21960 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules

In addition to the consultations prior

to proposal, EPA has had several

informal consultations regarding the

proposed rule with some States through

the EPA regional offices and at regularly

scheduled State meetings. No significant

issues or information was identified as

a result of EPA’s discussion with the

States.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 170

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Labeling, Occupational safety and

health, Pesticides and pest.

Dated: April 24, 1995.

Lynn R. Goldman,

Assistant Administrator for Prevention,

Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

[FR Doc. 95–10875 Filed 5–2–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 170

[OPP–250098A; FRL–4950–5]

Administrative Exception to Worker

Protection Standard Early Entry

Prohibition for Irrigation Activities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Administrative exception

decision.

SUMMARY: EPA is granting an

administrative exception to the 1992

Worker Protection Standard (WPS)

allowing early entry into pesticide

treated areas to perform certain

irrigation activities. The exception is in

response to formal requests the Agency

received from the States of California

and Hawaii, a petition from many

organizations in the agricultural

community, and informal requests from

other States. The exception allows

workers to perform necessary irrigation

activities, which if delayed could cause

significant economic loss, and that

result in minimal contact with

pesticide-treated surfaces, for a

maximum of 8 hours in a 24–hour

period during a restricted-entry interval

(REI). EPA is granting this exception

because it believes the benefits

outweigh the risks and the potential risk

from this exception is not unreasonable.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The Agency invites any

interested person who has concerns

about the implementation of this action

to submit written comments identified

by docket number ‘‘OPP–250098A’’ to:

By mail: Public Response and Program

Resources Branch, Field Operations

Division (7506C), Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring

comments to: Rm. 1132, Crystal Mall #2,

1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA 22202.

Comments and data may also be

submitted electronically by sending

electronic mail (e-mail) to: oppdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic

comments must be submitted as an

ASCII file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Comments and data will also be

accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1

file format or ASCII file format. All

comments and data in electronic form

must be identified by the docket number

‘‘OPP–250098A.’’ No Confidential

Business Information (CBI) should be

submitted through e-mail. Electronic

comments on this document may be

filed online at many Federal Depository

Libraries. Additional information on

electronic submissions can be found in

Unit VII of this document.

Information submitted as a comment

concerning this document may be

claimed confidential by marking any

part or all of that information as CBI.

Information so marked will not be

disclosed except in accordance with

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

A copy of the comment that does not

contain CBI must be submitted for

inclusion in the public record.

Information not marked confidential

may be disclosed publicly by EPA

without prior notice. All written

comments will be available for public

inspection in Rm. 1132 at the Virginia

address given above from 8 a.m. to 4:30

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding

legal holidays.

The exception requests and all

comments submitted on the proposed

exception are available for public

inspection in the Office of Pesticide

Programs’ public docket, Rm. 1132,

Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Highway, Arlington, VA. Office hours

are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara

Ager, Office of Pesticide Programs

(7506C), Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,

DC 20460. Office location, telephone

number, and e-mail address: 1921

Jefferson Davis Highway, Rm. 1121,

Crystal Mall #2, Arlington, VA, (703)

305–7666, ager.sara@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is

one of a series of Agency actions to

revise elements of the WPS. These

actions were published on January 11,

1995 (60 FR 2820), and proposed to: (1)

Shorten the time periods before which

employers must train workers and

retrain workers and handlers in

pesticide safety; (2) exempt those who

perform crop advising tasks from certain

requirements; (3) allow early entry to

pesticide-treated areas to perform

certain time-sensitive irrigation

activities; (4) allow early entry to

pesticide-treated areas to perform

certain time-sensitive activities resulting

in ‘‘limited contact’’ with pesticide

treated surfaces; and (5) allow workers

to enter areas treated with certain lower

risk pesticides after 4 hours rather than

12 hours. This action addresses

allowing early entry to pesticide-treated

areas to perform certain time-sensitive

irrigation activities. Final

determinations on the other four actions

mentioned above are being published

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal

Register.

I. Background

On August 21, 1992, EPA issued a

final rule (57 FR 38102) revising the

Worker Protection Standard (WPS) for

agricultural pesticides (40 CFR part

170). The WPS prohibits routine entry

by workers into pesticide-treated areas

during REIs. An REI is the time after the

end of a pesticide application during

which entry into the treated area is

restricted. Section 170.112(e) of the

WPS provides a process for considering

exceptions to this prohibition against

early entry to treated areas.

