170.3 Applicability of this part. 

6188 170.5 Definitions. 

6189 170.7 Effective date. 

6190 170.9 Agricultural employer duties. 

6191 170.11 Pesticide information requirements on agricultural establishments. 

6192 170.13 Commercial pesticide handler employer duties. 

6193 170.15 Prohibited actions. 

6194 170.17 Violations of this part. 

6195 Subpart B – Requirements for Protection of Agricultural Workers 

6196 170.101 Training requirements for workers. 

6197 170.103 Establishment-specific information for workers. 

6198 170.105 Entry restrictions associated with pesticide applications. 

6199 170.107 Worker entry restrictions after pesticide applications. 

6200 170.109 Oral and posted notification of worker entry restrictions. 

6201 170.111 Worker decontamination supplies. 

6202 Subpart C - Requirements for Protection of Agricultural Pesticide Handlers 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 278 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6203 170.201 Training requirements for handlers. 

6204 170.203 Knowledge of labeling, application-specific, and establishment-specific information for 

6205 handlers. 

6206 170.205 Requirements during applications to protect handlers, workers, and other persons. 

6207 170.207 Personal protective equipment. 

6208 170.209 Handler decontamination supplies. 

6209 Subpart D - Exemptions and Exceptions 

6210 170.301 Exemptions. 

6211 170.303 Exceptions for entry by workers during restricted-entry intervals. 

6212 170.305 Agricultural employer responsibilities to protect workers entering treated areas during a 

6213 restricted-entry interval. 

6214 170.307 Exceptions to personal protective equipment requirements specified on pesticide 

6215 product labeling. 

6216 170.309 Exception to training requirements for workers. 

6217 Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136w. 

6218 Subpart A – General Provisions 

6219 §170.1 Scope and purpose.

6220 This regulation is intended to reduce the risks of illness or injury to workers and handlers 

6221 resulting from occupational exposures to pesticides used in the production of agricultural plants 

6222 on agricultural establishments. It requires agricultural employers and commercial pesticide 

6223 handler employers to provide specific information and protections to workers and handlers when 

6224 pesticides are used on agricultural establishments in the production of agricultural plants. It also 

6225 requires pesticide handlers to wear the label-specified clothing and personal protective 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 279 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6226 equipment when performing pesticide handler activities, and to take measures to protect workers 

6227 and other persons during pesticide applications. 

6228 §170.3 Applicability of this part. 

6229 (a) This regulation applies whenever a pesticide product bearing a label requiring 

6230 compliance with this part is used in a manner directly related to the production of agricultural 

6231 plants on an agricultural establishment that employs workers or handlers. 

6232 (b) This regulation does not apply when a pesticide product bearing a label requiring 

6233 compliance with this part is used on an agricultural establishment in any of the following 

6234 circumstances: 

6235 (1) As part of government-sponsored public pest control programs of which the owner, 

6236 agricultural employer and handler employer have no control, such as mosquito abatement and 

6237 Mediterranean fruit fly eradication programs. 

6238 (2) On plants other than agricultural plants, which may include plants in home fruit and 

6239 vegetable gardens and home greenhouses, and permanent plantings for ornamental purposes, 

6240 such as plants that are in ornamental gardens, parks, public or private landscaping, lawns or other 

6241 grounds that are intended only for aesthetic purposes or climatic modification. 

6242 (3) For control of vertebrate pests, unless directly related to the production of an 

6243 agricultural plant. 

6244 (4) As attractants or repellents in traps. 

6245 (5) On the harvested portions of agricultural plants or on harvested timber. 

6246 (6) For research uses of unregistered pesticides. 

6247 (7) On pasture and rangeland where the forage will not be harvested for hay. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 280 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6248 (8) In a manner not directly related to the production of agricultural plants, including, but 

6249 not limited to structural pest control and control of vegetation in non-crop areas. 

6250 §170.5 Definitions. 

6251 Terms used in this part have the same meanings they have in the Federal Insecticide, 

6252 Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended. In addition, the following terms, when used in this 

6253 part, shall have the following meanings: 

6254 Agricultural employer means any person who is an owner of, or is responsible for the 

6255 management or condition of an agricultural establishment, and who employs any worker or 

6256 handler. 

6257 Agricultural establishment means any farm, forest operation, or nursery engaged in the 

6258 outdoor or enclosed space production of agricultural plants. 

6259 Agricultural plant means any plant, or part thereof, grown, maintained, or otherwise 

6260 produced for commercial production. 

6261 Authorized representative means a person designated by the worker or handler, orally or 

6262 in writing, to request and obtain any information that the employer is required to provide upon 

6263 request to the worker or handler.

6264 Chemigation means the application of pesticides through irrigation systems. 

6265 Closed system means a system for mixing or loading pesticides that encloses the pesticide 

6266 during removal of the pesticide from its original container and transfer, mixing, or loading of the 

6267 pesticide product, mixtures or dilutions, and any rinse solution, if applicable, into a new 

6268 container or application equipment, in such a manner that prevents the pesticide and any 

6269 pesticide mixture or use dilution from contacting handlers or other persons before, during and 

6270 after the transfer, except for negligible release associated with normal operation of the system. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 281 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6271 Commercial pesticide handler employer means any person, other than an agricultural 

6272 employer, who employs any handler to perform handler activities on an agricultural 

6273 establishment. 

6274 Commercial pesticide handling establishment means any enterprise, other than an 

6275 agricultural establishment, that provides pesticide handler or crop advising services to 

6276 agricultural establishments. 

6277 Commercial production means growing, maintaining or otherwise producing agricultural 

6278 plants for sale or trade, for research or experimental purposes, or for use in their entirety in 

6279 another location. Commercial production includes producing agricultural plants for use by the 

6280 agricultural employer or agricultural establishment instead of purchasing the agricultural plants. 

6281 Crop advisor means any person who is assessing pest numbers, damage, pesticide 

6282 distribution, or the status or requirements of agricultural plants. 

6283 Early entry means entry by a worker into a treated area on the agricultural establishment 

6284 after a pesticide application is complete, but before any restricted-entry interval for the pesticide 

6285 has expired. 

6286 Employ means to obtain, directly or through a labor contractor, the services of a person in 

6287 exchange for a salary or wages, including piece-rate wages, without regard to who may pay or 

6288 who may receive the salary or wages. It includes obtaining the services of a self-employed 

6289 person, an independent contractor, or a person compensated by a third party. 

6290 Enclosed cab means a cab with a nonporous barrier that totally surrounds the occupant(s) 

6291 of the cab and prevents dermal contact with pesticides that are being applied outside of the cab. 

6292 Enclosed space production means production of an agricultural plant in a structure or 

6293 space that is covered in whole or in part and that is large enough to permit a person to enter. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 282 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6294 Entry-restricted area means the area from which workers or other persons must be 

6295 excluded during and after the pesticide application. 

6296 Farm means any agricultural establishment, other than a nursery or forest operation, 

6297 engaged in the outdoor or enclosed production of agricultural plants. 

6298 Forest operation means an agricultural establishment engaged in the outdoor production 

6299 of any agricultural plant to produce any wood fiber or timber products. 

6300 Fumigant means any pesticide product that is a vapor or gas, or forms a vapor or gas 

6301 upon application, and whose pesticidal action is achieved through the gaseous or vapor state. 

6302 Hand labor means any agricultural activity performed by hand or with hand tools that 

6303 cause a worker to have substantial contact with plants, plant parts, or soil and other surfaces that 

6304 may contain pesticide residues. 

6305 Handler means any person, including a self-employed person, who is employed by an 

6306 agricultural employer or commercial pesticide handler employer and performs any of the 

6307 following activities: 

6308 (1) Mixing, loading, or applying pesticides; 

6309 (2) Disposing of pesticides; 

6310 (3) Handling opened containers of pesticides; emptying, triple-rinsing, or cleaning 

6311 pesticide containers according to pesticide product labeling instructions; or disposing of pesticide 

6312 containers that have not been cleaned. The term does not include any person who is only 

6313 handling unopened pesticide containers or pesticide containers that have been emptied or cleaned 

6314 according to pesticide product labeling instructions; 

6315 (4) Acting as a flagger; 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 283 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6316 (5) Cleaning, adjusting, handling, or repairing the parts of mixing, loading, or application 

6317 equipment that may contain pesticide residues; 

6318 (6) Assisting with the application of pesticides; 

6319 (7) Entering an enclosed space after the application of a pesticide and before the 

6320 inhalation exposure level listed in the labeling has been reached or one of the ventilation criteria 

6321 established by §170.105(b)(3) or the labeling has been met to operate ventilation equipment, 

6322 monitor air levels, or adjust or remove coverings used in fumigation; 

6323 (8) Entering a treated area outdoors after application of any soil fumigant during the 

6324 label-specified entry restricted period to adjust or remove coverings used in fumigation, such as 

6325 tarpaulins; 

6326 (9) Performing tasks as a crop advisor during any pesticide application or restricted-entry 

6327 interval, or before the inhalation exposure level listed in the pesticide product labeling has been 

6328 reached or one of the ventilation criteria established by §170.105(b)(3) or the pesticide product 

6329 labeling has been met. 

6330 Handler employer means any person who is self-employed as a handler or who employs 

6331 any handler. 

6332 Immediate family is limited to the spouse, parents, stepparents, foster parents, father-in6333 law, mother-in-law, children, stepchildren, foster children, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law, 

6334 grandparents, grandchildren, brothers, sisters, brothers-in-law, and sisters-in-law. 

6335 Labor contractor means a person who employs workers or handlers to perform tasks on 

6336 an agricultural establishment for an agricultural employer or a commercial pesticide handler 

6337 employer. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 284 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6338 Nursery means any agricultural establishment engaged in the outdoor or enclosed space 

6339 production of any agricultural plant to produce cut flowers or foliage, ferns, plants, or seedlings 

6340 that will be used in part or their entirety in another location. Such plants include, but are not 

6341 limited to, flowering and foliage plants or trees; tree seedlings; live Christmas trees; vegetable, 

6342 fruit, and ornamental transplants; and turf grass produced for sod. 

6343 Outdoor production means production of an agricultural plant in an outside open space or 

6344 area that is not enclosed or covered in any way.

6345 Owner means any person who has a present possessory interest (e.g., fee, leasehold, 

6346 rental, or other) in an agricultural establishment. A person who has both leased such agricultural 

6347 establishment to another person and granted that same person the right and full authority to 

6348 manage and govern the use of such agricultural establishment is not an owner for purposes of 

6349 this part. 

6350 Personal protective equipment means devices and apparel that are worn to protect the 

6351 body from contact with pesticides or pesticide residues, including, but not limited to, coveralls, 

6352 chemical-resistant suits, chemical-resistant gloves, chemical-resistant footwear, respirators, 

6353 chemical-resistant aprons, chemical-resistant headgear, and protective eyewear. 

6354 Restricted-entry interval means the time after the end of a pesticide application during 

6355 which entry into the treated area is restricted. 

6356 Safety data sheet has the same meaning as the definition at 29 CFR 1900.1200(c). 

6357 Treated area means any area to which a pesticide is being directed or has been directed. 

6358 Use, as in “to use a pesticide” means any of the following -- 

6359 (1) Pre-application activities, including, but not limited to: 

6360 (i) Arranging for the application of the pesticide; 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 285 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6361 (ii) Mixing and loading the pesticide; 

6362 (iii) Making necessary preparations for the application of the pesticide, including 

6363 responsibilities related to worker notification, training of workers or handlers, providing 

6364 decontamination supplies, providing pesticide information, use and care of personal protective 

6365 equipment, providing emergency assistance, and heat stress management. 

6366 (2) Application of the pesticide. 

