2830 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules

PART 170—WORKER PROTECTION

STANDARD

1. The authority citation for Part 170

would continue to read as follows:

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

2. In Section 170.130 by paragraph (b)

to read as follows:

§170.130 Pesticide safety training for

workers.

* * * * *

(b) Exceptions. The following persons

need not be trained under this section:

(1) A worker who is currently

certified as an applicator of restricteduse pesticides under part 171 of this

chapter.

(2) A worker who satisfies the training

requirements of part 171 of this chapter.

(3) A worker who satisfies the handler

training requirements of §170.230(c).

(4) A person who is licensed or

certified as a crop advisor by a program

administered or approved by a State,

Tribal or Federal agency having

jurisdiction over such licensing or

certification, provided that a

requirement for such licensing or

certification is pesticide safety training

that includes all the information set out

in §170.230(c)(4)

* * * * *

3. In Section 170.202 by revising

paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§170.202 Applicability of this subpart.

* * * * *

(c) Exemptions. The handlers listed in

this paragraph are exempt from the

specified provisions of this subpart.

(1) Owners of agricultural

establishments. (i) The owner of an

agricultural establishment is not

required to provide to himself or

members of his immediate family who

are performing handling tasks on their

own agricultural establishment the

protections of:

(A) Section 170.210(b) and (c).

(B) Section 170.222.

(C) Section 170.230

(D) Section 170.232.

(E) Section 170.234.

(F) Section 170.235.

(G) Section 170 240(e) through (g).

(H) Section 170.250.

(I) Section 170.260.

(ii) The owner of the agricultural

establishment must provide the

protections required by paragraph

(c)(1)(i) of this section to other handlers

and other persons who are not members

of his immediate family.

(2) Licensed or certified crop advisors

and their employees. (i) A person who

is licensed or certified as a crop advisor

by a program administered or approved

by a State, Tribal or Federal agency

having jurisdiction for such licensing or

certification, provided that a

requirement for such licensing or

certification is pesticide safety training

that includes all the information set out

in §170.230(c)(4), is not required to

provide to himself or his crop advisor

employees the protections of:

(A) Section 170.210(b) and (c).

(B) Section 170.232.

(C) Section 170.240.

(D) Section 170.250.

(E) Section 170.260.

(ii) Any individual when performing

tasks as a crop advisor is exempt until

January 1, 1996 from the requirements

of:

(A) Section 170.210(b) and (c).

(B) Section 170.230.

(C) Section 170.232.

(D) Section 170.240.

(E) Section 170.250.

(F) Section 170.260.

5. In §170.230 by revising paragraph

(b) to read as follows:

§170.230 Pesticide safety training for

handlers.

* * * * *

(b) Exceptions. The following persons

need not be trained under this section:

(1) A handler who is currently

certified as an applicator of restricteduse pesticides under part 171 of this

chapter.

(2) A handler who satisfies the

training requirements of part 171 of this

chapter.

(3) A person who is licensed or

certified as a crop advisor by a program

administered or approved by a State,

Tribal or Federal agency having

jurisdiction over such licensing or

certification, provided that a

requirement for such licensing or

certification is pesticide safety training

that includes all the information set out

in paragraph (c)(4) of this section.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–584 Filed 1–6–95; 12:16 pm]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

40 CFR Part 170

[OPP–250098; FRL–4917–7]

Exceptions to Worker Protection

Standard Early Entry Restrictions;

Irrigation Activities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed exceptions to rule;

request for comment.

SUMMARY: EPA is considering exceptions

to the Worker Protection Standard for

Agricultural Pesticides (WPS),

published at 57 FR 38102 (August 21,

1992), that would allow, under specified

conditions, workers to perform early

entry irrigation tasks for more than 1

hour per day during a restricted entry

interval (REI). Early entry is entry to a

pesticide-treated area before expiration

of the REI.

DATES: Comments, data, or evidence

should be submitted on or before

February 27, 1995. EPA does not intend

to extend this comment period.

ADDRESSES: Comments identified by the

document control OPP–250098 should

be submitted in triplicate by mail to:

Public Response and Program Resources

Branch, Field Operations Division

(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environment Protection Agency, 401 M

St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. All

written comments filed pursuant to this

notice will be available for public

inspection in Room 1132, Crystal Mall

#2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA, (703) 305–5805, from

8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday thru

Friday except legal holidays.

Comments and data may also be

submitted electronically by any of three

different mechanisms: by sending

electronic mail (e-mail) to: DocketOPPTS@epamail.epa.gov; by sending a

‘‘Subscribe’’ message to

listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov and

once subscribed, send your comments to

RIN–2070–AC69; or through the EPA

Electronic Bulletin Board by dialing

202–488–3671, enter selection

‘‘DMAIL,’’ user name ‘‘BB—USER’’ or

919–541–4642, enter selection ‘‘MAIL,’’

user name ‘‘BB—USER.’’ 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–250098 since all five documents in

this separate part provide the same

electronic address. No CBI should be

submitted through e-mail. Electronic

comments on this proposed rule, but not

the record, may be viewed or new

comments filed online at many Federal

Depository Libraries. Additional

information on electronic submissions

can be found in unit VI. of this

document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeanne Heying, Certification, Training

and Occupational Safety Branch

(7506C), Environmental Protection

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

DC 20460, (703) 305–7666, or your

regional or State official as noted in the

List of Worker Protection Contact below.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules 2831

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

This proposed WPS rule amendment

is one of a series of Agency actions in

response to concerns raised since

publication of the final rule in August

1992 by those interested in and affected

by the rule. In addition to this proposed

amendment, EPA is publishing four

other notices soliciting public comment

on concerns raised by various affected

parties. Other actions EPA is

considering include: (1) modification to

the worker training requirements; (2)

requirements for crop advisors; (3)

reduced restricted entry intervals (REIs)

for low risk pesticides; and (4) reduced

early entry restrictions for activities

involving limited contact with treated

surfaces. The Agency is interested in

receiving comments on all options and

questions presented.

Section 170.112(e) of the Worker

Protection Standard for Agricultural

Pesticides (WPS) (40 CFR part 170),

published at 57 FR 38102 (August 21,

1992), provides a mechanism for

considering exceptions to the WPS

provision that limits early entry during

a restricted-entry interval (REI) to

perform agricultural tasks, including

irrigation tasks. The Agency has

received requests for exceptions to the

early entry limitations for performing

irrigation tasks from parties in the States

of California and Hawaii. The California

parties also requested an indefinite

entry period for frost-prevention tasks;

this request has been returned to the

requesters for additional supporting

information and may be considered

later. The Agency is proposing for

consideration a national exception to

the WPS early entry restrictions for

performing irrigation tasks. The purpose

of this notice is to solicit further

information and comment on the

proposal to assist the Agency in

determining whether the conditions of

entry under any of the proposed

exceptions would pose unreasonable

risks to workers performing the

permitted irrigation tasks during a

restricted-entry interval.

In addition, EPA solicits further

information about the economic impact

of granting or not granting the proposed

exceptions. For further information

please contact the person list under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

above, or your regional or State official

as noted in the following List:

List of Worker Protection Contacts

EPA Regional Contacts

Ms. Pam Ringhoff

U.S. EPA, Region I

Pesticides Section (APP)

John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg.