In 1994, both California and Hawaii

specifically requested that EPA grant an

exception to allow early entry to

pesticide-treated areas, prior to the

expiration of the REI, to perform

necessary irrigation tasks involving

limited contact with treated surfaces.

Specifically, the Agency was asked to

consider allowing unlimited early entry

during the REI if workers would not

have substantial contact with pesticidetreated surfaces. The Agency was also

asked to consider establishing a single

requirement for personal protective

equipment (PPE) that could be worn by

irrigation workers.

The irrigation exception requests from

California and Hawaii, and a petition

from a coalition of agricultural and

commodity groups, persuaded EPA that

there is a potential for significant

economic impact if growers could not

tend to irrigation tasks in a timely

manner due to REIs. In response to these

requests, EPA proposed a national

exception for irrigation activities to be

performed within the REI, provided

certain conditions were met.

EPA received comments supporting

and opposing the proposed exception.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules 21961

Information received during the public

comment period persuaded EPA that

there could be significant economic

impact if irrigation activities, resulting

in minimal contact, were prohibited

during the REI. EPA has been persuaded

by comments that the irrigation tasks are

relevant to the production of a wide

variety of agricultural plants across a

broad geographic area.

A. WPS Early Entry Restrictions

In general, the WPS prohibits

agricultural workers from entering a

pesticide-treated area during the REI.

REIs are based on the toxicity of the

active ingredient in the product and

other factors. They are specified on

pesticide product labels and typically

range from 12 to 72 hours or possibly

longer where product-specific REIs have

been determined.

Additionally, workers engaging in

early-entry work are not permitted to

engage in hand labor, which results in

substantial contact with treated

surfaces. The WPS defines hand labor as

any agricultural activity performed by

hand or with hand tools that causes a

worker to have substantial contact with

surfaces (such as plants or soil) that may

contain pesticide residues.

B. WPS Exceptions to Early Entry

Restrictions

Currently, the WPS contains the

following exceptions to the general

prohibition against worker early entry:

entry resulting in no-contact with

treated areas; entry allowing short-term

tasks, with required PPE and other

conditions; entry to perform tasks

associated with agricultural

emergencies; and an exception process

for EPA to determine on a case-by-case

basis whether entry is warranted for

activities not covered in the previous

exceptions.

II. EPA’s Exception Decision

EPA is granting an exception to the

early-entry prohibition to allow

irrigation tasks to be performed. Based

on the information submitted in

comments and EPA’s experience over

many years of reviewing agricultural

practices in connection with pesticide

use, EPA has concluded that this

exception appropriately balances the

potential risk of worker exposure and

the significant economic impact which

could be incurred if growers are not

allowed to tend to irrigation tasks at

necessary times.

The exception is designed to

minimize risk to workers conducting

early-entry irrigation tasks while

providing growers the needed flexibility

to irrigate their crops. EPA has reviewed

information on the risks and benefits

associated with granting an exception

for necessary irrigation activities and

believes that the benefits outweigh the

risks. This assessment is based on EPA’s

evaluation of the risk reduction

provided by the provisions contained in

this exception and the benefits which

may be obtained by allowing the

exception. Furthermore, where the

benefits outweighed the risks, EPA has,

in the context of the WPS, previously

made exceptions to the general

prohibition against early entry, even for

hand labor activities. [See Hand Labor

Tasks on Cut Flowers and Ferns

Exception (57 FR 38175, August 21,

1992)]. Because hand labor as defined in

the WPS involves substantial worker

contact with surfaces that may contain

pesticide residues, and this exception is

limited to irrigation tasks where

workers’ contact with treated surfaces

would be minimal and limited to the

workers’ feet, lower legs, hands, and

forearms, EPA believes that pesticide

exposure to workers performing

irrigation tasks under the terms of this

exception would be less than exposures

to workers performing hand labor tasks

in the same treated area. Therefore, EPA

believes that early entry under the terms

of the exception (see unit IV of this

document), will not pose unreasonable

risk to irrigation workers.