6367 (3) Post-application activities intended to reduce the risks of illness and injury resulting 

6368 from handlers' and workers' occupational exposures to pesticide residues during and after the 

6369 restricted-entry interval, including responsibilities related to worker notification, training of 

6370 workers or early entry workers, providing decontamination supplies, providing pesticide 

6371 information, use and care of personal protective equipment, providing emergency assistance, and 

6372 heat stress management. 

6373 (4) Other pesticide-related activities, including, but not limited to, transporting or storing 

6374 pesticides that have been opened, cleaning equipment, and disposing of excess pesticides, spray 

6375 mix, equipment wash waters, pesticide containers, and other pesticide-containing materials. 

6376 Worker means any person, including a self-employed person, who is employed and 

6377 performs activities directly relating to the production of agricultural plants on an agricultural 

6378 establishment. 

6379 Worker housing area means any place or area of land on or near an agricultural 

6380 establishment where housing or space for housing is provided for workers or handlers by an 

6381 agricultural employer, owner, labor contractor, or any other person responsible for the 

6382 recruitment or employment of agricultural workers. 

6383 §170.7 Effective date. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 286 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6384 The effective date for this part shall be [effective date 60 calendar days after the promulgated 

6385 rule is transmitted for Congressional review per FIFRA 25(a)(4)]. 

6386 §170.9 Agricultural employer duties. 

6387 Agricultural employers must:

6388 (a) Ensure that any pesticide applied on an agricultural establishment is used in a manner 

6389 consistent with the pesticide product labeling, including the requirements of this part. 

6390 (b) Ensure that each worker and handler subject to this part receives the protections 

6391 required by this part. 

6392 (c) Ensure that any handler, and any worker performing early entry activities, is at least 

6393 16 years old. 

6394 (d) Provide to each person, including labor contractors, who supervises any workers or 

6395 handlers, information and directions sufficient to ensure that each worker and handler receives 

6396 the protections required by this part. Such information and directions must specify the tasks for 

6397 which the supervisor is responsible in order to comply with the provisions of this part. 

6398 (e) Require each person, including labor contractors, who supervises any workers or 

6399 handlers, to provide sufficient information and directions to each worker and handler to ensure 

6400 that they can comply with the provisions of this part. 

6401 (f) Provide emergency assistance. If there is reason to believe that a person who is or has 

6402 been employed by an agricultural establishment to perform tasks related to the production of 

6403 agricultural plants, has been poisoned or injured by exposure to pesticides as a result of his or her 

6404 employment on the agricultural establishment, the agricultural employer must do all of the 

6405 following, within 30 minutes after learning of the possible poisoning or injury: 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 287 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6406 (1) Make available to that person transportation from the agricultural establishment, 

6407 including any worker housing area on the establishment, to an operating emergency medical 

6408 facility. 

6409 (2) Provide to that person or treating medical personnel all of the following information 

6410 for each pesticide product to which that person might have been exposed: 

6411 (i) Copies of the applicable safety data sheet and the label for the pesticide product, or 

6412 alternatively, a copy of the applicable safety data sheet for the product and the product name, 

6413 EPA registration number, active ingredients, antidote, and first aid and medical treatment 

6414 information from the pesticide product labeling. 

6415 (ii) The circumstances of application or use of the pesticide on the agricultural 

6416 establishment. 

6417 (iii) The circumstances that could have resulted in exposure to the pesticide. 

6418 (g) Ensure that workers or other persons employed by the agricultural establishment do 

6419 not clean, repair, or adjust pesticide application equipment, unless trained as a handler under 

6420 §170.201. Before allowing any person not directly employed by the agricultural establishment to 

6421 clean, repair, or adjust equipment that has been used to mix, load, transfer, or apply pesticides, 

6422 the agricultural employer must provide all of the following information to such persons: 

6423 (1) That pesticide application equipment may be contaminated with pesticides. 

6424 (2) The potentially harmful effects of exposure to pesticides. 

6425 (3) Procedures for handling pesticide application equipment and for limiting exposure to 

6426 pesticide residues. 

6427 (4) Personal hygiene practices and decontamination procedures for preventing pesticide 

6428 exposures and removing pesticide residues. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 288 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6429 (h) Provide pesticide information in accordance with §170.11 if workers or handlers are 

6430 on the establishment and within the last 30 days a pesticide product bearing a label requiring 

6431 compliance with this part has been used, or a restricted-entry interval for such pesticide has been 

6432 in effect on the establishment. 

6433 (i) Ensure that before a handler uses any equipment for mixing, loading, transferring, or 

6434 applying pesticides, the handler is instructed in the safe operation of such equipment. 

6435 (j) Ensure that, before each day of use, equipment used for mixing, loading, transferring, 

6436 or applying pesticides is inspected for leaks, clogging, and worn or damaged parts, and any 

6437 damaged equipment is repaired or replaced. 

6438 (k) Ensure that whenever handlers employed by a commercial pesticide handler 

6439 establishment will be on an agricultural establishment, the handler employer is provided 

6440 information about, or is aware of, the specific location and description of any entry restricted 

6441 areas, or treated areas where a restricted-entry interval is in effect, and any restrictions on 

6442 entering those areas. 

6443 §170.11 Pesticide information requirements on agricultural establishments. 

6444 (a) Pesticide Safety Information. Whenever pesticide information is required to be 

6445 provided under §170.9(h), pesticide safety information must be displayed on the agricultural 

6446 establishment in accordance with this paragraph (a). 

6447 (1) Content. The pesticide safety information must include all of the following points: 

6448 (i) Avoid getting on the skin or into the body any pesticides that may be on or in plants, 

6449 soil, irrigation water, tractors, and other equipment, on used personal protective equipment, or 

6450 drifting from nearby applications. 

6451 (ii) Wash before eating, drinking, using chewing gum or tobacco, or using the toilet. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 289 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6452 (iii) Wear work clothing that protects the body from pesticide residues (long-sleeved 

6453 shirts, long pants, shoes and socks, and a hat or scarf). 

6454 (iv) Wash or shower with soap and water, shampoo hair, and put on clean clothes after 

6455 work. 

6456 (v) Wash work clothes separately from other clothes before wearing them again. 

6457 (vi) Wash immediately in the nearest clean water if pesticides are spilled or sprayed on 

6458 the body. As soon as possible, shower, shampoo hair, and change into clean clothes. 

6459 (vii) Follow directions about keeping out of treated or entry-restricted areas. 

6460 (viii) The name, address, and telephone number of the nearest operating emergency 

6461 medical care facility. 

6462 (ix) After [date 2 years after effective date of the final rule specified in § 170.7], the 

6463 pesticide safety information must also include the name, address, and telephone number of the 

6464 state or tribal lead agency responsible for pesticide enforcement, and instructions to employees to 

6465 seek medical attention as soon as possible if they believe they have been poisoned or injured by 

6466 pesticides. 

6467 (2) Changes to pesticide safety information. If there are any changes to the information in 

6468 §§170.11(a)(1)(viii) or 170.11(a)(1)(ix), the agricultural employer must promptly update the 

6469 pesticide safety information display. 

6470 (3) Location. The pesticide safety information must be displayed at a place on the 

6471 agricultural establishment where workers and handlers are likely to pass by or congregate and it 

6472 can be readily seen and read. The pesticide safety information must also be displayed anywhere 

6473 that decontamination supplies must be provided on the agricultural establishment pursuant to §§ 

6474 170.111 or 170.209. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 290 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6475 (4) Accessibility. Workers and handlers must be allowed access to the pesticide safety 

6476 information at all times when the information is required to be displayed. 

6477 (5) Legibility. The pesticide safety information must remain legible at all times when the 

6478 information is required to be displayed. 

6479 (b) Keeping and providing information about pesticides used on the agricultural 

6480 establishment -- (1) Content and timing. Whenever pesticide information is required to be 

6481 provided under §170.9(h), the agricultural employer must maintain copies of the pesticide 

6482 product label and the safety data sheet for the pesticide product(s) applied and record all of the 

6483 following information no later than the end of the work day that the application takes place: 

6484 (i) The name, EPA registration number, and active ingredient(s) of the pesticide product 

6485 applied. 

6486 (ii) The crop or site treated and the location and description of the treated area. 

6487 (iii) The date(s) and times the application started and ended. 

6488 (iv) The end date and duration of the restricted-entry interval. 

6489 (2) Record Retention and Accessibility. The agricultural employer must maintain the 

6490 pesticide information described in §170.11(b)(1) on the agricultural establishment for 2 years 

6491 after the date of expiration of any restricted-entry interval, and make the information available to 

6492 any worker(s), handler(s), or their authorized representative(s) upon request during normal work 

6493 hours. 

6494 §170.13 Commercial pesticide handler employer duties. 

6495 Commercial pesticide handler employers must: 

6496 (a) Ensure that any pesticide applied on an agricultural establishment is used in a manner 

6497 consistent with the pesticide product labeling, including the requirements of this part. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 291 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6498 (b) Ensure each handler subject to this part receives the protections required by this part. 

6499 (c) Ensure that any handler is at least 16 years old. 

6500 (d) Provide to each person, including labor contractors, who supervises any handlers, 

6501 information and directions sufficient to ensure that each handler receives the protections required 

6502 by this part. Such information and directions must specify the tasks for which the supervisor is 

6503 responsible in order to comply with the provisions of this part. 

6504 (e) Require each person, including labor contractors, who supervises any handlers, to 

6505 provide sufficient information and directions to each handler to ensure that the handler can 

6506 comply with the provisions of this part. 

6507 (f) Ensure that before any handler uses any equipment for mixing, loading, transferring, 

6508 or applying pesticides, the handler is instructed in the safe operation of such equipment. 

6509 (g) Ensure that, before each day of use, equipment used for mixing, loading, transferring, 

6510 or applying pesticides is inspected for leaks, obstructions, and worn or damaged parts, and any 

6511 damaged equipment is repaired or is replaced. 

6512 (h) Ensure that whenever a handler who is employed by a commercial pesticide handling 

6513 establishment will be on an agricultural establishment, the handler is provided information about, 

6514 or is aware of, the specific location and description of any entry restricted areas, or treated areas 

6515 where a restricted-entry interval is in effect, and the restrictions on entering those areas. 

6516 (i) Provide the agricultural employer all of the following information before the 

6517 application of any pesticide on an agricultural establishment: 

6518 (1) Specific location(s) and description of the area(s) to be treated. 

6519 (2) The date(s) and start and estimated end times of application. 

6520 (3) Product name, EPA registration number, and active ingredient(s). 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 292 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6521 (4) Restricted-entry interval. 

6522 (5) Whether posting and oral notification are required under §170.109. 

6523 (6) Any restrictions or use directions on the pesticide product labeling that must be 

6524 followed for protection of workers, handlers, or other persons during or after application. 

6525 (j) Ensure if there are any changes to the information provided in §170.13(i), that the 

6526 agricultural employer is provided updated information within 2 hours after completing the 

6527 application. Changes to the estimated application end time of less than 1 hour do not require 

6528 notification. 

6529 (k) Provide emergency assistance. If there is reason to believe that a person who is or has 

6530 been employed by the commercial pesticide handling establishment to perform tasks related to 

6531 the production of agricultural plants, has been poisoned or injured by exposure to pesticides as a 

6532 result of that employment, the commercial pesticide handler employer must do all of the 

6533 following, within 30 minutes after learning of the possible poisoning or injury: 

6534 (1) Make available to that person transportation from the commercial pesticide handling 

6535 establishment, or any agricultural establishment on which that person may be working, to an 

6536 operating emergency medical facility. 