Boston, MA 02203

Phone: 617/565-3931

FAX: 617/565-4939

Ms. Theresa Yaegel-Souffront

U.S. EPA, Region II, (MS-240)

Pesticides, & Asbestos Section

2890 Woodridge Avenue, Bldg. 209

Edison, NJ 08837

Phone: 908/906-6897

FAX: 908/321-6771

Ms. Magda Rodriguez

U.S. EPA, Region III

Pesticides Section (3AT-32)

841 Chestnut Bldg.

Philadelphia, PA 19107

Phone: 215/597-0442

FAX: 215/597-3156

Ms. Jane Horton

U.S. EPA, Region IV

Pesticides Section (4APT)

345 Courtland Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30365

Phone: 404/347-3222

FAX: 404/347-1681

Mr. Don Baumgartner

Mr. John Forwalter

Ms. Irene Miranda

U.S. EPA, Region V

Pesticides Section (SP-14J)

77 West Jackson Boulevard

Chicago, IL 60604-3507

Phone: 312/886-7835 (Don)

886-7834 (John)

353-9686 (Irene)

FAX: 312/353-4342

Mr. Jerry Oglesby

U.S. EPA, Region VI

Pesticides Section (6T-PP)

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

Phone: 214/665-7563

FAX: 214/665-2164

Ms. Kathleen Fenton

U.S. EPA, Region VII

Pesticides Section (TOPE)

726 Minnesota Avenue

Kansas City, KS 66101

Phone: 913/551-7874

FAX: 913/551-7065

Mr. Ed Stearns

U.S. EPA, Region VIII

Pesticides Section (8ART-TS)

999 18th Street, Suite 500

Denver, CO 80202-2405

Phone: 303/293-1745

FAX: 303/293-1647

Ms. Katherine H. Rudolph

U.S. EPA, Region IX

Pesticides Section (A-4-5)

75 Hawthrone Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: 415/744-1065

FAX: 415/744-1073

Mr. Allan Welch

U.S. EPA, Region X

Pesticides Section (AT-083)

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101

Phone: 206/553-1980

FAX: 206/553-8338

National Contacts

REGION I

Connecticut

Ms. Debra Cattucio

Pesticides/PCB Management Division

Dept. of Environmental Protection

165 Capitol Avenue

Hartford, CT 06106-1600

Phone: 203/566-5148

FAX: 203/566-4379

Maine

Ms. Tammy Gould

Board of Pesticide Control

ME Dept. of Agriculture/Food & Rural

Resources

Station 28

State Office Building

Augusta, ME 04333-0028

Phone: 207/287-2731

FAX: 207/287-7548

Massachusetts

Ms. Lillian Rivera

Pesticide Bureau/Department of Food &

Agriculture

Department of Agriculture

100 Cambridge Street

Boston, MA 02202-0009

Phone: 617-727-3020

FAX: 617/727/7235

New Hampshire

Mr. Murray L. McKay, Director

Division of Pesticide Control

New Hampshire Dept. of Agriculture

Caller Box 2042

Concord, NH 03302-2042

Phone: 603/271-3550

FAX: 603/271-1109

Rhode Island

Ms. Elizabeth M. Lopes-Duguay

Senior Plant Pathologist

Division of Agriculture

Department of Environmental Management

22 Hayes Street

Providence, RI 02908-5025

Phone: 401/277-2781

FAX: 401/277-6047

Vermont

Mr. John Berino

Division of Plant Industry

Laboratories & Consumer Assurance

Dept. of Agriculture, Food & Markets

116 State Street

Montpelier, VT 05620-2901

Phone: 802/828-2431

FAX: 802/828-2361
2832 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules

REGION II

New Jersey

Mr. Raymond Ferrarin

Assistant Director

Pesticide Control Program

New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection and Energy

CN 411

Trenton, NJ 08625

Phone: 609/530-4122

FAX: 609/530-8324

New York

Mr. James S. Moran, PE, Supervisor

Bureau of Pesticides Regulation

New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation

50 Wolf Road

Albany, NY 12233-7254

Phone: 518/457-7482

FAX: 518/457-0629

Puerto Rico

Ms. Arline R. de Gonzalez, Director

Agriculture Materials Laboratory

Puerto Rico Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 10163

Santurce, PR 00908

Phone: 809/796-1710

FAX: 809/796-4426

Virgin Islands

Mr. Leonard Reed

Assistant Director

Division of Environmental Protection

Virgin Islands Dept. of Planning

& Natural Resources

Nisky Center, Suite 231

Nisky 45 A

St. Thomas, U.S. VI 00802

Phone: 809/774-3320

FAX: 809/774-5416

REGION III

Delaware

Mr. Larry Towle

Delaware Dept. of Agriculture

2320 S. Dupont Highway

Dover, DE 19901

Phone: 302/739-4811

FAX: 302/697-6287

District of Columbia

Mr. Mark Greenleaf (C-T)

DCRA/ERA/ECD

Pesticides Section - Suite 203

2100 Martin Luther King, Jr. Ave. SE

Washington, DC 20020

Phone: 202/645-6080

FAX: 202/645-6622

Maryland

Mr. John Bergquist

Pesticide Regulation Section

Maryland Dept. of Agriculture

50 Harry S. Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21401

Phone: 410/841-5710

FAX: 410/841-2765

Pennsylvania

Mr. Dave Bingamen

Bureau of Plant Industry

PA Department of Agriculture

2301 N. Cameron Street

Harrisburg, PA 17110-9408

Phone: 717/787-4843

FAX: 7l7/783-3275

Virginia

Mr. Don Delorme

Office of Pesticide Management

VA Department of Agriculture

& Consumer Services,

P.O. Box 1163, Rm. 403

1100 Bank Street

Richmond, VA 23219

Phone: 804/371-6558

FAX: 804/371-8598

West Virginia

Mr. Ed Hartman

West Virginia Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 66

Inwood, WV 25428

Phone: 304/229-0981

FAX: 304/229-2510

REGION IV

Alabama

Mr. Pat Morgan

Pesticide Administrator

AL Dept. Agriculture & Industries P.O. Box

3336

Montgomery, AL 36109-0336

Phone: 205/242-2656

FAX: 205/240-3103

Florida

Dr. Marion Fuller

Ms. Mari Dugarte-Stavania

Florida Dept. of Agriculture

3125 Conner Boulevard, MC-2

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650

Phone: 904/488-3314

FAX: 904/922-2134

Georgia

Mr. Mike Evans

Special Projects Coordinator

Georgia Dept. of Agriculture

Entomology & Pesticides

Capitol Square, Suite 550

Atlanta, GA 30334

Phone: 404/651-7861

FAX: 404/656-3644

Kentucky

Mr. Ken Richeson

Worker Protection Coordinator

Kentucky Agriculture

Div. of Pesticides

500 Metro Street

Frankfort, KY 40601

Phone: 502/564-7274

FAX: 502/564-3773

Mississippi

Mr. Tommy McDaniel

Pesticide Coordinator

MDAC, Bureau of Plant Industry

P.O. Box 5207

Miss. State, MS 39762

Phone: 601/325-3390

FAX: 601/325-8397

North Carolina

Ms. Kay Glenn

Pesticide Specialist

N.C. Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 27647

Raleigh, NC 27611

Phone: 919/733-3556

FAX: 919/733-9796

South Carolina

Dr. Neil Ogg

Ms. Tammy Lark

Special Programs Manager

Dept. of Fertilizer & Pesticide

Control

257 Poole Agricultural Center

Clemson University, Box 340394

Clemson, SC 29634-0394

Phone: 803/656-3171

FAX: 803/656-3219

Tennessee

Ms. Karen Roecker

Worker Safety Coordinator

Tenn. Dept. of Agriculture

Div. of Plant Industries

P.O. Box 40627, Melrose Station

Nashville, TN 37204

Phone: 615/360-0795

FAX: 615/360-0757

REGION V

Illinois

Mr. Thomas Walker, Manager

Support Services

Bureau of Environmental Programs

IL Department of Agriculture

State Fairgrounds, P.O. Box 19281

Springfield, IL 62706

Phone: 217/785-2427

FAX: 217/785-4884

Indiana

Mr. Joseph Becovitz

Office of Indiana State Chemist

Purdue University

1154 Biochemistry Building

West Lafayette, IN 47907-1154

Phone: 317/494-1585

FAX: 317/494-4331

Michigan

Ms. Katherine Fedder
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules 2833

MI Department of Agriculture

Pesticides & Plant Pest Management

Division

611 West Ottawa Street

P.O. Box 30017

Lansing, MI 48909

Phone: 517/373-1087

FAX: 517/373-4540

Minnesota

Mr. Steve Poncin, Supervisor

Pesticide Enforcement Unit

MN Department of Agriculture

90 West Plato Blvd.

St. Paul, MN 55107

Phone: 612/296-5136

FAX:

Ohio

Mr. Robert DeVeny

Pesticide Division Inspector

OH Department of Agriculture

65 South Front Street

Columbus, OH 43068

Phone: 216/297-6452

FAX: 614/759-1467

Wisconsin

Mr. Eric Nelson

WI Department of Agriculture

Trade & Consumer Protection

801 West Badger Road

Madison, WI 53708

Phone: 608/266-9429

FAX: 608/266-5307

REGION VI

Arkansas

Mr. Don Alexander/

Mr. Charles Armstrong

Arkansas State Plant Board

P.O. Box 1069

Little Rock, AR 72203

Phone: 501/225-3590

FAX: 501/225-3590

Louisiana

Mr. Peter Grandi

LA Department of Agriculture

& Forestry

P.O. Box 3596

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3596

Phone: 504/925-3760

FAX: 504/925-3760

New Mexico

Ms. Sherry Sanderson

New Mexico Department

P.O. Box 30005, Dept. 3AQ

Las Cruces, NM 88003-0005

Phone: 505/646-4837

FAX: 505/646-5977

Oklahoma

Mr. Jerry Sullivan

Plant Industry & Consumer Services

OK State Department of Agriculture

2800 North Lincoln Blvd.

Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4298

Phone: 405/521-3864

FAX: 405/521-4912

Texas

TX Department of Agriculture

Stephen F. Austin Bldg.

P.O. Box 12847

Austin, TX 78711

Phone: 512/463-7717

FAX: 512/475-1618

REGION VII

Iowa

Mr. Jim Ellerhoff

Program Coordinator

IO Department of Agriculture

& Land Stewardship

Henry A. Wallace Building

900 East Grand

Des Moines, IO 50319

Phone: 515/281-8506

FAX: 515/281-6800

Mr. Charles Eckerman

IO Department of Agriculture

& Land Stewardship

Henry A. Wallace Building

900 East Grand

Des Moines, IO 50319

Phone: 515/281-8590

FAX: 515/281-6800

Kansas

Mr. Gary Boutz,

Pesticide Law Administrator

Ms. Glenda Mah,

Programs Coordinator

Kansas State Board of Agriculture

901 S. Kansas, 7th Floor

Topeka, KS 66612-1281

Phone: 913/296-5395 (G. Boutz)

913/296-0672 (G. Mah)

FAX: 913/296-0673

Missouri

Mr. Jim Lea, Supervisor

Plant Health Division

MO Department of Agriculture

P.O. Box 630

Jefferson City, MO 65101

Phone: 314/751-5508

FAX: 314/751-0005

Mr. Paul Andre

Programs Coordinator

MO Department of Agriculture

P.O. Box 630

Jefferson City, MO 65101

Phone: 314/751-9198

FAX: 314/751-0005

Nebraska

Mr. Richard Reiman, Chief

Bureau of Plant Industries

NE Department of Agriculture

P.O. Box 94756, State House Station

Lincoln, NE 68509

Phone: 402/471-2394

FAX: 402/471-3252

Mr. Grier Friscoe, Manager

Mr. Jamie Green, Prog. Coord.

Pesticide/Noxious Weed Prog.

Post Office Box 94756

State House Station

Lincoln, NE 68509

Phone: 402/471-6853 (G. Friscoe)

402/471-6882 (J. Green)

FAX:

REGION VIII

Montana

Mr. Steve Baril

Environmental Management Office

Department of Agriculture

Agriculture Livestock Bldg.

Capitol Station

Helen, MT 59620

Phone: 406/444-2944

FAX: 406/444-5409

North Dakota

Mr. Jack Peterson, Director

ND Department of Agriculture

State Capitol Building

600 East Blvd. 6th Floor

Bismark, ND 58505-0020

Phone: 701/224-2231

FAX: 701/224-4567

South Dakota

Mr. Brad Berven, Administrator

SD Department of Agriculture

Division of Regulatory Services

Anderson Bldg.

Pierre, SD 57501

Phone: 605/773-4012

Mr. Joshua Logg, Jr.

Pesticide Enforcement Program

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe

P.O. Box 590

Eagle Butte, SD 57625

Phone : 605/964-6551

FAX: 605/964-4151

Mr. Irv Provost, Coordinator

Pesticide Enforcement Program

Natural Resources Agency

Oglal Sioux Tribe

P.O. Box 468

Pine Ridge, SD 57770

Utah

Mr. Gary L. King

Department of Agriculture

350 North Redwood Road

Salt Lake City, UT 84116

Phone: 801/538-7188

FAX: 801/538-7126

REGION IX

Arizona

Mr. Dan Danielson
2834 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Environmental Services Division

Department of Agriculture

1688 N. 7th Street

Phoenix, AZ 85006

Phone: 602/407-2910

FAX: 602/407-2909

Navajo Nation

Mr. Jefferson Biakkedy

Pesticide Regulatory Program

Navajo Environmental Protection

Administration

Navajo Nation

P.O. Box 308

Fort Defiance, AZ 86504

Phone: 602/729-4155

FAX: 602/729-5246

Intertribal Council of Arizona

Ms. Elaine Wilson

Inter Tribal Council of Arizona

4205 North 7th Avenue, Suite ι200

Phoenix, AZ 85013

Phone: 602/248-0071

FAX: 602/248-0080

California

Ms. Virginia Rosales

Pesticides Enforcement Branch

Department of Pesticide Regulation

CA Environmental Protection Agency

1220 N Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: 916/445-3874

FAX:

Hawaii

Mr. Gerald Kinro

Pesticides Branch

Division of Plant Industry

HI Department of Agriculture

P.O. Box 22159

Honolulu, HI 96822-0159

Phone: 808/973-9401

FAX: 808/973-9418

Nevada

Mr. Chuck Moses

Division of Plant Industry

NV Department of Agriculture

P.O. Box 11100

Reno, NV 89510-1100

Phone: 702/688-1180

FAX: 702/688-1178

REGION X

Alaska

Mr. Karl Kalb

Dept. of Environmental Conservation

500 South Alaska, Suite A

Palmer, AK 99645

Phone: 907/745-3236

FAX: 907/745-8125

Idaho

Mr. John Helsol

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

P.O. Box 306

Fort Hall, ID 83203

Phone: 208/238-3860

FAX: 208/237-9736

Mr. Robert Hays

ID Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 790

Boise, ID 83701

Phone: 208/334-3550

FAX: 208/334-228

Oregon

Mr. Chris Kirby

OR Department of Agriculture

635 Capitol Street, N.E.

Salem, OR 97310-0110

Phone: 503/378-3776

FAX: 503/378-5529

Ms. Marylin Schuster

Oregon OSHA

21 Labor & Industries Bldg.

Salem, OR 97310

Phone: 503/378-3272

FAX: 503/378-5729

Washington

Mr. Don Locke

WA Department of Labor & Industries

P.O. Box 44610

Olympia, WA 98504-4610

Phone: 206/956-5426

FAX: 206-956-5438

Ms. Ann Wick

WA State Dept. of Agriculture

Pesticide Management Division

P.O. Box 42589

Olympia, WA 98504-2589

Phone: 206/902-2050

FAX: 206/902-2093

A. Worker Protection Standard

The revisions to the Worker

Protection Standard (WPS) promulgated

at 57 FR 38102, August 21, 1992, were

intended to reduce the risk of pesticide

poisonings and injuries among

agricultural workers, including

pesticide handlers. The WPS includes

three types of provisions to:

(1) Eliminate or reduce exposure to

pesticides.

(2) Mitigate exposures that occur.

(3) Inform employees about the

hazards of pesticides.

Exposure reduction provisions include

application restrictions, use of personal

protective equipment (PPE), and entry

restrictions.

B. Restricted Entry Intervals (REI)

Agricultural workers, in general, are

prohibited from entering a pesticidetreated area during the restricted entry

interval (REI) specified on the product

labeling if they might contact anything

treated with a pesticide.