The category of activity envisioned by

this exception includes only those

irrigation tasks which cannot be delayed

until the expiration of the REI. The

definition of a task that cannot be

delayed is one that, if not performed

before the expiration of the REI, would

cause significant economic loss and

where there are no alternative practices

which would prevent the loss. By this

definition, EPA has defined a category

of tasks with significant limits placed on

the type and duration of activity in

which a worker can be engaged and the

economic circumstances under which

the exception can be applied. Taken

together, these elements limit the

exception to only high-benefit activities.

Further, EPA has included significant

provisions which will limit pesticide

exposure and risk to irrigation workers.

This exception specifically forbids hand

labor activity; prohibits entry into a

treated area during the first 4 hours after

a pesticide application and until

applicable ventilation criteria and any

label-specified inhalation exposure level

have been met; limits the time in treated

areas under a REI for any worker to 8

hours in any 24-hour period; requires

that any contact with treated areas by a

worker be minimal and limited to feet,

lower legs, hands, and forearms;

excludes pesticides requiring doublenotification; requires PPE; directs the

agricultural employer to notify workers

of specific information concerning the

exception; and ensures that the

requirements of § 170.112(c)(3)–(c)(9)

are met. These terms will limit worker

exposure and, consequently, worker

risk.

The WPS’s general prohibition against

early entry is designed to limit worker

exposure during the critical REI. In

granting this irrigation exception, EPA

has weighed the risk to irrigation

workers against the benefits of earlyentry irrigation activities and finds

justification for this exception. EPA

believes that this exception adequately

addresses and balances worker exposure

concerns with the commercial needs of

agriculture.

III. Summary of Major Issues

EPA received over 80 comments on

the proposed irrigation exception.

Comments were received from State

agencies, grower groups, farmworker

groups, and individuals.

A. Need for the Exception

An exception for allowing irrigation

activities is needed because failure to

irrigate crops in a timely manner could

cause a significant economic impact.

The existing exceptions do not

adequately address irrigation needs.

Commenters described many

circumstances where failure to irrigate

before the expiration of the REI could

cause a significant economic impact.

Comments from nurseries and

greenhouses stated that frequently they

need to water more than once a day.

Several commenters stated their

dependency on the irrigation districts

for water and noted that often a grower

has only a few hours notice before water

arrives from the irrigation contractor.

USDA cited the need for the exception

for United States agriculture to be

competitive in international markets.

EPA agrees with these comments, and

is persuaded that it is necessary to allow

early entry during the REI to perform

irrigation activities. EPA has written

specific restrictions into this exception

to reduce risk to irrigators.

B. Geographic Limitation

The States of California and Hawaii

formally requested an exception for

irrigation activities. In response to other

States, informally expressing the need to

irrigate before the expiration of the REI,

the Agency requested comments on the

need for a national exception.

Comments were received from:

Arkansas, Arizona, California, Delaware,

Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas,

Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri,
21962 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Montana, North Carolina, New Jersey,

New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania,

Texas, and Washington. Most comments

opposed a geographic limitation and

several commenters stated their

irrigation needs were similar to

California and Hawaii. The greenhouse

and nursery industry, which is national

in scope, expressed the importance of

watering-in pre-emergent herbicides.

One commenter stated that a geographic

limitation could pose an economic

disadvantage to parts of the country

where the exception is not applicable.

However, another commenter stated,

that a national exception would

heighten the risk of poisonings and

another commenter stated, that criteria

should be established and applied on a

case-by-case basis.

Based on the comments received, EPA

has concluded that a nationwide

irrigation exception is necessary.

Although irrigation practices and the

circumstances in which irrigation is

employed vary considerably throughout

the country, the need for early entry to

perform irrigation tasks, that cannot be

delayed without incurring significant

economic loss, is common nationwide.

The provisions of the exception which

define the category of acceptable tasks

limits those activities to ones which are

needed nationwide. Granting exceptions

for certain geographic areas is

appropriate to address local,

particularized needs. But in the present

instance, EPA believes that such a caseby-case approach is unwarranted and

overly burdensome given that the need

is common and amenable to a more

generalized exception.

The disruption of needed irrigation

can lead to significant and even

catastrophic economic losses. All types

of irrigation require occasional

maintenance, repair or adjustment

necessitating early entry. This exception

will allow such activities during the REI

only if the failure to act during the REI

will result in significant economic loss.

By limiting the exception in this

manner, EPA intends to prevent use of

the exception for routine irrigation

activities.