6537 (2) Provide to that person or treating medical personnel all of the following information 

6538 for each pesticide product to which that person might have been exposed: 

6539 (i) Copies of the applicable safety data sheet and the label for the pesticide product, or 

6540 alternatively, a copy of the applicable safety data sheet for the pesticide product and the product 

6541 name, EPA registration number, active ingredients, antidote, and first aid and medical treatment 

6542 information listed on the pesticide product labeling. 

6543 (ii) The circumstances of application or use of the pesticide(s). 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 293 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6544 (iii) The circumstances that could have resulted in exposure to the pesticide(s). 

6545 (l) Ensure that persons employed by the commercial pesticide handling establishment do 

6546 not clean, repair, or adjust pesticide application equipment, unless trained as a handler under 

6547 §170.201. Before allowing any person not directly employed by the commercial pesticide 

6548 handling establishment to clean, repair, or adjust equipment that has been used to mix, load, 

6549 transfer, or apply pesticides, the commercial pesticide handler employer must provide all of the 

6550 following information to such persons: 

6551 (1) That pesticide application equipment may be contaminated with pesticides. 

6552 (2) The potentially harmful effects of exposure to pesticides. 

6553 (3) Procedures for handling pesticide application equipment and for limiting exposure to 

6554 pesticide residues. 

6555 (4) Personal hygiene practices and decontamination procedures for preventing pesticide 

6556 exposures and removing pesticide residues. 

6557 §170.15 Prohibited actions. 

6558 No agricultural employer, commercial pesticide handler employer, or other person 

6559 involved in the use of a pesticide to which this part applies, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or 

6560 discriminate against any worker or handler for attempting to comply with this part, or because 

6561 the worker or handler has made a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in 

6562 an investigation, proceeding, or hearing concerning compliance with this part. Any such 

6563 intimidation, threat, coercion, or discrimination violates FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(G), 7 U.S.C. 

6564 136j(a)(2)(G). 

6565 §170.17 Violations of this part. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 294 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6566 (a) Under FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(G), it is unlawful for any person “to use any registered 

6567 pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.’’ When this part is referenced on a label, 

6568 users must comply with all of its requirements, except those that are inconsistent with product6569 specific instructions on the pesticide product labeling. 

6570 (b) A person who has a duty under this part, as referenced on the pesticide product 

6571 labeling, and who fails to perform that duty, violates FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(G) and is subject to 

6572 a civil penalty under section 14. A person who knowingly violates section 12(a)(2)(G) is subject 

6573 to section 14 criminal sanctions. 

6574 (c) FIFRA section 14(b)(4) provides that a person is liable for a penalty under FIFRA if 

6575 another person employed by or acting for that person violates any provision of FIFRA. The term 

6576 "acting for" includes both employment and contractual relationships, including, but not limited 

6577 to, labor contractors. 

6578 (d) The requirements of this part, including the decontamination requirements, must not, 

6579 for the purposes of section 653(b)(1) of Title 29 of the U.S. Code, be deemed to be the exercise 

6580 of statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations affecting the general 

6581 sanitary hazards addressed by the OSHA Field Sanitation Standard, 29 CFR 1928.110, or other 

6582 agricultural non-pesticide hazards. 

6583 Subpart B – Requirements for Protection of Agricultural Workers 

6584 §170.101 Training requirements for workers. 

6585 (a) General requirement. Before any worker performs any task on an agricultural 

6586 establishment where within the last 30 days a pesticide product bearing a label requiring 

6587 compliance with this part has been used, or a restricted-entry interval for such pesticide has been 

6588 in effect, the agricultural employer must ensure that each worker has been trained in accordance 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 295 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6589 with this section within the last 12 months, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section 

6590 and in §170.309 of this part. 

6591 (b) Exceptions. The following workers need not be trained under this section: 

6592 (1) A worker who is currently certified as an applicator of restricted use pesticides under 

6593 part 171 of this chapter. 

6594 (2) A worker who has satisfied the handler training requirements of § 170.201. 

6595 (3) A worker who is certified or licensed as a crop advisor by a program acknowledged as 

6596 appropriate in writing by EPA or the state or tribal agency responsible for pesticide enforcement, 

6597 provided that a requirement for such certification or licensing is pesticide safety training that 

6598 includes all the topics set out in §170.201(c)(2) and (3). 

6599 (c) Training programs. (1) Pesticide safety training must be presented to workers either 

6600 orally from written materials or audio-visually, at a location that is reasonably free from 

6601 distraction and conducive to training. All training materials must be EPA-approved. The training 

6602 must be presented in a manner that the workers can understand, such as through a translator. A 

6603 person that meets the trainer requirements of §170.101(c)(4) must be present during the entire 

6604 training program to conduct the training and must respond to workers’ questions. 

6605 (2) The training must include, at a minimum, all of the following topics: 

6606 (i) Agricultural employers are required to provide workers with information and 

6607 protections designed to reduce work-related pesticide exposures and illnesses. This includes 

6608 providing pesticide safety training, pesticide safety and application information, decontamination 

6609 supplies, and emergency medical assistance, and notifying workers of restrictions during 

6610 applications and on entering pesticide treated areas. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 296 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6611 (ii) How to recognize and understand the meaning of the field warning sign used for 

6612 notifying workers of restrictions on entering pesticide treated areas on the establishment. 

6613 (iii) How to follow directions and/or signs about keeping out of entry-restricted or 

6614 pesticide treated areas. 

6615 (iv) Where and in what form pesticides may be encountered during work activities and 

6616 potential sources of pesticide exposure on the agricultural establishment. This includes that 

6617 pesticide residues may be on or in plants, soil, irrigation water, tractors, application equipment, 

6618 or used personal protective equipment and that pesticides may drift through the air from nearby 

6619 applications. 

6620 (v) Potential hazards from toxicity and exposure that pesticides present to workers and 

6621 their families, including acute and chronic effects, delayed effects, and sensitization. 

6622 (vi) Potential hazards from chemigation and drift. 

6623 (vii) Routes through which pesticides can enter the body. 

6624 (viii) Signs and symptoms of common types of pesticide poisoning. 

6625 (ix) Emergency first aid for pesticide injuries or poisonings. 

6626 (x) Routine and emergency decontamination procedures, including emergency eye 

6627 flushing techniques. 

6628 (xi) Wash immediately in the nearest clean water if pesticides are spilled or sprayed on 

6629 the body and as soon as possible, shower, shampoo hair, and change into clean clothes. 

6630 (xii) How and when to obtain emergency medical care. 

6631 (xiii) When working near pesticides or in pesticide treated areas, wear work clothing that 

6632 protects the body from pesticide residues and wash hands before eating, drinking, using chewing 

6633 gum or tobacco, or using the toilet. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 297 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6634 (xiv) Wash or shower with soap and water, shampoo hair, and change into clean clothes 

6635 as soon as possible after working near or in pesticide treated areas. 

6636 (xv) Potential hazards from pesticide residues on clothing. 

6637 (xvi) Wash work clothes before wearing again. 

6638 (xvii) Wash work clothes separately from other clothes. 

6639 (xviii) Do not take pesticides or pesticide containers used at work to your home. 

6640 (3) After [date 2 years after effective date of the final rule specified in §170.7], the 

6641 training must also include all of the following: 

6642 (i) Agricultural employers are required to provide workers with pesticide hazard 

6643 information. 

6644 (ii) Agricultural employers must not allow or direct any worker to mix, load or apply 

6645 pesticides or assist in the application of pesticides unless the worker has been trained as a 

6646 handler. 

6647 (iii) There are minimum age restrictions and notification requirements for early entry 

6648 activities. 

6649 (iv) Potential hazards to children and pregnant women from pesticide exposure. 

6650 (v) Keep children and nonworking family members away from pesticide treated areas. 

6651 (vi) Remove work boots or shoes before entering home. 

6652 (vii) After working near or in pesticide treated areas, remove work clothes and wash or 

6653 shower before physical contact with children or family members. 

6654 (viii) How to report suspected pesticide use violations to the state or tribal agency 

6655 responsible for pesticide enforcement. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 298 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6656 (ix) Agricultural employers are prohibited from intimidating, threatening, coercing, or 

6657 discriminating against any worker for attempting to comply with the requirements of this part, or 

6658 because the worker has made a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an 

6659 investigation, proceeding, or hearing pursuant to this part. 

6660 (4) The person who conducts the training must meet one of the following: 

6661 (i) Be designated as a trainer of certified applicators by EPA or the state or tribal agency 

6662 responsible for pesticide enforcement. 

6663 (ii) Have completed an EPA-approved pesticide safety train-the-trainer program for 

6664 trainers of workers. 

6665 (iii) Until [date 2 years after effective date of the final rule specified in § 170.7], a 

6666 certified applicator of restricted use pesticides under part 171 may conduct worker training. 

6667 (d) Recordkeeping. (1) For each worker required to be trained under paragraph (a), the 

6668 agricultural employer must maintain on the agricultural establishment, for 2 years from the date 

6669 of the training, a record including all of the following: 

6670 (i) The trained worker’s printed name and signature. 

6671 (ii) The trained worker’s date of birth. 

6672 (iii) The date of the training. 

6673 (iv) Information identifying which EPA-approved training materials were used. 

6674 (v) The trainer’s name and documentation showing that the trainer met the requirements 

6675 of §170.101(c)(4) at the time of training. 

6676 (vi) The agricultural employer’s name. 

6677 (2) For each worker trained, the agricultural employer must provide to the worker a 

6678 record of the training that contains the information required under §170.101(d)(1). 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 299 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6679 §170.103 Establishment-specific information for workers. 

6680 (a) Requirement. Before any worker performs any task on an agricultural establishment 

6681 where within the last 30 days a pesticide product bearing a label requiring compliance with this 

6682 part has been used, or a restricted-entry interval for such pesticide has been in effect, the 

6683 agricultural employer must ensure that the worker has been informed of establishment-specific 

6684 information in accordance with this section. The establishment-specific information must be 

6685 provided orally, in a manner the worker can understand. 

6686 (b) Content. The establishment-specific information must include all of the following: 

6687 (1) The location of pesticide safety information required by §170.11(a). 

6688 (2) The location of pesticide application and hazard information required by §170.11(b). 

6689 (3) The location of decontamination supplies required by §170.111. 

6690 §170.105 Entry restrictions associated with pesticide applications. 

6691 (a) Outdoor production pesticide applications. During any outdoor production pesticide 

6692 application described in column A of Table 1 of this paragraph, the agricultural employer must 

6693 not allow or direct any worker or other person, other than an appropriately trained and equipped 

6694 handler, to enter or to remain in the entry-restricted area specified in column B of Table 1 of this 

6695 paragraph. After the application is complete, the area subject to the label-specified restricted6696 entry interval and the post-application entry restrictions specified in §170.107 is the treated area. 

6697 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: 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 300 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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

than appropriately trained and equipped 

handlers, are prohibited in: 

(1)(a) Applied: 

(i) Aerially, or 

(ii) In an upward direction, or 

(iii) Using a spray pressure greater than 

150 psi, or 

(b) Applied as a: 

(i) Fumigant, or 

(ii) Smoke, or 

(iii) Mist, or 

(iv) Fog, or 

(v) Aerosol. 

Treated area plus 100 feet around the 

treated area within the boundaries of the 

agricultural establishment. 

(2)(a) Applied downward using: 

(i) A height of greater than 12 inches from 

the planting medium, or 

(ii) A fine spray (droplet median diameter 

of 101-200 microns), or 

(iii) A spray pressure greater than 40 psi 

and less than 150 psi 

(b) Not as in (1) or (2)(a) above but for 

Treated area plus 25 feet around the treated 

area, within the boundaries of the 

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

Page 301 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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

than appropriately trained and equipped 

handlers, are prohibited in: 

which a respiratory protection device is 

required for application by the product 

label. 