Regulations at 40 CFR part 156,

subpart K specify that WPS labeling

retains all of the pesticide-specific

permanent REIs set by EPA on the basis

of adequate data, and retains all

established interim REIs longer than

those established in part 156. The WPS

preamble notes: ‘‘These longer REIs

have been based, in general, on either

delayed [chronic] effects or other

exposure hazards such as persistence,

post-application chemical

transformations, or potential for severe

skin sensitization.’’ In the absence of

pesticide-specific REIs, the WPS

establishes a range of REIs, from 12 to

72 hours, depending upon the toxicity

of the active ingredient(s) and other

factors.

During an REI, tasks that result in

contact with treated surfaces (including

soil, water, air, and plant surfaces in the

treated area) are limited to the

following:

(1) Short-term tasks (1 hour per day)

that do not require hand labor.

(2) Tasks, including hand labor tasks,

performed in a situation meeting the

definition of an agricultural emergency.

(3) Tasks that may be permitted by

EPA through case-by-case exceptions.

Exceptions may be granted pursuant to

40 CFR 170.112(e)(2), if affected persons

or organizations persuade EPA that the

benefits of the exception outweigh the

risks associated with the exception and

the workers can perform the early entry

tasks without unreasonable adverse risk.

C. Current WPS Irrigation Provisions

During REI

Irrigation activities expressly are

excluded from the definition of ‘‘Hand

labor’’ at 40 CFR 170.3: ‘‘Hand labor

does not include operating, moving, or

repairing irrigation or watering

equipment....’’ EPA realizes that

moving, adjusting, or repairing

irrigation equipment may result in

contact with treated surfaces, yet these

tasks may be necessary while an area

remains under a REI. The Agency thus

has allowed entry during an REI to

perform irrigation-related tasks, but has

placed strict limitations on that entry.

These limitations, set out at 40 CFR

170.112(c), include:

(1) There is no entry for the first 4

hours after application and thereafter

until any exposure level listed on the

labeling has been reached or any

ventilation criteria established at 40

CFR 170.110(c)(3) or in the labeling has

been met.

(2) No hand labor tasks are performed.

(3) The time for any worker in treated

areas under an REI does not exceed 1

hour in any 24–hour period.

(4) The required PPE is provided,

cleaned, and maintained for the worker.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules 2835

(5) Agricultural employers ensure that

workers wear required PPE, and other

PPE-related protections are provided.

(6) Measures are taken to avoid heat

stress (see, A Guide to Heat Stress in

Agriculture, EPA HW77 March 1994).

(7) Required decontamination

supplies and decontamination areas are

provided.

(8) Required PPE-related, heat-stressrelated, and labeling-specific safety

information have been furnished.

Pursuant to The Pesticide Compliance

Dates Extension Act, Pub. L. 103–231,

April 6, 1994, implementation of some

WPS provisions, including some entry

restrictions, has been delayed until

January 1, 1995. Until then, if irrigation

workers contact with pesticide-treated

surfaces is limited only to feet, lower

legs, hands, and forearms, then coveralls

plus chemical-resistant gloves and

chemical-resistant footwear may be

substituted for the early-entry PPE

specified on the label. Also, until

January 1, 1995, workers performing

non-hand-labor tasks may work for an

unlimited time in an area remaining

under an REI. Starting January 1, 1995,

routine early entry to perform non-hand

labor tasks, including operating

irrigation equipment, will be limited to

1 hour per worker each day if the entry

would result in contact with pesticidetreated surfaces. In addition, irrigation

workers must wear PPE specified on the

pesticide label for early entry.

D. Irrigation Tasks Allowed by the WPS

After January 1, 1995

EPA has issued the following

guidance in the publication Worker

Protection Questions & Answers,

clarifying circumstances in which

irrigation tasks can take place during a

restricted-entry interval pursuant to the

restrictions at 40 CFR 170.112:

WPS was designed to reduce the

opportunities for workers to be exposed to

pesticide residues in treated areas during

REIs. For example, with the exceptions noted

below, irrigation pipe may not be moved

during REIs when that task would bring

workers into contact with treated surfaces. As

a result, agricultural employers should

schedule pesticide applications and

irrigation so that the need for irrigation

involving workers during REIs will be

minimized. If, however, irrigation in a treated

area under a REI is essential, it is permitted

under WPS under the following conditions:

1. Without entry to treated Area. Some

irrigation tasks take place at the edges of

fields, which may not be within the treated

area (area to which the pesticide has been

directed.) An example may be the installation

or removal of pipe for furrow irrigation. As

long as such activities do not cause workers

to enter the treated area, they may take place

without time limit or use of PPE during the

REI.

2. With Entry to Treated Area.

a. By Pesticide Handlers. During

chemigation or when pesticide labeling

requires the pesticide to be watered-in, this

task may be performed by trained handlers

wearing the handler PPE specified on the

product labeling. [See the Question and

Answer on watering-in, found in the Handler

Activities section of Worker Protection

Questions & Answers, for additional details.]

b. By Workers With No Contact. WPS

provides an exception for entry to treated

areas, after any inhalation exposure level or

ventilation criteria have been met, without

PPE or other time limitation, when there will

be no contact with the pesticide or its

residues (40 CFR 170.112(b)]. Note, however,

that PPE cannot be used to prevent the

contact under this exception. This exception

may apply to a variety of typical irrigation

situations, e.g.:

Workers moving irrigation equipment or

performing other tasks in the treated area

after the pesticide was correctly soilincorporated or injected, provided the

workers do not contact the soil subsurface by

digging or other activities.

Workers walking or performing other tasks

in furrows after the pesticides are applied to

the soil surface in a narrow band on beds and

there is no contact with those treated

surfaces.

c. Short Term — Workers may enter treated

areas during REIs to perform short-term tasks

[40 CFR 170.112(c)] provided that:

(1) Such entry does not take place during

the first 4 hours after application and until

any inhalation exposure limits or ventilation

criteria are met;

(2) The entry does not involve more than

1 hour per day per worker;

(3) The worker does not perform tasks

defined in WPS to be hand labor (operating

irrigation equipment is not hand labor under

WPS);

(4) The worker wears the early-entry PPE

specified on the pesticide labeling;

(5) Is correctly informed as required for

early-entry workers in the WPS; and

(6) all other applicable requirements of 40

CFR 170.112 are met.

(d) Agricultural Emergencies. The WPS

permits early entry by workers to perform

tasks including irrigation while wearing

early-entry PPE, and without time limits, in

response to an agricultural emergency, as

defined in the regulation at 40 CFR

170.112(d).

e. EPA-Approved Exceptions. Section

170.112(e) of WPS permits exceptions to the

general prohibition on work in treated areas

during REIs when EPA has approved a

special exception. Exceptions may be

requested of EPA as described in that section

of the regulation.

The EPA publication Worker

Protection Questions & Answers is

available through the docket at EPA

Headquarters.

II. Evidence Necessary to Support

Exception

The Worker Protection Standard

establishes at 40 CFR 170.112(e)(2), a

process to allow the Agency to initiate

an exception to WPS entry restrictions,

or to grant exceptions upon request from

interested persons, if the benefits

associated with otherwise-prohibited

early entry activities exceed the risks

associated with those early entry

activities.

As specified in existing WPS, at 40

CFR 170.112(e)(2), data supporting an

exception request should include:

(1) Crop(s) and specific production

task(s) for which the exception is

requested, including an explanation of

the necessity to apply pesticides of

types and at frequencies such that the

REI would interfere with necessary and

time-sensitive tasks for the requested

exception period.

(2) Geographic area, including unique

exposures or economic impacts

resulting from REI prohibitions.

(3) Evaluation, for each crop-task

combination, of technical and financial

viability of alternative practices, and

projection of practices most likely to be

adopted by growers if no exception is

granted, including rescheduling

pesticide application or irrigation tasks,

non-chemical pest control, machine

irrigation, or use of shorter-REI

pesticides.

(4) Per-acre changes in yield, market

grade or quality, and changes in revenue

and production cost attributable to REI

prohibitions for crop and geographic

area, specifying data before and after

WPS implementation. Also, include

factors which cause changes in revenue,

market grade or quality; product

performance and efficacy studies; and

source of data submitted and the basis

for any projections.