Furthermore, EPA’s analysis takes

into account the concern that this

exception should adequately protect

worker safety. Among other limitations

to ensure appropriate protection for

irrigation workers, EPA is limiting the

tasks that may be engaged in by time (a

maximum of 8 hours during any 24–

hour period), necessity, and economic

impact. These measures will provide

workers with adequate protection while

allowing growers the needed flexibility

to prevent significant economic losses

due to problems with their irrigation

systems.

C. Two-Year Expiration Date

Under the proposal, this exception

would have expired 24 months after the

implementation date. Most commenters

were opposed to an expiration date and

stated that 2 years was not sufficient

time to gather data concerning any

documented increase in incidents.

Several commenters were in favor of the

2–year expiration as a period to be used

to monitor the need for further

restriction if necessary.

EPA agrees with comments opposed

to the 24–month expiration. The 2–year

time period would not provide adequate

time for EPA to evaluate the impact of

the exception date. In general, changes

in pesticide use practices do not occur

suddenly, and there is often a lag time

in reporting and analysis of incident

data. Therefore, EPA expects it might be

several years before data would be

available to evaluate the impact of this

exception. EPA, of course, may use the

procedure in § 170.112(e)(5) to revoke

the exception at any time that data

become available indicating that such

action is necessary.

D. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

The Agency was asked to consider

establishing a generic PPE set. Since

irrigation workers may work in several

different treated areas, they could be

required to comply with several

different label requirements for PPE.

EPA proposed a generic PPE set which

would consist of coveralls, chemical

resistant gloves, socks, and chemical

resistant footwear. EPA proposed that

the employer may choose to provide

employees with PPE that either: (a)

conforms with the label requirements

for early-entry PPE; or (b) conforms with

the generic PPE. The proposed

alternative generic PPE requirement

includes eyewear, if on the label.

Several commenters expressed

concern that irrigators may be at risk of

heat stress from performing strenuous

tasks in coveralls. Several commenters

maintained that bodily contact with

treated surfaces would be limited to

areas protected by gloves and boots. One

commenter mentioned that the use of

gloves would be impractical for certain

tasks.

Some commenters stated that the

complete PPE was necessary because it

could not be assumed that exposure

would be only to feet, lower legs, hands

and forearms. It was mentioned that

irrigators may not have considerable

contact with foliage, but do have

significant contact with contaminated

soil and pipes. Several commenters

responded favorably to the option of

wearing generic PPE, in lieu of the label

requirements, because it would reduce

confusion for irrigators entering

multiple fields in a single day. One

commenter opposed the use of generic

PPE, in lieu of the label PPE, because

irrigation workers will be exposed

through incidental exposure, such as

residues dripping from orchards,

irrigation water, or wiping perspiration

from the face. Even while wearing PPE,

injuries have been reported.

EPA has concluded that rather than

require eyewear as part of the generic

PPE, the use of protective eyewear

should be consistent with the earlyentry PPE requirement on the labeling.

EPA is not requiring respiratory

equipment because the exception

expressly prohibits workers from

entering treated fields during the first 4

hours after application and until

applicable ventilation criteria have been

met, and until any label-specified

inhalation exposure level has been

reached.

While the terms of the exception

require that the contact be limited to

feet, lower legs, hands, and forearms,

the Agency believes that incidental,

unintended, or accidental exposure to

other parts of the body, besides the

lower legs, feet, forearms and hands,

may be possible and thus, is requiring

coveralls as part of the generic PPE. The

WPS requires that PPE not be worn

home and that it must be properly

maintained by agricultural employers.

The requirement for coveralls could

decrease exposure risk to residues from

long-sleeved shirts and long pants

which could be worn home.

In response to concerns regarding heat

stress from wearing PPE, EPA notes that

the agriculture employer is required,

under unit IV.7 of this document, to

assure that no worker is allowed or

directed to perform the early-entry

activity without implementing, when

appropriate, measures to prevent heatrelated illness.

E. Time Allowed in the Treated Area

EPA proposed that the time in treated

areas under the REI for each worker not

exceed 8 hours in any 24–hour period.

Many comments recommended

unlimited entry during the REI for

irrigation. Several commenters favored

the 8–hour limit in any 24–hour period

and one commenter said it would be

difficult and uncommon for an irrigator

to exceed 8 hours in a treated area

during even the longest work shift. One

commenter indicated that pesticidetreated surfaces cannot be controlled

and that PPE may not adequately protect

for 8 hours. It was also suggested that
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules 21963

time in the treated area should be

determined by the toxicity of the

chemical, allowing up to 6 hours per

24–hour period.