(3) Applied otherwise. Treated area 

6698

6699 (b) Enclosed space production pesticide applications. (1) During any enclosed space 

6700 production pesticide application described in column A of Table 2 under paragraph (b)(4) of this 

6701 section, the agricultural employer must not allow or direct any worker or other person, other than 

6702 an appropriately trained and equipped handler, to enter or to remain in the entry-restricted area 

6703 specified in column B of Table 2 during the application and until the time specified in column C 

6704 of Table 2 has expired. 

6705 (2) After the time specified in column C of Table 2 under paragraph (b)(4) of this section 

6706 has expired, the area subject to the label-specified restricted-entry interval and the post6707 application entry restrictions specified in §170.107 is the area specified in column D of Table 2 

6708 under paragraph (b)(4) of this section. 

6709 (3) When column C of Table 2 under paragraph (b)(4) of this section specifies that 

6710 ventilation criteria must be met, ventilation must continue until the air concentration is measured 

6711 to be equal to or less than the inhalation exposure level the labeling requires to be achieved. If no 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 302 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6712 inhalation exposure level is listed on the labeling, ventilation must continue until after one of the 

6713 following conditions is met: 

6714 (i) Ten air exchanges are completed. 

6715 (ii) Two hours of ventilation using fans or other mechanical ventilating systems. 

6716 (iii) Four hours of ventilation using vents, windows, or other passive ventilation. 

6717 (iv) Eleven hours with no ventilation followed by 1 hour of mechanical ventilation. 

6718 (v) Eleven hours with no ventilation followed by 2 hours of passive ventilation. 

6719 (vi) Twenty-four hours with no ventilation. 

6720 (4) The following Table 2 applies to paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and (3) of this section. 

6721 Table 2 – Entry-Restricted Areas During Enclosed Space Production Pesticide Applications 

A. When a 

pesticide is 

applied: 

B. Workers and 

other persons, 

other than 

appropriately 

trained and 

equipped handlers, 

are prohibited in: 

C. Until: D. After the 

expiration of time 

specified in column 

C, the area subject 

to the restrictedentry interval is: 

(1) As a fumigant. Entire enclosed 

space plus any 

adjacent structure or 

area that cannot be 

sealed off from the 

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

Page 303 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

treated area. are met. 

(2) As a 

(i) Smoke, or 

(ii) Mist, or 

(iii) Fog, or 

(iv) Aerosol. 

Entire enclosed 

space. 

The ventilation 

criteria of paragraph 

(b)(3) of this section 

are met. 

Entire enclosed 

space. 

(3) Not in (1) or (2) 

above, and for 

which a respiratory 

protection device is 

required for 

application by the 

product label. 

Entire enclosed 

space. 

The ventilation 

criteria of paragraph 

(b)(3) of this section 

are met. 

Treated area. 

(4) Not in (1), (2), 

or (3) above, and: 

(i) From a height of 

greater than 12 in. 

from the planting 

medium, or 

(ii) As a fine spray 

(droplet median 

diameter of 101-200 

Treated area plus 25 

feet in all directions 

of the treated area, 

but not outside the 

enclosed space. 

Application is 

complete. 

Treated area. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 304 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

microns), or 

(iii) Using a spray 

pressure greater 

than 40 psi. 

(5) Otherwise. Treated area. Application is 

complete. 

Treated area. 

6722

6723 §170.107 Worker entry restrictions after pesticide applications.

6724 (a) After the application of any pesticide in outdoor production on an agricultural 

6725 establishment, the agricultural employer must not allow or direct any worker to enter or to 

6726 remain in the treated area before the restricted-entry interval specified on the pesticide labeling 

6727 has expired and all treated area warning signs have been removed, except for early entry 

6728 activities permitted by §170.303. 

6729 (b) After the application of any pesticide in enclosed space production, the agricultural 

6730 employer must not allow or direct any worker to enter or to remain in the areas specified in 

6731 column D in Table 2 under §170.105(b)(4), before the restricted-entry interval specified on the 

6732 pesticide labeling has expired and all treated area warning signs have been removed, except for 

6733 early entry activities permitted by §170.303. 

6734 (c) When two or more pesticides are applied at the same time, the applicable restricted6735 entry interval is the longest of the applicable restricted-entry intervals.

6736 §170.109 Oral and posted notification of worker entry restrictions. 

6737 (a) General Requirement. The agricultural employer must notify workers of all entry 

6738 restrictions required by §§170.105 and 170.107 in accordance with this section. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 305 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6739 (1) Type of notification required -- (i) Outdoor production applications. If a pesticide 

6740 with product labeling that requires a restricted-entry interval greater than 48 hours is applied in 

6741 outdoor production, the agricultural employer must notify workers of the application by posting 

6742 warning signs in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. If the product labeling of the 

6743 pesticide requires a restricted-entry interval equal to or less than 48 hours, the agricultural 

6744 employer must notify workers of the application either by posting warning signs in accordance 

6745 with paragraph (b) of this section or by providing workers with an oral warning in accordance 

6746 with paragraph (c) of this section. 

6747 (ii) Enclosed space production applications. If a pesticide with product labeling that 

6748 requires a restricted-entry interval greater than 4 hours is applied in enclosed space production, 

6749 the agricultural employer must notify workers of the application by posting warning signs in 

6750 accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. If the product labeling of the pesticide requires a 

6751 restricted-entry interval equal to or less than 4 hours, the agricultural employer must notify 

6752 workers of the application either by posting warning signs in accordance with paragraph (b) of 

6753 this section or by providing workers with an oral warning in accordance with paragraph (c) of 

6754 this section. 

6755 (iii) Double notification. If the pesticide product labeling has a statement requiring both 

6756 the posting of treated areas and oral notification to workers, the agricultural employer must post 

6757 signs in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section and must also provide oral notification of 

6758 the application to the worker in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section. 

6759 (2) Exceptions. Notification need not be given to a worker if the agricultural employer 

6760 can ensure that one of the following is met: 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 306 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6761 (i) From the start of the application in enclosed space production until the end of the 

6762 application and during any restricted-entry interval, no workers will enter the entire enclosed 

6763 space. 

6764 (ii) The only worker(s) for which notification is required were also involved in the 

6765 application of the pesticide as handlers, and they are aware of all information required by 

6766 paragraph (c)(1) of this section. 

6767 (iii) From the start of the application in outdoor production until the end of the 

6768 application and during any restricted-entry interval, no worker(s) will enter, work in, remain in, 

6769 or pass through on foot the treated area or any area within 1/4 mile of the treated area on the 

6770 agricultural establishment. 

6771 (b) Requirements for posted warning signs. When posting is required, the agricultural 

6772 employer must, unless otherwise prescribed by the label, ensure that the warning sign(s) 

6773 conforms to the requirements of this paragraph. When several contiguous areas are to be treated 

6774 with pesticides on a rotating or sequential basis, the entire area may be posted. Worker entry, 

6775 other than entry permitted by §170.303 of this part, is prohibited for the entire area while the 

6776 signs are posted. 

6777 (1) General. The warning signs must meet all of the following requirements: 

6778 (i) Be one of the three sizes specified in this paragraph (b) and comply with the posting 

6779 placement and spacing requirements applicable to that sign size. 

6780 (ii) Be posted prior to but no earlier than 24 hours before the scheduled application of the 

6781 pesticide. 

6782 (iii) Remain posted throughout the application and any restricted-entry interval. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 307 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6783 (iv) Be removed or covered within 3 days after the end of the application or any 

6784 restricted-entry interval, whichever is later, but under no circumstances shall the signs remain 

6785 posted and uncovered when worker entry is permitted, other than entry permitted by §170.303 of 

6786 this part. 

6787 (v) Remain visible and legible during the time they are required to be posted. 

6788 (2) Content. (i) The warning sign must have a white background. The words "DANGER" 

6789 and "PELIGRO," plus "PESTICIDES" and "PESTICIDAS," must be at the top of the sign, and 

6790 the words “Entry Restricted" and "Entrada Restringida" must be at the bottom of the sign. Letters 

6791 for all words must be clearly legible. An octagon containing an upraised hand on the left and a 

6792 stern face on the right must be near the center of the sign. The inside of the octagon must be red, 

6793 except that the hand and a large portion of the face must be in white. The length of the hand must 

6794 be at least twice the height of the smallest letters. The length of the face must be only slightly 

6795 smaller than the hand. Additional information such as the name of the pesticide and the date of 

6796 application may appear on the warning sign if it does not detract from the size and appearance of 

6797 the sign or change the meaning of the required information. An example of a warning sign 

6798 meeting these requirements, other than the size and color requirements, follows: 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 308 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6799 

6800

6801 (ii) The agricultural employer may replace the Spanish portion of the warning sign with 

6802 an alternative non-English language if that alternative language is the language read by the 

6803 largest group of workers at that agricultural establishment who do not read English. The 

6804 alternative language sign must be in the same format as the original sign and conform to all other 

6805 requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section. 

6806 (iii) Until [date 2 years after effective date of the final rule specified in §170.7], a 

6807 warning sign meeting the following requirements may be substituted for the warning sign 

6808 specified in paragraph (b)(i) of this section. The warning sign must have a background color that 

6809 contrasts with red. The words “DANGER” and “PELIGRO,” plus “PESTICIDES” and 

6810 “PESTICIDAS,” shall be at the top of the sign, and the words “KEEP OUT” and “NO ENTRE” 

6811 shall be at the bottom of the sign. Letters for all words must be clearly legible. A circle 

6812 containing an upraised hand on the left and a stern face on the right must be near the center of the 

6813 sign. The inside of the circle must be red, except that the hand and a large portion of the face 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 309 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6814 must be in a shade that contrasts with red. The length of the hand must be at least twice the 

6815 height of the smallest letters. The length of the face must be only slightly smaller than the hand. 

6816 Additional information such as the name of the pesticide and the date of application may appear 

6817 on the warning sign if it does not detract from the appearance of the sign or change the meaning 

6818 of the required information. An example of a warning sign meeting these requirements, other 

6819 than the size and color requirements, follows: 

6820

6821

6822 (3) Size and posting. (i) The standard sign must be at least 14 inches by 16 inches with 

6823 letters at least 1 inch in height. 

6824 (ii) When posting treated areas in outdoor production using the standard sign, the signs 

6825 must be visible from all reasonably expected points of worker entry to the treated area, including 

6826 at least each access road, each border with any worker housing area within 100 feet of the treated 

6827 area, and each footpath and other walking route that enters the treated area. Where there are no 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 310 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6828 reasonably expected points of worker entry, signs must be posted in the corners of the treated 

6829 area or in any other location affording maximum visibility. 

6830 (iii) When posting treated areas in enclosed space production using the standard sign, the 

6831 signs must be posted so they are visible from all reasonably expected points of worker entry to 

6832 the treated area including each aisle or other walking route that enters the treated area. Where 

6833 there are no reasonably expected points of worker entry to the treated area, signs must be posted 

6834 in the corners of the treated area or in any other location affording maximum visibility. 

6835 (iv) If a smaller warning sign is used with “DANGER” and “PELIGRO” in letters at least 

6836 7/8 inch in height and the remaining letters at least 1/2 inch in height and a red octagon at least 3 

6837 inches in diameter containing an upraised hand and a stern face, the signs must be posted no 

6838 farther than 50 feet apart around the perimeter of the treated area in addition to the locations 

6839 specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) or (b)(3)(iii) of this section. 

6840 (v) If a smaller sign is used with “DANGER” and “PELIGRO” in letters at least 7/16 

6841 inch in height and the remaining letters at least 1/4 inch in height and a red octagon at least one 

6842 and a half inches in diameter containing an upraised hand and a stern face, the signs must be 

6843 posted no farther than 25 feet apart around the perimeter of the treated area in addition to the 

6844 locations specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) or (b)(3)(iii) of this section. 