(5) The safety and feasibility of the

requested exception, including

feasibility of performing irrigation

activity wearing early-entry PPE

required for pesticides used; means of

mitigating heat-related illness; time

required daily per worker to perform

irrigation activity; and methods of

reducing worker exposure. Mitigating

factors discussed should include

availability of water for routine and

emergency decontamination, and

mechanical devices to reduce worker

contact with treated surfaces.

Discussion of the costs of early entry

should include decontamination

facilities, worker training, heat stress

avoidance procedures, and provision,

inspection, cleaning and maintenance of

PPE.

(6) Why alternative practices would

not be technically or financially

feasible.
2836 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules

III. Requests for Exception and

Supporting Evidence

Parties from the States of California

and Hawaii each have requested

exceptions to the WPS REI requirements

for workers performing tasks related to

irrigation. The full exception requests

are available through the docket at EPA

Headquarters, the Regions and the

States.

A. California Growers Request for

Exception

California growers have requested that

workers be permitted entry into treated

areas under an REI for an indefinite time

to perform irrigation tasks when

workers are (1) properly trained, (2) use

the label-specified PPE, (3) are provided

decontamination facilities, and (4) are

not allowed entry to the treated area for

at least 4 hours following pesticide

application.

California cited a broad range of soil

types, climates and crops requiring

irrigation tasks such as moving pipe,

turning on valves, checking sprinkler

and drip irrigation nozzles, and

removing debris or obstructions

impeding water flow. Requesters

indicate that these tasks ‘‘do not involve

substantial contact with treated plants.’’

The California requesters cite conditions

specific to their state to support an REI

exception.

1. Alternate practices. The California

requesters assert that alternative

practices are not technically practical

because the availability of irrigation

water is often at the discretion of the

irrigation district. They note that often

a grower does not know until the last

few hours when water will arrive from

the irrigation contractor.

The California requesters also state

that the failure to properly irrigate

plants in a timely manner induces plant

stress, disrupts integrated pest

management (IPM) practices, increases

plant susceptibility to pests, and may

ultimately increase pesticide use,

resulting in greater exposure to workers.

Finally, the requesters state that the 1-

hour limitation on early entry activity

per worker per day unnecessarily

restricts agricultural activities vital to

crop production.

2. California regulations. The

requesters cite California Regulations

(Article 3, Field Worker Safety, section

6770), which permit workers to perform

irrigation activities in treated areas

during a restricted-entry interval,

provided:

(1) Sprays have dried and dusts have

settled.

(2) The workers are informed of the

identity of the pesticide applied, the

existence of the REI, and the protective

work procedures they are required to

follow.

(3) Workers are wearing the personal

protective equipment required by the

pesticide label for early entry.

(4) The workers are instructed to

thoroughly shower with warm water

and soap as soon as possible after the

end of the work shift.

For certain pesticides, including all

pesticides with the signal word

DANGER and certain other pesticides

with a history of illness or injury

incidents involving workers exposed to

post-application residues, the California

regulations prohibit entry during a

restricted-entry interval to perform hand

labor tasks, such as picking, other hand

harvesting, tying, pruning, tree-limb

propping, disbudding, and other

nonharvest cultural practices that may

involve worker contact with plants.

Irrigation tasks specifically are not

included in this list of prohibited tasks.

For all other pesticides, entry during a

restricted-entry interval to perform

tasks, including hand labor tasks, is

permitted after sprays have dried and

dusts have settled, provided the

protections listed above are provided to

the worker.

The California requesters state that

heat-related illness will be mitigated by

training workers and field-crew

supervisors on heat stress symptoms

and first-aid procedures. They note that

drinking and handwash water and toilet

facilities currently are required for all

field workers under California

regulations; and that the location of the

nearest emergency medical care facility

is listed on crop sheets that must be at

each work site. They state also that WPS

PPE maintenance provisions and earlyentry restrictions will be required under

California regulations as soon as they

are revised to incorporate Federal

standards.

3. Economic impact. The California

requesters estimate a sizeable economic

impact if the requested exception is

denied, based upon an estimated crew

of two to four workers who require 6 to

8 hours to set up a sprinkler irrigation

system on a 20–acre block of a vegetable

crop. They state that the WPS

requirement for worker rotation after 1

hour is problematic because it would

reduce efficiency and increase costs to

recruit, hire, train and schedule

workers; irrigators are unwilling to work

for only 1 hour; and crop loss or

nonuniform crop maturation would

result from potential untimely irrigation

of sensitive crops and seedlings.

4. Pesticide injuries. Requesters

address the protective nature of the

requested exception by citing California

Department of Pesticide Regulation

(CDPR) records of reported pesticide

injuries through the California Pesticide

Illness Surveillance Program. The

requesters’ evaluation of this

information alleges that allowing

protected workers into treated areas to

conduct irrigation activities for an

unlimited time after an initial period of

prohibited entry does not result in

significant risk of illness or injury.

Requesters support their exception

request with data from DPR’s pesticide

illness surveillance program, which

tracks potential pesticide injuries. They

state, ‘‘In 1990, there were

approximately 2,500 alleged pesticide

illnesses/ injuries reported. These

included occupational and nonoccupational situations. Of these, only

20 cases involved irrigators that were in

fields when exposure occurred. Only 1

of the 20 irrigation-related injury cases

was classified as ’definitely’ related to

pesticides. In that case, the worker was

determined to be involved in an activity

that involved contact with containers

contaminated with pesticide residues.

In 1990, there were over 2.2 million

agricultural pesticide application

reports submitted in the state. The rate

of irrigator injuries to possible pesticide

exposure was 1 in over 110,000

applications.’’

B. Hawaii Request for Exception

The State of Hawaii provided EPA

with an exception request submitted by

an agricultural establishment, the

Hawaiian Commercial Sugar Company

(HC&S). The request related specifically

to irrigation activities related to planting

new crops, and appeared to comprise

full exemption from WPS REI

requirements for all agricultural

activities described in their request.

Requesters specifically cite their desire

to return to the pre-WPS standard

allowing agricultural workers to enter a

field after pesticide application, once

dusts have settled and sprays have

dried. It is noteworthy that this was not

allowed in the legislation delaying

implementation of some portions of the

WPS, which provided: ‘‘Under the

exception in section 2, no entry is

allowed for the first 4 hours after

application of the pesticide. This

restriction parallels the requirements in

the other exceptions to early entry

promulgated in the Worker Protection

Standard (WPS) at 40 CFR 170.112.’’

Requesters state that during seed

planting there is a ‘‘buffer space’’

between the cover machine and the

herbicide tractor to ensure that

agricultural workers are not exposed to

pesticide drift. The size of the buffer

space is dependent upon the wind
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules 2837

direction. Requesters state that

herbicide sprays dry within a few

minutes, and that on a typical sunny

day drying occurs on contact. The

irrigation hook-up crew follows behind

the weed control operations, and

connect the irrigation tubing injected by

the mechanical planter, to the irrigation

mainlines existing in the field.

Requesters state that the majority of

irrigation work is done on the field

edge, which has the least amount of

pesticide.

Requesters state that timing of the

irrigation operation is critical, since

seed pieces are prone to desiccation and

disease, and the seed needs water to

germinate. Soil into which the seed

pieces are placed is dry; thus if the

fields are not irrigated immediately after

planting, seed pieces will not germinate.

Requesters also note that irrigation

system repair is conducted at the time

of planting. The drip irrigation system is

largely underground and the main line

at the field perimeter is reused for every

crop. Since it is underground, system

damages from harvesting of the previous

crop are not evident until planting of

the section is started. Drip hookup is

performed as soon as possible so system

damages can be repaired and the system

returned to function before the seed

dehydrates. Underground pipes are

composed of PVC (polyvinylchloride);

thus there is a delay of at least 1 day to

dry repair glues.

Requesters utilize furrow irrigation for

approximately 2,000 acres of the 36,000

acre plantation, utilizing cane wash

water from its factories. Installation of

feeder ditches follow herbicide

application in furrow irrigated fields.