EPA has designed this exception by

balancing the benefits of giving

employers the flexibility to perform

irrigation tasks against the added risks

resulting from increased exposure

during early entry. In this case, one way

to limit risk is to limit exposure to 8

hours, rather than to allow unlimited

entry as commenters requested. Entry

for up to 8 hours affords employers

considerably more flexibility in using

workers than a shorter period. EPA is

retaining the 8 hours maximum time

allowed within a 24–hour period. The

Agency concludes that this is a

sufficient amount of time to address

most irrigation needs and, after

considering this provision in

combination with the other protections

required under this exception, that the

benefits of an 8–hour period outweigh

the risk of exposure in that period.

F. Exclusion of Double-Notification

Pesticides

Entry into areas treated with

pesticides requiring double notification

is not allowed under the terms of this

exception. The ‘‘double-notification’’

provision relates to pesticides that are

highly toxic, dermally irritating, or have

other health effects that set them apart

from other pesticides and requires

growers to both post the treated area and

orally notify workers of the application.

Several commenters opposing the

exclusion of double-notification

pesticides, asserted that the same tasks

are necessary and believed the risks

would be low since workers would have

only ‘‘minimal contact with treated

surfaces’’ and that PPE would provide

adequate protection. Other alternatives

proposed included: allowing entry to

fields based on the height of the crop or

on the nature of the task rather than the

toxicity of the pesticide; and reducing

the maximum time allowed in fields

treated with double-notification

pesticides.

Several commenters supported

excluding double-notification pesticides

and one commenter stated that the

double-notification pesticides should

also be excluded from the other

exceptions. One commenter stated that

category B or C carcinogens, identified

as developmental or reproductive toxins

or known to be sensitizers, and

pesticides with the signal word

DANGER should also be excluded from

the exception. Another commenter

expressed concern over the

methodology of compiling the doublenotification list and expressed concern

regarding other risky pesticide

exposures, especially from the

standpoint of eye exposure and chronic

toxicity.

The Agency is convinced that

allowing workers to enter a field treated

with a double-notification pesticide

before the expiration of the REI would

pose an unreasonable risk. Incidental

exposure to double-notification

pesticides, such as brushing against a

treated surface, more than with other

pesticides, has the potential to cause an

acute illness or a delayed effect. There

are reports of acute poisonings which

have occurred after short-term exposure

to many of these highly-toxic pesticides.

Thus, shortening the period allowed for

early entry may still not provide

adequate protection. EPA has data

demonstrating that the majority of

pesticides requiring double-notification

are responsible for many reported

incidents of worker poisonings. The

Agency is prohibiting early entry during

the REI to fields treated with pesticide

products which require both the posting

of treated areas and oral notification to

workers (i.e. double-notification).

G. Notification Requirements to Workers

The exception proposed 10 posting

requirements. Many of these

requirements duplicated requirements

of the WPS and one (the posting of the

2–year expiration date) is no longer

relevant.

The Agency is requiring growers that

use this exception to inform workers,

either in writing or orally in language

the worker understands, that: (1) The

establishment is relying on the irrigation

exception to allow workers to enter

treated areas to complete irrigation

tasks; (2) no entry is allowed for the first

4 hours following an application, and

until applicable ventilation criteria have

been met, and until any label-specified

inhalation exposure level has been

reached; and (3) the time in the treated

area under a REI for any worker may not

exceed 8 hours in any 24–hour period.

H. Poisoning Information

Several commenters supplied the

Agency with poisoning incident data.

Many poisoning incidents, while

involving irrigators, appear to be

accidents and would not be affected by

this exception. Also, many of these preWPS incidents would constitute noncompliance with the federal WPS

requirements if they had been in effect.

These incidents have reinforced the

Agency’s conclusion about the potential

for risk reduction by wearing PPE when

entering treated fields before the REI

expires.

Implementation of the WPS will

reduce the number of pesticide-related

incidents by requiring irrigators to wear

PPE if entering before the REI expires

and by not allowing any entry until the

4 hours after application and until

inhalation/ventilation criteria have been

met.