6845 (vi) A sign with “DANGER” and “PELIGRO” in letters less than 7/16 inch in height or 

6846 with any words in letters less than 1/4 inch in height or a red octagon smaller than one and a half 

6847 inches in diameter containing an upraised hand and a stern face is not permitted. 

6848 (c) Oral warnings -- (1) Requirement. The agricultural employer must provide oral 

6849 warnings to workers in a manner that the workers can understand. If a worker is on the premises 

6850 when an application will occur, the warning must be given before the application begins. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 311 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6851 Otherwise, the warning must be given at the beginning of the worker's first work period during 

6852 which the application is taking place or the restricted-entry interval for the pesticide is in effect. 

6853 The warning must include all of the following: 

6854 (i) The location(s) and description of the entry-restricted area(s) and the treated area(s). 

6855 (ii) The dates and times during which entry is restricted. 

6856 (iii) Instructions not to enter the entry-restricted area during application, and not to enter 

6857 the treated area until the restricted-entry interval has expired. 

6858 §170.111 Worker decontamination supplies. 

6859 (a) Requirement. The agricultural employer must provide decontamination supplies in 

6860 accordance with this section for any worker on an agricultural establishment who is performing 

6861 an activity in an area where a pesticide was applied and who contacts anything that has been 

6862 treated with the pesticide, including, but not limited to, soil, water, and plants. 

6863 (b) General conditions. The decontamination supplies required in paragraph (a) of this 

6864 section must include 1 gallon of water per worker for routine washing and emergency eye 

6865 flushing, soap, and single-use towels. The supplies must meet all of the following requirements: 

6866 (1) Water. At all times when this part requires agricultural employers to make water 

6867 available to workers, the agricultural employer must ensure that it is of a quality and temperature 

6868 that will not cause illness or injury when it contacts the skin or eyes or if it is swallowed. When 

6869 water stored in a tank is to be used for mixing pesticides, it must not be used for decontamination 

6870 or eye flushing, unless the tank is equipped with properly functioning valves or other 

6871 mechanisms that prevent movement of pesticides into the tank, such as anti-backflow siphon 

6872 devices, one-way or check valves, or an air gap sufficient to prevent contamination. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 312 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6873 (2) Soap and single-use towels. The agricultural employer must provide soap and single6874 use towels for drying in quantities sufficient to meet the workers' needs. Hand sanitizing gels and 

6875 liquids or wet towelettes do not meet the requirement for soap. Wet towelettes do not meet the 

6876 requirement for single-use towels. 

6877 (c) Timing. (1) If any pesticide with a restricted-entry interval greater than 4 hours was 

6878 applied, the decontamination supplies must be provided from the time workers first enter the 

6879 treated area until at least 30 days after the restricted-entry interval expires. 

6880 (2) If the only pesticides applied in the treated area are products with a restricted-entry 

6881 interval of 4 hours or less, the decontamination supplies must be provided from the time workers 

6882 first enter the treated area until at least 7 days after the restricted-entry interval expires. 

6883 (d) Location. (1) The decontamination supplies must be located together and be 

6884 reasonably accessible to and not more than 1/4 mile from where workers are working. 

6885 (2) Where workers are working more than 1/4 mile from the nearest place of vehicular 

6886 access, the soap, single-use towels, clean change of clothing, and water may be at the nearest 

6887 place of vehicular access. 

6888 (3) The decontamination supplies must be outside any treated area. 

6889 Subpart C – Requirements for Protection of Agricultural Pesticide Handlers 

6890 §170.201 Training requirements for handlers. 

6891 (a) General requirement. Before any handler performs any handler activity involving a 

6892 pesticide product bearing a label requiring compliance with this part, the handler employer must 

6893 ensure that the handler has been trained in accordance with this section within the last 12 

6894 months, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section. 

6895 (b) Exceptions. The following persons need not be trained under this section: 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 313 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6896 (1) A handler who is currently certified as an applicator of restricted use pesticides under 

6897 part 171 of this chapter. 

6898 (2) A handler who is certified or licensed as a crop advisor by a program acknowledged 

6899 as appropriate in writing by EPA or the state or tribal agency responsible for pesticide 

6900 enforcement, provided that a requirement for such certification or licensing is pesticide safety 

6901 training that includes all the topics set out in §170.201(c)(2) and (3). 

6902 (c) Training programs. (1) Pesticide safety training must be presented to handlers either 

6903 orally from written materials or audio-visually, at a location that is reasonably free from 

6904 distraction and conducive to training. All training materials must be EPA-approved. The training 

6905 must be presented in a manner that the handlers can understand, such as through a translator. A 

6906 person that meets the handler trainer requirements of §170.201(c)(4) must be present during the 

6907 entire training program to conduct the training and must respond to handlers’ questions. 

6908 (2) The pesticide safety training materials must include, at a minimum, all of the 

6909 following: 

6910 (i) All the topics required by §170.101(c)(2).

6911 (ii) Information on proper application and use of pesticides. 

6912 (iii) Handlers must follow all pesticide labeling and use directions. 

6913 (iv) Format and meaning of all information contained on pesticide labels and in labeling. 

6914 (v) Need for and appropriate use and removal of all personal protective equipment. 

6915 (vi) How to recognize, prevent, and provide first aid treatment for heat-related illness. 

6916 (vii) Safety requirements for handling, transporting, storing, and disposing of pesticides, 

6917 including general procedures for spill cleanup. 

6918 (viii) Environmental concerns, such as drift, runoff, and wildlife hazards. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 314 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6919 (ix) Handlers must not apply pesticides in a manner that results in contact with workers 

6920 or other persons. 

6921 (x) Handler employers are required to provide handlers with information and protections 

6922 designed to reduce work-related pesticide exposures and illnesses. This includes providing, 

6923 cleaning, maintaining, storing, and ensuring proper use of all required personal protective 

6924 equipment; providing decontamination supplies; and providing specific information about 

6925 pesticide use and labeling information. 

6926 (3) After [date 2 years after effective date of final rule specified in §170.7], the training 

6927 materials must also include all of the following: 

6928 (i) Handlers must cease or suspend a pesticide application if workers or other persons are 

6929 in the treated area or the entry-restricted area. 

6930 (ii) Handlers must be at least 16 years of age. 

6931 (iii) Handler employers must ensure handlers have received respirator fit-testing, training 

6932 and medical evaluation if they are required to wear a respirator. 

6933 (iv) Handler employers must post treated areas as required by this rule. 

6934 (v) All the topics specified in §170.101(c)(3). 

6935 (4) The person who conducts the training must meet one of the following: 

6936 (i) Be certified as an applicator of restricted use pesticides under part 171 of this chapter. 

6937 (ii) Be designated as a trainer of certified applicators or pesticide handlers by EPA or the 

6938 state or tribal agency responsible for pesticide enforcement. 

6939 (iii) Have completed an EPA-approved pesticide safety train-the-trainer program for 

6940 handler trainers. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 315 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6941 (d) Recordkeeping. (1) Handler employers must maintain records of training for handlers 

6942 employed by their establishment for 2 years from the date of the training. The records must be 

6943 maintained on the establishment and must include all of the following information: 

6944 (i) The trained handler’s printed name and signature. 

6945 (ii) The trained handler’s date of birth. 

6946 (iii) The date of the training. 

6947 (iv) Information identifying which EPA-approved training materials were used. 

6948 (v) The trainer’s name and documentation showing that the trainer met the requirements 

6949 of §170.201(c)(4) at the time of training. 

6950 (vi) The handler employer’s name. 

6951 (2) For each handler trained, the handler employer must provide a record of the training 

6952 to the handler that contains the information required under §170.201(d)(1). 

6953 §170.203 Knowledge of labeling, application-specific, and establishment-specific 

6954 information for handlers. 

6955 (a) Knowledge of labeling and application-specific information. (1) The handler 

6956 employer must ensure that before any handler performs any handler activity involving a pesticide 

6957 product bearing a label requiring compliance with this part, the handler either has read the 

6958 pesticide product labeling or has been informed in a manner the handler can understand of all 

6959 labeling requirements and use directions necessary for proper use of the pesticide. 

6960 (2) The handler employer must ensure that the handler has access to the product labeling 

6961 at all times during handler activities. 

6962 (3) The handler employer must ensure that the handler is aware of requirements for any 

6963 entry-restricted areas as described in §170.105. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 316 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6964 (b) Knowledge of establishment-specific information -- (1) Requirement. Before any 

6965 handler performs any pesticide handler activity on an agricultural establishment where within the 

6966 last 30 days a pesticide product bearing a label requiring compliance with this part has been 

6967 used, or a restricted-entry interval for such pesticide has been in effect, the handler employer 

6968 must ensure that the handler has been informed of establishment-specific information in 

6969 accordance with this paragraph (b). The establishment-specific information must be provided 

6970 orally, in a manner the handler can understand. 

6971 (2) Content. The establishment-specific information must include all of the following: 

6972 (i) The location of pesticide safety information required by §170.11(a). 

6973 (ii) The location of pesticide application and hazard information required by §170.11(b). 

6974 (iii) The location of decontamination supplies required by § 170.209. 

6975 §170.205 Requirements during applications to protect handlers, workers, and other 

6976 persons. 

6977 (a) Contact with workers and other persons. The handler employer and the handler must 

6978 ensure that no pesticide is applied so as to contact, directly or through drift, any worker or other 

6979 person, other than an appropriately trained and equipped handler located on the establishment. 

6980 (b) Suspending applications. After [date 2 years after effective date of final rule specified 

6981 in § 170.7], the handler performing the application must immediately stop or suspend a pesticide 

6982 application if any worker or other person, other than an appropriately trained and equipped 

6983 handler, is in the treated area or entry-restricted area. 

6984 (c) Handlers using highly toxic pesticides. The handler employer must ensure that any 

6985 handler who is performing any handler activity with a pesticide product that has the skull-and-
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 317 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6986 crossbones symbol on the front panel of the pesticide product label is monitored visually or by 

6987 voice communication at least every 2 hours. 

6988 (d) Fumigant applications in enclosed space production. The handler employer must 

6989 ensure all of the following: 

6990 (1) That any handler who enters an entry-restricted area described in Table 2 of §170.105, 

6991 maintains continuous visual or voice contact with another handler stationed immediately outside 

6992 of the enclosed space. 

6993 (2) That the handler stationed outside the enclosed space has immediate access to and 

6994 uses the personal protective equipment required by the fumigant labeling for handlers, in the 

6995 event that entry becomes necessary for rescue. 

6996 §170.207 Personal protective equipment. 

6997 (a) Handler responsibilities. Any person who performs handler activities involving a 

6998 pesticide product bearing a label requiring compliance with this part must use the clothing and 

6999 personal protective equipment specified on the pesticide product labeling for use of the product. 

7000 (b) Employer responsibilities for providing personal protective equipment. The handler 

7001 employer must provide to the handler the personal protective equipment required by pesticide 

7002 product labeling in accordance with this section. The handler employer must ensure that the 

7003 personal protective equipment is clean and in proper operating condition. For the purposes of this 

7004 section, long-sleeved shirts, short-sleeved shirts, long pants, short pants, shoes, and socks are not 

7005 considered personal protective equipment, even though pesticide labeling may require such work 

7006 clothing to be worn. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 318 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

7007 (1) When "chemical-resistant" personal protective equipment is specified by the pesticide 

7008 product labeling to be worn, it must be made of material that the manufacturer has declared, in 

7009 writing, to be chemical resistant. 