Some fields also are ‘‘ratooned,’’ where

cane stalks are severed at the base of the

plant during harvest, and the cane plant

regrows from the stubble. The

mechanical planter follows the emerged

cane line in ratooned fields and places

seed in the gaps where there are no

plants. Vegetation is present to heights

less than 1 foot. Requesters state that it

is readily evident when ‘‘sprays have

dried and dusts have settled’’ in

ratooned fields.

1. Alternate practices. The request

was limited to the time until new

preemergence herbicides are approved

for use in sugarcane fields. Requesters

note that application of water to the

field before the herbicide operation

would result in tractors stuck in the

mud and compaction of the moist soil.

They state that application of herbicides

immediately after planting is critical

because it allows for minimal use of

pesticides — less material is needed to

kill weeds as they try to emerge than to

kill weeds after they emerge. Requesters

state that capillary action of water is

relied upon to wet the seed, this

occurring within 24 to 72 hours

depending upon soil type. Requesters

state that if herbicide applications were

delayed until after seed pieces were

wetted, weed seeds would have

germinated and herbicide usage rates

would need to be increased.

Requesters also note that the HC&S is

located on the island of Maui, in a

valley with average wind speeds of

approximately 30 miles per hour.

Pesticide applications must be done

carefully to reduce drift to non-target

areas; timing of application is used as

the variable to control pesticide volume

applied, and tractors are used to

minimize herbicide usage by more

accurately directing material to the

target area. Rains from 10 to 40 inches

per year are very seasonal; therefore

requesters state that the plantation is

totally reliant upon drip irrigation for

growing crops.

2. Current regulations. Requesters

noted no pesticide regulations beyond

current pesticide label requirements

governing their operations. Requesters

cited Hawaii’s Workers Compensation

Plan in discussing the safety and

feasibility of their requested exception.

3. Economic impact. Requesters state

that immature sugarcane stalks are high

in moisture content and vulnerable to

desiccation resulting in failure to

germinate. The cut ends of the stalk (as

well as damaged portions of the 40

percent of seed pieces which are

damaged physically), are avenues of

entry for disease organisms, specifically

the fungus Ceratocystis paradoxa or

pineapple disease. Requesters note that

timely treatment, planting and irrigation

of seed pieces thus is important.

Requesters note that tractor

application of herbicides replaced aerial

applications 7 years ago, in order to

reduce herbicide usage, improve

herbicide placement, reduce off-target

drift, and to protect workers and the

environment. Requesters also state that

aerial applications are estimated to cost

20% more than current tractor costs, or

$137,880 per year. Respraying by hand

or tractor application is estimated to

cost another $250,000 per year, to

address areas missed along roads and

pole lines, and increased weeds when

application is delayed due to

unfavorable wind conditions. Thus

requesters estimate that total increased

operating costs for aerial herbicide

applications in place of timely tractor

applications is $387,880 per year, an

increase of 55 percent over current

practice, as well as unquantifiable

effects of potential off-target drift and

potential for greater worker exposure.

Nighttime aerial application is

precluded by undulating terrain, poles

and lines transecting fields, difficulty in

determining flight path, and variable

wind.

Requesters also estimate that water

application before herbicide application

would impair field trafficability,

decrease plant growth, increase weeds,

require more pesticide use and

additional worker exposure, and cost

approximately $30l,600 or 42 percent

more than current costs. Requesters

estimate that using more tractors to

cover the treated seed would require

significant capital expenditure, with

very poor return on investment since

there will be significant amounts of

unproductive time between tractor

operations. They estimate an increase of

$232,000 in operating costs per year to

increase tractors and associated

additional manpower, an increase of 33

percent over current operating costs,

with no return on investment.

Requesters also considered utilizing

night operations to minimize the impact

of a 12–hour REI. They estimate an

increase of $188,873 in annual operating

costs, or 27 percent over current costs

for this alternative, primarily due to

missed areas, repair to damaged risers,

and installation of lights.

Finally, requesters estimate a cost of

$702,000 for adhering to a stated 12–

hour REI, due to delayed or reduced

germination of seed pieces, a loss of at

least 2 months in crop age, and the

added cost of hand replanting. They

estimate a loss of $2,332,800 in

plantation profitability due to yield

impacts.

4. Pesticide injuries. Requesters cite

the unique nature of sugarcane

cultivation in discussing the safety and

feasibility of their requested exception.

They note that, unlike fields with crop

canopies taller than workers, such as

cornfields or grape vineyards, newly

planted or ratooned sugarcane fields are

bare or have vegetation less than 1 foot

in height. They cite company policy

requiring all workers to wear longsleeved shirts, long pants, and eye

protection. They note that irrigation

hookup crews wear company-provided

rubber gloves and rubber boots, due to

constant contact with water. They state

that irrigation crews work on the field

edge, which has a minimum amount of

herbicide, and that agricultural workers’

frequent contact with water will wash

off any residue that may be contacted.

They note that workers have readily

available potable water supplies, ready

access to medical facilities, and ready

access to Workers Compensation claims

if they have a work related incident.
2838 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Requesters state that company records

indicate 11 pesticide related incidents

between 1985 and 1993. They estimate

their records cover 80 handlers and 700

workers with field oriented tasks,

working 40 to 48 hours per week, 12

months per year, for 15,795,000

exposure hours. They report 10

unforeseen incidents involving

handlers, including exposure due to a

broken hose or fittings. Requesters note

that all but one incident occurred before

1990, when operational sequences were

changed to address the exposure

episodes. The one incident which

required absence from work did not

involve pre-emergence herbicide

application, but rather hand application

later in the crop cycle.

IV. The Agency’s Exception Proposal

A. Background

Since the Worker Protection Standard

was promulgated in August 1992, the

Agency has received information from

growers and representatives from the

Departments of Agriculture in several

states regarding the 1–hour-per-workerper-day limit during a restricted-entry

interval to perform irrigation-related

tasks. Most commenters, including the

National Association of the State

Departments of Agriculture (NASDA),

asserted that the restriction would cause

substantial disruption in the production

of a wide variety of agricultural crops

across a broad geographic area. NASDA

and others urged the Agency to consider

allowing entry during a restricted-entry

interval for an unlimited time per day

per worker, if the worker would not

have substantial contact with treated

surfaces, including crop foliage.

They asked the Agency also to

consider establishing a single suite of

personal protective equipment that

could be worn by irrigation workers

rather than requiring them to wear the

early-entry PPE specified on the labeling

of the pesticide applied to the treated

area. They argued that often irrigation

workers need to work in several

different treated areas in a single

workday and that it would be

burdensome to require workers to

consult the pesticide label and to

change their PPE before entering each

different area. Although not directly

addressed in the exception requests

from California and Hawaii, these

concerns are reflected in EPA’s

following proposed exception for

irrigation tasks, and in the comments

and information EPA solicits through

this notice.

The proposed exception specifically

excludes pesticides whose labeling

requires ‘‘double notification’’ — both

the posting of treated areas and oral

notification to workers. The following

Table lists the active ingredients subject

to this requirement, which were

identified in PR Notice 93–7.

B. Worker Protection Standard ‘‘Double

Notification’’ Active Ingredient List

The following Table 1 does not

contain the active ingredients in

products already bearing mandatory

posting requirements prior to adoption

of the WPS and which must be retained

under WPS. It may also contain a few

active ingredients which upon further

Agency review, such as during

reregistration, will be found not to

require double notification (posting of

treated areas and oral notification to

workers). EPA expects the list to be

amended prior to any final

determination by the Agency.

Nonetheless, EPA believes that this list

contains the bulk of the active

ingredients subject to double

notification, and the list is included in

this notice for the convenience of

commenters. These pesticides contain

an active ingredient categorized as

highly toxic when absorbed through the

skin (acute dermal toxicity), or as highly

irritating (corrosive) when it contacts

the skin, or otherwise are pesticides

considered by EPA as posing high risk

to workers for reasons such as suspected

delayed effects, epidemiological data, or

unusually long restricted-entry

intervals. The Agency requires ‘‘double

notification’’ for a pesticide when an

incidental exposure — for example,

contact from brushing against the

treated surfaces — has the potential to

cause an acute illness or injury or a

delayed effect, such as developmental

toxicity. For pesticides that contain

‘‘double notification’’ requirements on

their labeling, the short-term (1 hour per

worker per day) exception at 40 CFR

170.112(c) would continue to apply.