IV. Terms of the Exception

The terms of the exception are

essentially the same as those proposed

in the Federal Register of January 11,

1995 (60 FR 2830), with two minor

differences; the final exception is not

limited to 2 years and the 10 posting

requirements have been changed to 3

notification requirements. It should be

noted that because this exception allows

tasks to be performed during the REI, all

persons engaged in irrigation tasks

under this exception must be trained.

The exception described in this

document may be used unless early

entry is expressly prohibited in product

labeling. For example, some labels

prohibit entry--including entry that

would otherwise be permitted under the

WPS and this exception--by any person

other than trained and equipped

handlers performing handling tasks for

specified periods after the application.

Under the terms of this exception, a

trained worker may enter a treated area

during a REI to perform tasks related to

operating, moving, or repairing

irrigation or watering equipment, if the

agricultural employer ensures that all of

the following requirements are met:

1. The need for the task could not

have been foreseen and cannot be

delayed until after the expiration of the

REI. A task that cannot be delayed is

one that, if not performed before the REI

expires, would cause significant

economic loss, and there are no

alternative practices which would

prevent significant loss.

2. No hand labor activity is

performed. (The WPS defines ‘‘hand

labor’’ as any agricultural activity

performed by hand or with hand tools

that causes a worker to have substantial

contact with surfaces (such as plants,

plant parts, or soil) that may contain

pesticide residues.)

3. The worker’s only contact with

treated surfaces (including but not

limited to soil, water, surfaces of plants,

crops, and irrigation equipment) is

minimal and is limited to feet, lower

legs, hands, and forearms.

4. The PPE for early entry must be

provided to the worker by the

agricultural employer for all tasks. Such

PPE shall either: (a) conform with the

label requirements for early-entry PPE;

or (b) consist of coveralls, chemical

resistant gloves, socks, and chemical
21964 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules

resistant footwear, and eyewear (if

eyewear is required for early-entry PPE

by the product labeling). In either case,

the PPE must conform to the standards

set out in § 170.112(c)(4)(i) through

(c)(4)(x).

5. The pesticide product does not

have a statement in the pesticide

product labeling requiring both the

posting of treated areas and oral

notification to workers (double

notification), or a restriction prohibiting

any person, other than an appropriately

trained and equipped handler, from

entering during the REI.

6. The time in treated areas under a

REI for any worker does not exceed a

maximum of 8 hours in any 24–hour

period.

7. For all irrigation tasks, the

requirements of § 170.112(c)(3)–(c)(9)

are met. These are WPS requirements

for all early-entry situations that involve

contact with treated surfaces, and

include:

i. A prohibition against entry during

the first 4 hours, and until applicable

ventilation criteria have been met, and

until any label specified inhalation

exposure level has been reached.

ii. Informing workers of safety

information on the product labeling.

iii. Provision, proper management,

and care of PPE.

iv. Heat-related illness prevention.

v. Requirements for decontamination

facilities.

vi. Prohibition on taking PPE home.

8. The agricultural employer shall

notify workers before entering a treated

area, either orally or in writing, in a

language the worker understands, that:

i. The establishment is relying on this

exception to allow workers to enter

treated areas to complete irrigation

tasks.

ii. No entry is allowed for the first 4

hours following an application, and

until applicable ventilation criteria have

been met, and until any label-specified

inhalation exposure level has been

reached.

iii. The time in a treated area under

a REI for any worker cannot exceed 8

hours in any 24–hour period.

EPA reserves the right to withdraw

exceptions, in accordance with

§ 170.112(e)(6), if the Agency receives

information or any other data that

indicates the health risks posed by

activities permitted under the exception

are unreasonable, that the provisions of

this exception are being abused, or that

indicates the exception no longer has

benefits that outweigh the risks.

V. Reevaluation of Irrigation Exception

The Agency is adopting this exception

in order to provide the flexibility to the

agriculture sector to avoid significant

economic losses while still providing

agricultural workers protection under

the WPS. As discussed more fully

above, the Agency believes that any

added risks associated with pesticide

exposure of irrigation workers, from

activities permitted by this action, will

be limited by the specific conditions

imposed in the irrigation exception. The

Agency intends, over the next several

growing seasons, to collect information

to evaluate the effectiveness of this

exception. In particular, EPA is

interested in determining whether the

conditions imposed by this action

successfully protect workers against

pesticide poisonings. EPA is also

interested in better characterizing the

circumstances in which this exception

is being used and in understanding

whether the exception addresses the

needs of growers adequately. Finally,

EPA would like to obtain information

on the extent of compliance with the

conditions in the irrigation exception

and any practical problems with

enforcement.