7010 (2) When "waterproof" personal protective equipment is specified by the pesticide 

7011 product labeling to be worn, it must be made of material that allows no measurable movement of 

7012 water or aqueous solutions through the material during ordinary conditions of use. 

7013 (3) When a "chemical-resistant suit" is specified by the pesticide product labeling to be 

7014 worn, it must be a loose-fitting, one- or two-piece chemical-resistant garment that covers, at a 

7015 minimum, the entire body except head, hands, and feet. 

7016 (4) When "coveralls" are specified by the pesticide product labeling to be worn, they 

7017 must be loose-fitting, one- or two-piece garments that cover, at a minimum, the entire body 

7018 except head, hands, and feet. 

7019 (5) Gloves must be the type specified on the pesticide product labeling. 

7020 (i) Gloves made of leather, cotton, or other absorbent materials may not be worn while 

7021 performing handler activities unless gloves made of these materials are listed as acceptable for 

7022 such use on the pesticide product labeling. 

7023 (ii) Separable glove liners may be worn beneath chemical-resistant gloves, unless the 

7024 pesticide product labeling specifically prohibits their use. Separable glove liners are defined as 

7025 separate glove-like hand coverings, made of lightweight material, with or without fingers. Work 

7026 gloves made from lightweight cotton or poly-type material are considered to be glove liners if 

7027 worn beneath chemical-resistant gloves. Separable glove liners may not extend outside the 

7028 chemical-resistant gloves under which they are worn. Chemical-resistant gloves with non7029 separable absorbent lining materials are prohibited. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 319 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

7030 (iii) If used, separable glove liners must be discarded immediately after a total of no more 

7031 than 10 hours of use or within 24 hours of when first put on, whichever comes first. The liners 

7032 must be replaced immediately if directly contacted by pesticide. Used glove liners must not be 

7033 reused. Contaminated liners must be disposed of in accordance with any federal, state, or local 

7034 regulations. 

7035 (6) When "chemical-resistant footwear" is specified by the pesticide product labeling to 

7036 be worn, one of the following types of footwear must be worn: 

7037 (i) Chemical-resistant shoes. 

7038 (ii) Chemical-resistant boots. 

7039 (iii) Chemical-resistant shoe coverings worn over shoes or boots. 

7040 (7) When "protective eyewear" is specified by the pesticide product labeling to be worn, 

7041 one of the following types of eyewear must be worn: 

7042 (i) Goggles. 

7043 (ii) Face shield. 

7044 (iii) Safety glasses with front, brow, and temple protection. 

7045 (iv) Full-face respirator. 

7046 (8) When a "chemical-resistant apron" is specified by the pesticide product labeling to be 

7047 worn, an apron that covers the front of the body from mid-chest to the knees must be worn. 

7048 (9) The respirator specified by the pesticide product labeling must be used. Whenever a 

7049 respirator other than a dust/mist filtering respirator is required by the pesticide product labeling, 

7050 the handler employer must ensure that the requirements of paragraphs (b)(9)(i) through (iii) of 

7051 this section are met before the handler performs any pesticide handler activity where the 

7052 respirator is required to be worn. The handler employer must maintain for 2 years, on the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 320 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

7053 establishment, records documenting the completion of the requirements of paragraphs (b)(9)(i) 

7054 through (iii) of this section. 

7055 (i) Handler employers must provide handlers with fit-testing using the respirator specified 

7056 on the pesticide product label in a manner that conforms to the provisions of 29 CFR 1910.134. 

7057 (ii) Handler employers must provide handlers with training in the use of the respirator 

7058 specified on the pesticide product label in a manner that conforms to the provisions of 29 CFR 

7059 1910.134. 

7060 (iii) Handler employers must provide handlers with a medical evaluation by a physician 

7061 or other licensed health care professional that conforms to the provisions of 29 CFR § 1910.134 

7062 to ensure the handler’s physical ability to safely wear the respirator specified on the pesticide 

7063 product label. 

7064 (10) When "chemical-resistant headgear" is specified by the pesticide product labeling, it 

7065 must be either a chemical-resistant hood or a chemical-resistant hat with a wide brim. 

7066 (c) Use of personal protective equipment. (1) The handler employer must ensure that 

7067 personal protective equipment is used correctly for its intended purpose and is used according to 

7068 the manufacturer's instructions. 

7069 (2) The handler employer must ensure that, before each day of use, all personal protective 

7070 equipment is inspected for leaks, holes, tears, or worn places, and any damaged equipment is 

7071 repaired or discarded. 

7072 (d) Cleaning and maintenance. (1) The handler employer must ensure that all personal 

7073 protective equipment is cleaned according to the manufacturer's instructions or pesticide product 

7074 labeling instructions before each day of reuse. In the absence of any such instructions, it must be 

7075 washed thoroughly in detergent and hot water. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 321 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

7076 (2) If any personal protective equipment cannot be cleaned properly, the handler 

7077 employer must render the personal protective equipment unusable and dispose of it in 

7078 accordance with any applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Coveralls or other absorbent 

7079 materials that have been drenched or heavily contaminated with a pesticide that has the signal 

7080 word “DANGER” or “WARNING” on the label must not be reused. 

7081 (3) The handler employer must ensure that contaminated personal protective equipment is 

7082 kept separately and washed separately from any other clothing or laundry. 

7083 (4) The handler employer must ensure that all washed personal protective equipment is 

7084 dried thoroughly before being stored or reused. 

7085 (5) The handler employer must ensure that all clean personal protective equipment is 

7086 stored separately from personal clothing and apart from pesticide-contaminated areas. 

7087 (6) The handler employer must ensure that when dust/mist filtering respirators are used, 

7088 they are replaced when one of the following conditions is met: 

7089 (i) When breathing resistance becomes excessive. 

7090 (ii) When the filter element has physical damage or tears. 

7091 (iii) According to manufacturer's recommendations or pesticide product labeling, 

7092 whichever is more frequent. 

7093 (iv) In the absence of any other instructions or indications of service life, at the end of 8 

7094 hours of cumulative use. 

7095 (7) The handler employer must ensure that when gas- or vapor-removing respirators are 

7096 used, the gas- or vapor-removing canisters or cartridges are replaced before further respirator use 

7097 when one of the following conditions is met: 

7098 (i) At the first indication of odor, taste, or irritation. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 322 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

7099 (ii) When breathing resistance becomes excessive. 

7100 (iii) According to manufacturer's recommendations or pesticide product labeling 

7101 instructions, whichever is more frequent. 

7102 (iv) In the absence of any other instructions or indications of service life, at the end of 8 

7103 hours of cumulative use. 

7104 (8) The handler employer must inform any person who cleans or launders personal 

7105 protective equipment of all the following: 

7106 (i) That such equipment may be contaminated with pesticides. 

7107 (ii) The potentially harmful effects of exposure to pesticides. 

7108 (iii) The correct way(s) to clean personal protective equipment and to protect themselves 

7109 when handling such equipment. 

7110 (iv) Proper decontamination and personal hygiene practices. 

7111 (9) The handler employer must ensure that handlers have a place(s) away from pesticide 

7112 storage and pesticide use areas where they may do all of the following: 

7113 (i) Store personal clothing not in use. 

7114 (ii) Put on personal protective equipment at the start of any exposure period. 

7115 (iii) Remove personal protective equipment at the end of any exposure period. 

7116 (10) The handler employer must not allow or direct any handler to wear home or to take 

7117 home personal protective equipment contaminated with pesticides. 

7118 (e) Heat-related illness. Where a pesticide label requires the use of personal protective 

7119 equipment for a handler activity, the handler employer must take appropriate measures to prevent 

7120 heat-related illness. 

7121
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 323 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

7122 §170.209 Handler decontamination supplies. 

7123 (a) Requirement. The handler employer must provide decontamination supplies in 

7124 accordance with this section for any handler that is performing any handler activity or removing 

7125 personal protective equipment at the place for changing required by §170.207(d)(9). 

7126 (b) General conditions. The decontamination supplies required in paragraph (a) of this 

7127 section must include: at least 3 gallons of water per handler for routine hand washing, emergency 

7128 eye flushing, and washing the entire body in case of an emergency; soap; single-use towels; and 

7129 clean clothing for use in an emergency. The decontamination supplies must meet all of the 

7130 following requirements: 

7131 (1) Water. At all times when this section requires handler employers to make water 

7132 available to handlers, the handler employer must ensure that it is of a quality and temperature 

7133 that will not cause illness or injury when it contacts the skin or eyes or if it is swallowed. When 

7134 water stored in a tank is to be used for mixing pesticides, it must not be used for decontamination 

7135 or eye flushing, unless the tank is equipped with properly functioning valves or other 

7136 mechanisms that prevent movement of pesticides into the tank, such as anti-backflow siphon 

7137 devices, one-way or check valves, or an air gap sufficient to prevent contamination. 

7138 (2) Soap and single-use towels. The handler employer must provide soap and single-use 

7139 towels for drying in quantities sufficient to meet the handlers' needs. Hand sanitizing gels and 

7140 liquids or wet towelettes do not meet the requirement for soap. Wet towelettes do not meet the 

7141 requirement for single-use towels. 

7142 (3) Clean change of clothing. The handler employer must provide one clean change of 

7143 clothing, such as coveralls, for use in an emergency. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 324 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

7144 (c) Location. The decontamination supplies must be located together outside of any 

7145 treated area, and be reasonably accessible to and not more than 1/4 mile from each handler 

7146 during the handler activity. 

7147 (1) Exception for mixing sites. For mixing activities, decontamination supplies must be at 

7148 the mixing site. 

7149 (2) Exception for pilots. Decontamination supplies for a pilot who is applying pesticides 

7150 aerially must be in the aircraft or at the aircraft loading site. 

7151 (3) Exception for handling pesticides in remote areas. Where handler activities are 

7152 performed more than 1/4 mile from the nearest place of vehicular access, the soap, single-use 

7153 towels, clean change of clothing, and water may be at the nearest place of vehicular access. 

7154 (4) Exception for treated areas. The decontamination supplies must be outside any 

7155 treated area or area subject to a restricted-entry interval, unless all of the following conditions are 

7156 met:

7157 (i) The soap, single-use towels, and clean change of clothing are protected from pesticide 

7158 contamination in closed containers. 

7159 (ii) The water is protected from pesticide contamination in closed containers. 

7160 (d) Emergency eyeflushing. If the product label requires protective eyewear for handlers, 

7161 the following requirements apply. 

7162 (1) To provide for emergency eyeflushing, the handler employer must provide at least 1 

7163 pint of water per handler in portable containers that are immediately available to each handler 

7164 who is performing activities for which the pesticide labeling requires protective eyewear. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 325 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

7165 (2) A system capable of delivering at least 1.5 liters (0.4 gallons) of water per minute for 

7166 15 minutes must be provided at all permanent pesticide mixing and loading sites when the label 

7167 requires protective eyewear for mixing, loading, or applying. 

7168 Subpart D - Exemptions and Exceptions 

7169 §170.301 Exemptions. 

7170 (a) Exemption for owners of agricultural establishments and their immediate families. (1) 

7171 On any agricultural establishment that is wholly owned by an individual, or where all of the 

7172 owners of the establishment are members of the same immediate family, the owner(s) of the 

7173 establishment are not required to provide the protections of the following provisions to 

7174 themselves or members of their immediate family when they are performing handling tasks or 

7175 tasks related to the production of agricultural plants that would otherwise be covered by this part 

7176 on their own agricultural establishment. 

7177 (i) §170.9(c). 

7178 (ii) §170.9(f) through (j). 

7179 (iii) §170.11. 

7180 (iv) §170.101. 

7181 (v) §170.103. 

7182 (vi) §170.109. 