TABLE 1.—DOUBLE NOTIFICATION

ACTIVE INGREDIENT LIST

From PR Notice 93–7, Appendix 3–A

Common name Chemical

code

CAS Number

aldicarb ................ 098301 116–06–3

aldoxycarb ........... 110801 1646–88–4

arsenic acid ......... 006801 7778–39–4

arsenic trioxide .... 007001 1327–53–3

carbofuran ............ 090601 1563–66–2

chlorflurenol ......... 098801 2536–31–4

chloropicrin .......... 081501 76–06–2

cuprous oxide ...... 025601 1317–39–1

disulfoton ............. 032501 298–04–4

TABLE 1.—DOUBLE NOTIFICATION

ACTIVE INGREDIENT LIST—Continued

From PR Notice 93–7, Appendix 3–A

Common name Chemical

code

CAS Number

dodine .................. 044301 2439–10–3

endothall,

dimethylcocoamine.

038905

endothall,

disodium salt.

038903 129–67–9

ethephon .............. 099801 16672–87–0

ethoprop ............... 041101 13194–48–4

fonofos ................. 041701 944–22–9

(s)-(+)-lactic acid .. 128929 79–33–4

metam–sodium .... 039003 137–42–8

methamidophos ... 101201 10265–92–6

methyl bromide .... 053201 74–83–9

methyl parathion .. 053501 298–00–0

mevinphos ........... 015801 7786–34–7

nicotine ................ 056702 54–11–5

paraquat ............... 061601 1910–42–5

parathion .............. 057501 56–38–2

phorate ................. 057201 298–02–2

profenofos ............ 111401 41198–08–7

propargite ............. 097601 2312–35–8

sabadilla alkaloids 002201 8051–02–3

sulfotepp .............. 079501 3689–24–5

sulfuric acid .......... 078001 7664–93–9

sulprofos .............. 111501 35400–43–2

tefluthrin ............... 128912 79538–32–2

terbufos ................ 105001 13071–79–9

TPTH ................... 083601 76–87–9

The Agency has identified a range of

national irrigation options with varying

time and duration of entry, required

PPE, and levels of exposure. The

Pesticide Compliance Dates Extension

Act, Pub. L. No. 103–231, included

these irrigation provisions:

[A] worker may enter an area treated with

a pesticide product during the restricted

entry interval specified on the label of the

pesticide product to perform tasks related to

the production of agricultural plants if the

agricultural employer ensures that — (1) no

hand labor activity is performed; (2) no such

entry is allowed for the first 4 hours

following the end of the application of the

pesticide product; (3) no such entry is

allowed until any inhalation exposure level

listed on the product labeling has been

reached; and (4) the personal protective

equipment specified on the product labeling

for early entry is provided in clean and

operating condition to the worker.

(b) Protective Equipment for Irrigation

Work. — For irrigation work for which the

only contact with treated surfaces is to the

feet, lower legs, hands, and arms, the

agricultural employer may provide coveralls,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules 2839

chemical resistant gloves, and chemical

resistant footwear instead of the personal

protective equipment specified on the label.

The Congressional Record of March

24, 1994 provides further information

concerning the legislative intent of the

nature of the irrigation exception:

Section 2(b) provides, until January 1,

1995, optional PPE for early entry workers

operating, moving, or repairing irrigation or

watering equipment where contact with the

treated surfaces is limited to hands, arms,

lower legs, and feet. Instead of providing the

PPE on the label specified for early entry, in

this situation, the agricultural employer can

provide to the irrigation workers the

following PPE: chemical resistant boots,

chemical resistant gloves, and coveralls. This

exception is only for workers performing

irrigation work.

In considering the terms of a proposed

national exception, one concern is the

need to learn from experience how the

exception is being implemented, and

whether workers truly are protected

under the terms of the exception.

Therefore, the Agency is proposing to

limit the exception to 2 years, and to

review and revise the terms of the

exception as appropriate based upon

experience during that 2 years.

C. Proposed Terms of Exception

The Agency is considering the

following proposed exception to early

entry restrictions for irrigation tasks:

A worker may enter a treated area

during a restricted-entry interval to

perform tasks related to operating,

moving, or repairing irrigation or

watering equipment, if the agricultural

employer ensures that the following

requirements are met:

(1) The worker’s only contact with

treated surfaces (including, but not

limited to, soil, water, air, surfaces of

plants, crops, and irrigation equipment

if exposed to pesticides during

application) is to the feet, lower legs,

hands and forearms.

(2) The tasks could not be delayed

until after expiration of the restrictedentry interval or the pesticide

application could not be delayed until

after the task is completed.

(3) 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’’).

(4) The personal protective equipment

for early entry is provided to the worker.

Such personal protective equipment

shall either: (a) conform with the label

requirements for early entry; or (b)

coveralls, chemical resistant gloves,

socks, and chemical resistant footwear.

(5) No hand labor activity is

performed.

(6) The time in treated areas under a

restricted-entry interval for any worker

does not exceed 8 hours in any 24 hour

period.

(7) The requirements of 40 CFR

170.112(c)(3) through (9) are met. These

are WPS requirements for all early-entry

situations that involve contact with

treated surfaces. They include (a) 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; (b) PPE definitions

and requirements; (c) label-specific

instructions; (d) heat-related illness

avoidance measures; (e)

decontamination requirements; and (f) a

prohibition against wearing home or

taking home PPE.

(8) Notice about the exception for

irrigation workers. The agricultural

employer shall:

(a) Notify early-entry irrigation

workers orally, before such workers

enter a treated area, that the

establishment is relying on this

exception to allow workers to enter

treated areas to complete irrigation

tasks.

(b) post information about the terms

and conditions of this exception. The

posted information shall convey the

following information:

(i) The establishment is operating

under the conditions of the exception

for irrigation workers.

(ii) No entry is allowed for the first 4

hours following an application, and

until any exposure level has been

reached or any ventilation criteria have

been met.

(iii) Time in treated areas under a

restricted-entry interval for any worker

does not exceed 8 hours in any 24 hour

period.

(iv) Decontamination and change

areas are provided.

(v) Basic safety training and labelspecific information must be provided

to early-entry irrigation workers.

(vi) The personal protective

equipment specified on the product

labeling for early-entry, or a set of

coveralls, chemical resistant gloves,

socks, and chemical resistant footwear

must be provided, cleaned, and

maintained for early-entry irrigation

workers.

(vii) Early-entry irrigation workers

must be instructed in how to put on,

use, and remove the personal protective

equipment.

(viii) Measures to prevent heat stress

must be implemented when

appropriate.

(ix) A pesticide safety poster and

information about pesticide applications

must be displayed in a central location.

(x) The exception expires on January

11, 1997.

(9) This exception shall expire 24

months after the effective date.

V. Comments Solicited

The Agency is interested in a full

range of comments and information on

these exception requests, and is

providing 45 days for submission of

comments. Comments should be

submitted in triplicate and addressed to

the Document Control Officer (H7506C),

Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

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

A. Possible Exceptions for Irrigation

Tasks

The Agency requests comments on

whether an exception (if granted)

should be limited to a geographic region

that would be comprised of two or more

States in one area. Comments are

requested on whether an exception

should be limited to California, should

be limited to Hawaii, should include

other states with irrigation issues

similar to California and Hawaii, or

should include the whole country.

In determining whether to grant an

exception, and, if so, whether the

exception should or should not be

limited to any particular geographic

areas, the Agency will assess whether

the risks and benefits associated with

early-entry irrigation tasks differ across

the country. In that regard, it should be

noted that the California and Hawaii

requests contained much information

that may not apply to other parts of the

country. This is particularly true with

regard to the issue of the need to

perform early-entry tasks. On this issue,

the requestors identified a number of

factors which may be unique to the two

States involved. Commenters are

encouraged to provide information

about conditions in other States, and are

particularly encouraged to include in

their comments whether (and to what

extent) the comments apply to

particular geographic areas or to the

whole country.