To obtain a better understanding of

the implementation and impacts of this

irrigation exception, EPA will work

with USDA and States to gather relevant

information. The Agency will hold

public meetings in agricultural areas to

provide those directly affected by the

WPS--growers, enforcement staff, and

agricultural workers--an opportunity to

comment on these actions and the WPS

rule in general. As appropriate, EPA

may conduct surveys and review

incident data to assess how the rules are

affecting agriculture. The Agency invites

any interested person who has concerns

about the implementation of this action

to send comments to the Agency at the

address listed at the beginning of this

Notice under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

VI. List of Exceptions in 40 CFR 170.112

In a technical amendment published

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal

Register, EPA is amending § 170.112 of

the WPS by adding to § 170.112(e)(7) a

referencing of this administrative

exception for irrigation tasks and its

effective date. EPA will ensure that the

regulated community is aware of the

terms and conditions of the exception,

and is able to locate this and future

administrative exceptions. The

technical amendment to § 170.112(e)(7)

does not make any substantive changes

in the WPS or in § 170.112.

VII. Public Docket

A record has been established for the

WPS rulemaking and this administrative

decision under docket number ‘‘OPP–

250098A’’ (including comments and

data submitted electronically as

described below). A public version of

this record, including printed, paper

versions of electronic comments, which

does not include any information

claimed as CBI, is available for

inspection from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays. The public record is located in

Rm. 1132 of the Public Response and

Program Resources Branch, Field

Operations Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, Crystal Mall #2,

1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA.

Electronic comments can be sent

directly to EPA at:

opp-docket@epamail.epa.gov

Electronic comments must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption.

The official record for the WPS

rulemaking and this administrative

decision, as well as the public version,

as described above will be kept in paper

form. Accordingly, EPA will transfer all

comments received electronically into

printed, paper form as they are received

and will place the paper copies in the

official rulemaking record which will

also include all comments submitted

directly in writing. The official

rulemaking record is the paper record

maintained at the address in

‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at the beginning of this

document.

VIII. Consultations and Reviews

A. Statutory Reviews

As required by FIFRA section 25(a),

this administrative decision was

provided to the U.S. Department of

Agriculture and to Congress for review.

The FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

waived its review.

B. OMB Review

This action was submitted to the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for their informal review. Any

comments or changes made during

OMB’s review have been documented in

the public record.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, which

the President signed into law on March

22, 1995, EPA has assessed the effects

of this administrative decision on State,

local, and tribal governments, and the

private sector. This action does not

result in the expenditure of $100

million or more by any State, local or

tribal governments, or by anyone in the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules 21965

private sector. In fact, this action

actually involves a reduction in burden

and overall cost.

In addition to the consultations prior

to proposal, EPA has had several

informal consultations regarding the

proposed rule with some States through

the EPA regional offices and at regularly

scheduled State meetings. No significant

issues or information were identified as

a result of EPA’s discussion with the

States.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Labeling, Occupational safety and

health, Pesticides and pest.

Dated: April 24, 1995.

Lynn R. Goldman,

Assistant Administrator for Prevention,

Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

[FR Doc. 95–10873 Filed 5–2–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 156

[OPP–00399A; FRL–4950–8]

Worker Protection Standard; Reduced

Restricted Entry Intervals for Certain

Pesticides

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Policy Statement.

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing a final policy

statement on ‘‘Reduced Restricted Entry

Intervals for Certain Pesticides.’’ EPA

will allow registrants to reduce the

interim Worker Protection Standard

(WPS) restricted entry intervals (REIs)

from 12 to 4 hours for certain low risk

pesticides. EPA developed a two Tiered

screening process to determine the

eligibility of all Toxicity Category III

and IV pesticides. The first Tier

screened all Toxicity III and IV active

ingredients against the low toxicity

criteria. This policy statement contains

a candidate list of those active

ingredients that meet the low toxicity

criteria, and may be eligible for reduced

REIs. End use products containing

active ingredients that appear on the list

are to be evaluated by the criteria set in

the second Tier of the screening process,

described in this policy, to determine if

the current REI may be reduced to 4

hours.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This policy will become