7183 (vii) §170.111 and 170.209. 

7184 (viii) §170.201. 

7185 (ix) §170.203. 

7186 (x) §170.205(c) and (d). 

7187 (xi) §170.207(c) through (e). 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 326 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

7188 (xii) §170.305(a) through (c) and (e) through (k). 

7189 (2) The owners of agricultural establishments must provide all of the applicable 

7190 protections required by this part for any employees or other persons on the establishment that are 

7191 not members of their immediate family. 

7192 (b) Certified crop advisors. The requirements of §§ 170.9(e), 170.203(a), 170.207 and 

7193 170.209 of this part do not apply to certified crop advisors provided the application is complete 

7194 and all of the following conditions are met: 

7195 (1) The crop advisor is certified or licensed as a crop advisor by a program acknowledged 

7196 as appropriate in writing by EPA or a state or tribal agency responsible for pesticide 

7197 enforcement. 

7198 (2) The certification or licensing program requires pesticide safety training that includes 

7199 all the information in §170.201(c)(2) and (3). 

7200 (3) The crop advisor who enters a treated area during a restricted-entry interval only 

7201 performs crop advising tasks while in the treated area. 

7202 §170.303 Exceptions for entry by workers during restricted-entry intervals. 

7203 An agricultural employer may direct workers to enter treated areas where a restricted7204 entry interval is in effect to perform certain activities as provided in this section, and provided 

7205 that the agricultural employer ensures that the worker is at least 16 years old and all of the 

7206 applicable conditions of this section and §170.305 of this part are met. 

7207 (a) Exception for activities with no contact. A worker may enter a treated area during a 

7208 restricted-entry interval if the agricultural employer ensures that all of the following conditions 

7209 are met: 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 327 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

7210 (1) The worker will have no contact with anything that has been treated with the pesticide 

7211 to which the restricted-entry interval applies, including, but not limited to, soil, water, air, or 

7212 surfaces of plants. This exception does not allow workers to perform any activities that involve 

7213 contact with treated surfaces even if workers are wearing personal protective equipment. 

7214 (2) No such entry is allowed until any inhalation exposure level listed in the pesticide 

7215 product labeling has been reached or any ventilation criteria required by §170.105(b)(3) or the 

7216 pesticide product labeling have been met. 

7217 (b) Exception for short-term activities. A worker may enter a treated area during a 

7218 restricted-entry interval for short-term activities, if the agricultural employer ensures that all of 

7219 the following requirements are met: 

7220 (1) No hand labor activity is performed. 

7221 (2) The time in treated areas where a restricted-entry interval is in effect does not exceed 

7222 1 hour in any 24-hour period for any worker. 

7223 (3) No such entry is allowed during the first 4 hours after the application ends. 

7224 (4) No such entry is allowed until any inhalation exposure level listed in the pesticide 

7225 product labeling has been reached or any ventilation criteria required by §170.105(b)(3) or the 

7226 pesticide product labeling have been met. 

7227 (c) Exception for an agricultural emergency. (1) An agricultural emergency means a 

7228 sudden occurrence or set of circumstances which the agricultural employer could not have 

7229 anticipated and over which the agricultural employer has no control, and which requires entry 

7230 into a treated area during a restricted-entry interval, when no alternative practices would prevent 

7231 or mitigate a substantial economic loss. A substantial economic loss means a loss in profitability 

7232 greater than that which would be expected based on the experience and fluctuations of crop 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 328 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

7233 yields in previous years. Only losses caused by the agricultural emergency specific to the 

7234 affected site and geographic area are considered. Losses resulting from mismanagement cannot 

7235 be included when determining whether a loss is substantial. 

7236 (2) A worker may enter a treated area where a restricted-entry interval is in effect in an 

7237 agricultural emergency to perform tasks necessary to mitigate the effects of the agricultural 

7238 emergency, including hand labor tasks, if the agricultural employer ensures that all the following 

7239 criteria are met: 

7240 (i) EPA, the state department of agriculture, or the state or tribal agency responsible for 

7241 pesticide enforcement declares the existence of circumstances that could cause an agricultural 

7242 emergency on that agricultural establishment. 

7243 (ii) The agricultural employer determines that the agricultural establishment is subject to 

7244 the circumstances that result in an agricultural emergency meeting the criteria of paragraph (c)(1) 

7245 of this section. 

7246 (iii) If the labeling of any pesticide product applied to the treated area requires workers to 

7247 be notified of the location of treated areas by both posting and oral notification, then the 

7248 agricultural employer must ensure that no individual worker spends more than 4 hours out of any 

7249 24-hour period in treated areas where such a restricted-entry interval is in effect. 

7250 (d) Exceptions for limited contact and irrigation activities. A worker may enter a treated 

7251 area during a restricted-entry interval for limited contact or irrigation activities, if the agricultural 

7252 employer ensures that all of the following requirements are met: 

7253 (1) No hand labor activity is performed. 

7254 (2) No worker is allowed in the treated area for more than 8 hours in a 24-hour period. 

7255 (3) No entry is allowed during the first 4 hours after the application ends. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 329 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

7256 (4) No such entry is allowed until any inhalation exposure level listed in the pesticide 

7257 product labeling has been reached or any ventilation criteria required by §170.105(b)(3) or the 

7258 pesticide product labeling have been met. 

7259 (5) The task is one that, if not performed before the restricted-entry interval expires, 

7260 would cause substantial economic loss, and there are no alternative tasks that would prevent 

7261 substantial loss. 

7262 (6) With the exception of irrigation tasks, the need for the task could not have been 

7263 foreseen. 

7264 (7) The worker has no contact with pesticide-treated surfaces other than minimal contact 

7265 with feet, lower legs, hands, and forearms. 

7266 (8) The label of the product that was applied does not require both posting and oral 

7267 notification. 

7268 §170.305 Agricultural employer responsibilities to protect workers entering treated areas 

7269 during a restricted-entry interval.

7270 If an agricultural employer directs a worker to perform activities in a treated area where a 

7271 restricted-entry interval is in effect, all of the following requirements must be met: 

7272 (a) Prior to early entry, the agricultural employer must inform each early entry worker 

7273 with the information in paragraphs (a)(1) through (9) of this section. The information must be 

7274 provided orally in a manner that the worker can understand. 

7275 (1) Date of the entry. 

7276 (2) Location of early entry area. 

7277 (3) Pesticide(s) applied. 

7278 (4) Dates and times that the restricted-entry interval begins and ends. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 330 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

7279 (5) Which exception in §170.303 is the basis for the early entry, and a description of tasks 

7280 that may be performed under the exception. 

7281 (6) Whether contact with treated surfaces is permitted under the exception. 

7282 (7) Amount of time the worker is allowed to remain in the treated area. 

7283 (8) Personal protective equipment required by the pesticide product labeling for early 

7284 entry. 

7285 (9) Location of the pesticide safety information and the location of the decontamination 

7286 supplies required by §§170.11(a)(1) and 170.111(d). 

7287 (b) The agricultural employer must maintain on the agricultural establishment for 2 years 

7288 a record of the information provided to early entry workers under paragraph (a) of this section, 

7289 along with the printed name, date of birth, and signature of each early entry worker who received 

7290 the information. 

7291 (c) Prior to early entry, the agricultural employer must ensure that each worker either has 

7292 read the pesticide product labeling or has been informed, in a manner that the worker can 

7293 understand, of all labeling requirements and statements related to human hazards or precautions, 

7294 first aid, and user safety. 

7295 (d) The agricultural employer must ensure that each worker who enters a treated area 

7296 during a restricted-entry interval is provided the personal protective equipment specified in the 

7297 pesticide product labeling for early entry workers. The agricultural employer must ensure that the 

7298 worker uses the personal protective equipment as intended according to manufacturer’s 

7299 instructions and follows any other requirements on the pesticide product labeling regarding early 

7300 entry. Personal protective equipment must conform to the standards in §170.207 (b)(1) through 

7301 (8).
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 331 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

7302 (e) The agricultural employer must maintain the personal protective equipment in 

7303 accordance with §170.207(d)(1) through (8). 

7304 (f) The agricultural employer must ensure that no worker is allowed or directed to wear 

7305 personal protective equipment, without implementing measures sufficient to prevent heat-related 

7306 illness and that each worker is instructed in the prevention, recognition, and first aid treatment of 

7307 heat-related illness. 

7308 (g) The agricultural employer must not allow or direct any worker to wear home or to 

7309 take home employer-provided personal protective equipment contaminated with pesticides. 

7310 (h) During any early entry activity, the agricultural employer must provide 

7311 decontamination supplies in accordance with §170.209, except the decontamination supplies 

7312 must be outside any area being treated with pesticides or subject to a restricted-entry interval, 

7313 unless the decontamination supplies would otherwise not be reasonably accessible to those 

7314 workers. 

7315 (i) If the pesticide product labeling of the product applied requires protective eyewear, the 

7316 agricultural employer must provide at least 1 pint of water per worker in portable containers that 

7317 are immediately available to each worker who is performing early entry activities for emergency 

7318 eyeflushing. 

7319 (j) At the end of any early entry activities the agricultural employer must provide, at the 

7320 site where the workers remove personal protective equipment, soap, single-use towels and at 

7321 least 3 gallons of water per worker so that the workers may wash thoroughly. 

7322 §170.307 Exceptions to personal protective equipment requirements specified on pesticide 

7323 product labeling.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 332 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

7324 (a) Body protection. (1) A chemical-resistant suit may be substituted for coveralls, and 

7325 any requirement for an additional layer of clothing beneath the coveralls is waived. 

7326 (2) A chemical-resistant suit may be substituted for coveralls and a chemical-resistant 

7327 apron. 

7328 (b) Boots. If chemical-resistant footwear with sufficient durability and a tread appropriate 

7329 for wear in rough terrain is not obtainable, then leather boots may be worn in such terrain. 

7330 (c) Gloves. If chemical-resistant gloves with sufficient durability and suppleness are not 

7331 obtainable, then during activities with plants with sharp thorns, leather gloves may be worn over 

7332 chemical-resistant glove liners. However, once leather gloves are worn for this use, thereafter 

7333 they must be worn only with chemical-resistant liners and they must not be worn for any other 

7334 use. 

7335 (d) Closed systems.(1) When pesticides are being mixed or loaded using a closed system 

7336 as defined in §170.5 that meets all of the criteria in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, and the 

7337 handler employer meets the requirements of paragraph (d)(3) of this section, the following 

7338 exceptions to labeling-specified personal protective equipment are permitted: 

7339 (i) Handlers using a closed system to mix or load pesticides with a signal word of 

7340 “DANGER” or “WARNING” may substitute a long-sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes and socks, 

7341 chemical-resistant apron, protective eyewear, and any protective gloves specified on the labeling 

7342 for handlers for the labeling-specified personal protective equipment. 

7343 (ii) Handlers using a closed system to mix or load pesticides other than those specified in 

7344 paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section may substitute protective eyewear, long-sleeved shirt, long 

7345 pants, and shoes and socks for the labeling-specified personal protective equipment. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 333 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

7346 (2) The exceptions of paragraph (d)(1) of this section apply only where the closed system 

7347 meets all of the following criteria: 

7348 (i) The pesticide must be removed from its original shipping container and transferred 

7349 through connecting hoses pipes, and/or couplings that are sufficiently tight to prevent exposure 

7350 of any person to the concentrate, use dilution, or rinse solution. 

7351 (ii) All hoses, piping, tanks, and connections used in conjunction with a closed system 

7352 must be of a type appropriate for the pesticide being used and, the pressure and vacuum of the

7353 system. 

7354 (iii) All sight gauges must be protected against breakage. Sight gauges must be equipped 

7355 with valves so the pipes to the sight gauge can be shut off in case of breakage or leakage. 