effective May 3, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy

Smith or Ameesha Mehta, Office of

Pesticide Programs (7506C),

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Office location, telephone number, and

e-mail address: 1921 Jefferson Davis

Highway, Crystal Mall #2, Rm. 1121,

Arlington, VA, (703) 305–7371,

smith.judy@epamail.epa.gov or

mehta.ameesha@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Agency is issuing a final policy

statement that allows registrants to

reduce the current interim Worker

Protection Standard (WPS) restricted

entry intervals (REIs) from 12 to 4 hours

for certain low risk pesticides. This

policy is one of a series of Agency

actions since the publication of the final

WPS in August 1992. In addition, EPA

is also publishing final actions

regarding: (1) Worker training

requirements; (2) allowing early entry

for irrigation activities; (3) allowing

provisions for limited contact activities;

and, (4) reduced requirements for crop

advisors. Final determinations on the

other four actions mentioned above are

being published elsewhere in this issue

of the Federal Register.

I. Summary of the Policy

EPA will permit registrants to reduce

the current interim WPS REIs from 12

to 4 hours for pesticides which contain

specific active ingredients and which

meet certain additional criteria. Using

the criteria described in Unit III of this

policy statement, the Agency screened a

total of 495 active ingredients and

determined that over 100 active

ingredients met the low toxicity criteria.

As a result, end use products containing

these active ingredients may be eligible

for a reduced REI. Unit IV of this policy

statement lists the candidate active

ingredients that the Agency has

determined meet the low toxicity

criteria.

Registrants of end use products which

are subject to WPS, and which contain

only these active ingredients may apply

the criteria in Unit VI of this policy

statement to determine whether their

end use product qualifies for the

reduced REI. To revise labeling to reflect

the reduced REI, the Agency will allow

registrants to use a streamlined

notification process process which is

described in this policy statement until

December 31, 1995. After that date,

registrants must use the existing

registration label amendment process to

submit an application for a reduced REI.

Such applications would be evaluated

and approved on the basis of the criteria

provided in this policy statement.

If the Agency becomes aware of

information and determines at any time

that the reduced REI is not appropriate,

EPA will inform and, after opportunity

for discussion, may direct the registrant

to revise the REI on the label.

If any person believes that an active

ingredient, not listed as a candidate for

reduced REI in Unit IV of this policy

statement, meets the low toxicity

criteria of this policy statement, and that

the end use products containing that

active ingredient should be eligible for

a reduced REI, the registrant should

contact EPA at the address provided in

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT unit.

II. Background

The 1992 WPS established an interim

minimum REI of 12 hours for all end

use pesticide products for agricultural

uses. Longer interim REIs were

established for more toxic products.

Many commenters, during the

promulgation of the rule, stated that it

was difficult to determine when the

sprays have dried or dusts have settled;

thus, judgment was required to assess

when such REI had expired. Other

commenters requested the Agency

establish minimum REIs to protect

workers against possible unknown

chronic or delayed health effects as a

product-specific health effect evaluation

would take the Agency a long time to

conduct. Therefore, the 12-hour

minimum REI was established for two

reasons: (1) To replace previous REI

which was the statement ‘‘when sprays

have dried and dusts have settled’’; and

(2) to incorporate a margin of safety for

unknown chronic or delayed health

effects.

Since 1992, numerous registrants and

pesticide users have asked EPA to

consider reducing the minimum 12–

hour REI for lower toxicity products that

they believe do not need a 12–hour REI

to protect workers. In response to these

concerns, on January 11, 1995, the

Agency published a proposal (60 FR

2848) for public comment. The January

proposal contained 75 candidate active

ingredients that were eligible for 4–hour

REIs. Many comments stated that all

Toxicity Category III’s and IV’s should

be included on the list. EPA screened a

total of 495 WPS in-scope active

ingredients, and has added 39 more

active ingredients to the candidate list.

III. Policy and Rationale for Low

Toxicity Criteria

The 1992 WPS revised a 1974

regulation that expressed REIs in terms

of the statement ‘‘when sprays have

dried and dusts have settled.’’ This

phrasing was sufficiently vague to cause

both enforcement problems and

concerns about necessary margins of

safety for chronic or delayed health