7356 (iv) The closed system must adequately measure the pesticide being used. Measuring 

7357 devices must be accurately calibrated to the smallest unit in which the material is being weighed 

7358 or measured. 

7359 (v) The movement of a pesticide concentrate beyond a pump by positive pressure must 

7360 not exceed 25 pounds per square inch (psi) of pressure. 

7361 (vi) A probe must not be removed from a container except when the pesticide is used 

7362 without dilution and the container has been emptied or the container is emptied and the inside, as 

7363 well as the probe, have been rinsed in accordance with §170.307(d)(2)(viii). 

7364 (vii) Shut-off devices must be installed on the exit end of all hoses and at all disconnect 

7365 points to prevent the pesticide from leaking when the transfer is stopped and the hose is removed 

7366 or disconnected. If the hose carried pesticide concentrate and has not been rinsed in accordance 

7367 with §170.307(d)(2)(viii), a dry break coupler that will minimize pesticide loss to not more than 

7368 two milliliters per disconnect must be installed at the disconnect point. If the hose carried a 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 334 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

7369 pesticide use dilution or rinse solution, a reversing action pump or a similar system that will 

7370 empty the hose may be used as an alternative to a shutoff device. 

7371 (viii) When the pesticide is to be diluted for use, the closed system must provide for 

7372 adequate rinsing of containers that have held less than 60 gallons of a liquid pesticide. Rinsing 

7373 must be done with a medium, such as water, that contains no pesticide. The system must be 

7374 capable of spray-rinsing the inner surfaces of the container and the rinse solution must go into 

7375 the pesticide mix tank or applicator vehicle via the closed system. The system must be capable of 

7376 rinsing the probe, if used, and all hoses, measuring devices, etc. A minimum of 15 psi of pressure 

7377 must be used for rinsing. The rinsing must be continued until minimum of 10 gallons or one-half 

7378 of the container volume, whichever is less, has been used. The rinse solution must be removed 

7379 from the pesticide container concurrently with introduction of the rinse medium. Pesticide 

7380 containers must be protected against excessive pressure during the container rinse operation. The 

7381 maximum container pressure must not exceed five psi. 

7382 (ix) Each commercially produced closed system or component to be used with a closed 

7383 system must be sold with complete instructions consisting of a functional operating manual and a 

7384 decal(s) covering the basic operation. The decal(s) must be placed in a prominent location on the 

7385 system. The system must include specific directions for cleaning and maintenance of the system 

7386 on a scheduled basis and information on any restrictions or limitations relating to the system, 

7387 such as pesticides that are incompatible with materials used in the construction of the system, 

7388 types (or sizes) of containers or closures that cannot be handled by the system, any limits on 

7389 ability to correct or over measurement of a pesticide, or special procedures or limitations on the 

7390 ability of the system to deal with partial containers 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 335 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

7391 (3) The exceptions of paragraph (d)(1) of this section apply only where the handler 

7392 employer has satisfied the requirements of §170.13 and all of the following conditions: 

7393 (i) The written operating instructions for the closed system must be available at the 

7394 mixing or loading site and must be made available to any handlers who use the system and for 

7395 inspection by authorized officials. 

7396 (ii) The handler employer must assure that any handler operating the closed system is 

7397 trained in its use and operates the closed system in accordance with the manufacturer’s written 

7398 operating instructions. 

7399 (iii) The closed system must be cleaned and maintained as specified in the manufacturer's 

7400 written operating instructions and as needed to make sure the system functions properly. If the 

7401 system is not a commercially produced system it must be maintained on a regular basis. 

7402 (iv) A record of the cleaning and maintenance must be maintained on the establishment 

7403 for 2 years. 

7404 (v) All personal protective equipment specified in the pesticide product labeling is 

7405 immediately available to the handler for use in an emergency. 

7406 (vi) The handler employer ensures that protective eyewear is worn when using closed 

7407 systems operating under pressure. 

7408 (e) Enclosed cabs. (1) If a handler applies a pesticide from inside an enclosed cab, and if 

7409 the conditions listed in paragraph (e)(2) of this section are met, handlers may substitute a long7410 sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes, and socks for the labeling-specified personal protective 

7411 equipment. 

7412 (2) All of the applicator personal protective equipment required by the pesticide product 

7413 labeling must be immediately available and stored in an enclosed container, such as a plastic bag, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 336 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

7414 to prevent contamination. Handlers must wear chemical-resistant gloves in addition to any 

7415 personal protective equipment required by the pesticide product labeling for applicators, if they 

7416 exit the cab within a treated area during application or when a restricted-entry interval is in 

7417 effect. Once personal protective equipment is worn in a treated area, it must be removed before 

7418 reentering the cab. 

7419 (f) Aerial applications -- (1) Use of gloves. Chemical-resistant gloves must be worn when 

7420 entering or leaving an aircraft that may be contaminated by pesticide residues. In the cockpit, the 

7421 gloves must be kept in an enclosed container, such as a plastic bag, to prevent contamination of 

7422 the inside of the cockpit. 

7423 (2) Open cockpit. Handlers occupying an open cockpit must use the personal protective 

7424 equipment specified in the pesticide product labeling for use during application, except that 

7425 chemical-resistant footwear need not be worn. A helmet may be substituted for chemical7426 resistant headgear. A helmet with a face shield lowered to cover the face may be substituted for 

7427 protective eyewear. 

7428 (3) Enclosed cockpit. Handlers occupying an enclosed cockpit may substitute a long7429 sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes, and socks for labeling-specified personal protective equipment. 

7430 (g) Crop advisors. Crop advisors entering treated areas while a restricted-entry interval is 

7431 in effect may wear the personal protective equipment specified on the pesticide labeling for early 

7432 entry activities instead of the personal protective equipment specified on the pesticide labeling 

7433 for handler activities, provided that all of the following conditions are met: 

7434 (1) The application has been complete for at least 4 hours. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 337 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

7435 (2) No such entry is allowed until any inhalation exposure level listed in the pesticide 

7436 product labeling has been reached or any ventilation criteria required by §170.105(b)(3) or the 

7437 pesticide product labeling have been met. 

7438 §170.309 Exception to training requirements for workers. 

7439 An agricultural employer may allow or direct a worker to perform tasks in a treated area 

7440 on an agricultural establishment for up to two days without training the worker in accordance 

7441 with §170.101 provided the agricultural employer ensures all of the conditions of this section are 

7442 met. 

7443 (a) The worker is trained in accordance with §170.101 before the third day of working in 

7444 a treated area on the establishment. 

7445 (b) The worker will not enter a treated area on the agricultural establishment while any 

7446 restricted-entry interval is in effect. 

7447 (c) The worker is provided with a copy of a pesticide information sheet that contains all 

7448 of the points and information listed in §170.309(e)(1) through (15) prior to conducting any tasks 

7449 in a treated area, and that same information is communicated to the worker orally in a manner the 

7450 worker understands. 

7451 (d) The agricultural employer must maintain on the agricultural establishment for a 

7452 period of 2 years a record of the information provided to the worker under §170.309(c), along 

7453 with the printed name of the worker, date of birth, the date the information was provided, the 

7454 employer’s name, and employer’s phone number or phone number of the establishment, and 

7455 signature of the worker affirming that he or she has been provided a copy of the information 

7456 sheet required by §170.309(c), has had the information communicated to him or her orally in a 

7457 manner the worker understands, and has understood the information. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 338 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

7458 (e) Pesticide information sheets required by §170.309(c) must convey the following 

7459 points and information: 

7460 (1) Agricultural employers are required to provide workers with information and 

7461 protections designed to reduce work-related pesticide exposures and illnesses, including the 

7462 following: 

7463 (i) Employers are required to provide pesticide safety information to workers before 

7464 being asked to work in pesticide treated areas if they have not received full pesticide safety 

7465 training. 

7466 (ii) Employers are required to provide the full pesticide safety training to workers before 

7467 their third day of work in pesticide treated areas. 

7468 (iii) Employers are required to provide pesticide safety information, pesticide hazard 

7469 information for products used on the establishment, decontamination supplies, emergency 

7470 medical assistance, and notification to workers of restrictions during applications and on entering 

7471 pesticide treated areas. 

7472 (2) Agricultural employers must inform workers how to recognize and understand the 

7473 meaning of the posted warning signs used for notifying workers of restrictions on entering 

7474 pesticide treated areas on the establishment. Workers must follow employer directions and/or 

7475 signs about keeping out of entry restricted or pesticide treated areas. 

7476 (3) Agricultural employers must not allow or direct any worker who has not received full 

7477 pesticide safety training and additional early entry worker training to work in any area that is 

7478 currently under a restricted-entry interval. Employers must comply with minimum age 

7479 restrictions and notification requirements in order to direct workers to perform early-entry 

7480 activities. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 339 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

7481 (4) Agricultural employers must not allow or direct any worker to mix, load, or apply 

7482 pesticides or assist in the application of pesticides unless the worker has been trained as a 

7483 handler. 

7484 (5) Agricultural employers are prohibited from intimidating, threatening, coercing, or 

7485 discriminating against any worker for the purposes of interfering with any attempt to comply 

7486 with the requirements of this part, or because the worker has made a complaint, testified, 

7487 assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing pursuant to this 

7488 part. 

7489 (6) There are potential sources of pesticide exposure on agricultural establishments and 

7490 pesticides and/or pesticide residues may be encountered during work activities. Pesticide 

7491 residues may be on or in plants, soil, irrigation water, tractors, application equipment, or used 

7492 personal protective equipment. Pesticides can also drift through air from nearby applications. 

7493 Maintain a safe distance from nearby pesticide applications and leave the area immediately if 

7494 pesticide sprays are contacting you. 

7495 (7) Pesticides can cause illness or injury if they enter your body. Pesticides can enter the 

7496 body by getting them on your skin or in your eyes, by swallowing them, or by breathing in their 

7497 vapors. 

7498 (8) There are potential hazards from toxicity and exposure that pesticides present to 

7499 workers, including acute and chronic illnesses and effects, delayed effects, and sensitization. 

7500 (9) There are potential hazards to children and pregnant women from pesticide exposure. 

7501 (10) When working near pesticides or in pesticide treated areas wear work clothing that 

7502 protects the body from pesticide residues and always wash hands before eating, drinking, using 

7503 chewing gum or tobacco, or using the toilet. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 340 of 340 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

7504 (11) Wash or shower with soap and water, shampoo hair, and change into clean clothes as 

7505 soon as possible after working near or in pesticide treated areas. 

7506 (12) There are potential hazards from the pesticide residues that may be on work 

7507 clothing. Wash work clothes before wearing them again, and always wash work clothes 

7508 separately from other clothes. 

7509 (13) Pesticides may cause skin rashes or hurt your eyes, nose or throat. Pesticides can 

7510 make you feel sick in different ways, such as headache or dizziness, muscles pain or cramps, 

7511 nausea or vomiting, sweating, drooling, fatigue, or trouble breathing. 

7512 (14) Wash immediately in the nearest clean water if pesticides are spilled or sprayed on 

7513 the body. Shower, shampoo hair, and change into clean clothes as soon as possible. If a pesticide 

7514 gets in your eyes, hold them open and rinse with a gentle stream of cool water. Rinse eyes for 15 

7515 minutes. 

7516 (15) If you or someone you work with gets sick while working, tell your employer right 

7517 away. If you suspect you have been injured or made ill from pesticides, get medical help as soon 

7518 as possible. If you have been injured from pesticides while working, your employer must provide 

7519 emergency transportation from the establishment to a nearby medical facility and provide 

7520 information about the pesticide or pesticides that may have made you sick.