The Agency particularly welcomes

comments and risk/benefit information

(including scientific data, where

available) on the California, Hawaii, and

Agency proposed exceptions,

addressing the following issues:

(1) The risks to workers under the

various proposed exceptions, and

whether risks differ among irrigation

tasks or crop sites.
2840 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules

(2) Whether use of personal protective

equipment while performing irrigation

work is feasible; and to what extent PPE

is necessary to reduce risk to workers

performing irrigation tasks.

(3) Whether it is reasonable to expect

early entry irrigation workers to wear

the early entry PPE required on the

pesticide label.

(4) Whether feasible alternative

practices would make routine early

entry unnecessary to perform irrigation

work.

(5) Whether an exception is necessary

to perform all irrigation tasks on all crop

sites, or whether the Agency decision

should differentiate among irrigation

tasks or crops.

(6) Whether an exception is necessary

in all States, or whether the Agency

decision should differentiate among

States or regions (two or more States in

one area) because of climate, water

availability, or for other reasons.

(7) The economic impact on the

agricultural industry (or portions of the

agricultural industry) of continued

limitation of irrigation tasks during WPS

restricted-entry intervals if the

requested exception (or part of the

exception) is not granted.

(8) Other States’ regulation of

irrigation workers’ exposure to

pesticides.

B. Exposure Data to Evaluate Irrigation

Exception Proposals

To fully evaluate the exception

proposals, the Agency solicits specific

information concerning the following:

(1) Potential worker exposure to

pesticide residues related to early-entry

irrigation activities, including settingup, running, maintaining, checking,

repairing, and moving irrigation

equipment for different irrigation

systems and equipment.

(2) The amount of potential worker

exposure/contact with surface residues

or pesticides, including residues on soil,

foliage, and irrigation pipes and

equipment, including the expected

timing, frequency, and duration of

exposure.

(3) The potential for field/site

variables to affect potential exposure

such as type of crop, crop height and

density, crop row spacing, or whether

surface residues are wet or dry.

(4) Minimal exposure irrigation

practices including incidental or

intermittent exposure to surface

residues on soil, foliage, irrigation pipes

and equipment; versus potentially high

exposure practices involving prolonged

or continuous hand and upper body

exposure from contact with residues on

medium to tall crops, or moving

irrigation pipes that may have high

surface pesticide residues from being

exposed in the field during pesticide

spray operations.

C. Benefits Data to Support Exception

EPA is specifically interested in

benefits data that include, but are not

limited to, the following:

(1) Identification of the crops, specific

production tasks and/or unique

geographic areas for which this

exception would apply. A well

supported explanation of the use

practices (e.g. typical rates, number and

methods of application) that would be

adversely impacted by denying the

exception.

(2) Evaluation of technically and

financially viable alternatives for each

crop/task combination and projection of

the most likely alternative(s) that would

be adopted by the growers in each

unique geographic area if no exception

is granted (e.g., rescheduling pesticide

application or irrigation tasks, using

non-chemical pest controls or shorter

REI pesticides, utilizing different

irrigation systems or agronomic

practices, producing different crops, or

any other adjustments that may be

relevant). The submitted evaluations of

impacts should be supported with

documented empirical data as fully as

possible; if experimental data are

lacking, the basis for projected impacts

must be adequately explained and

documented.

(3) Unique geographic estimates of

grower impacts per acre for crop yield,

market grade or quality, revenues, and

production costs. These estimates

should be based on the assumption that

the growers will adopt the most likely

alternative(s). Any new investment costs

associated with the REI should be

appropriately annualized. All estimates

should be sufficiently documented for

items such as current crop production

budgets and comparative efficacy/

performance studies for alternative pest

control practices. Background

information such as five previous years

of data associated with total acres grown

or harvested, total production/yield,

farm level prices, market grades and

other relevant information for each

unique geographic area should be

provided in order to establish a

baseline.

(4) Aggregate grower level impacts on

an annual basis for all estimated

impacted acres in each unique

geographic area. Estimation of expected

crop price changes, if any, without the

exception and the basis for these

estimates.

(5) Estimation of any other significant

economic impacts that are expected if

the exception is not granted. Examples

include impacts on consumers and

foreign trade, regional shifts in

commodity production, or social/

community effects associated with local

employment and income.

D. Other Valuable Data Solicited

The Agency also solicits comment

and information (including scientific

data, where available) on the Agency’s

proposed exception and on several

possible modifications to the proposed

exception that the Agency is

considering. These modifications

include:

(1) Establishing specific criteria for

determining whether the early-entry is a

necessity rather than a convenience.

(2) Excluding from the exception all

pesticides with the signal word

DANGER in addition to (or rather than)

those with ‘‘double notification.’’

E. Applicability of Exceptions

EPA remains convinced that routine

entry for unlimited time periods into

areas remaining under a restricted-entry

interval should not be allowed except

under rare circumstances. Therefore, if

the Agency grants a special exception

for irrigation tasks, it intends, to the

extent feasible, to limit the exception to

situations where entry during the

restricted-entry interval is a technical

and economic necessity. The Agency

seeks comments and information about:

(1) Criteria limiting the exception to

situations where the availability of

irrigation water is unpredictable or the

length of the REI exceeds the acceptable

watering interval for the crop.

(2) Situations where entry during a

restricted-entry interval is an economic

necessity.

(3) Situations where entry during a

restricted-entry interval is a technical

necessity.

(4) Other possible criteria for limiting

an exception to those circumstances

where early entry is unavoidable.

(5) Excluding double-notification

pesticides from any exception it may

grant.

(6) Whether to exclude all products

with the signal word DANGER from any

exception it may grant. EPA notes,

however, that signal words are based on

the acute toxicity of the end-use

(formulated) product by any route of

entry. The signal word would not reflect

any concerns about delayed effects or

sensitization. Furthermore, a DANGER

signal word may be a result of an

irritating ‘‘inert’’ ingredient in the

formulated product that is volatile and

thus is no longer present beyond 4

hours after the application is complete.

Also, the DANGER signal word may be

based on oral or inhalation toxicity,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules 2841

which are not usually a concern for

exposures to residues on treated

surfaces.

(7) Physical activities involved in

irrigation. The Agency’s proposed

exception would allow only those

irrigation tasks for which contact with

the treated surfaces would be limited to

the feet, lower legs, hands, and

forearms. These tasks would include

tasks such as operating irrigation gates,

adjusting irrigation valves, and checking

for or unclogging obstructions in areas

with low crops or widely spaced rows.

Carrying irrigation equipment that was

in the treated area during application on

one’s shoulder or against one’s chest

would NOT meet these criteria.

Therefore, the Agency solicits specific

information about potential worker

exposure to pesticide residues during

various irrigation activities, including

moving, installing, operating,

maintaining, checking, repairing, and

unclogging irrigation equipment. The

Agency also seeks comment and

information about whether the

irrigation-related tasks that would be

performed if the exception is granted

would result in exposures just to the

feet, lower legs, hands, and forearms, or

whether many such tasks would result

in more widespread exposures due to

contact with residues on medium to tall

crops or on residue-laden irrigation

equipment.

(8) Finally, EPA requests comment on

whether to allow employers of earlyentry irrigation workers to choose

whether to provide the PPE specified on

the pesticide label for early entry or the

exception-based PPE (coveralls plus

chemical-resistant gloves and footwear).

For any toxicity category pesticide, the

label-specified PPE might be more

protective, because it might include

coveralls over other work attire and/or

protective eyewear. However, since the

exposures are limited to the feet, lower

legs, hands, and forearms, this extra PPE

may not be necessary. Conversely, the

coveralls plus chemical-resistant gloves

and chemical-resistant footwear PPE in

the proposed exception are more

protective than the early-entry PPE

required for toxicity III and IV (signal

word CAUTION) pesticides, where

chemical-resistant footwear is not

required (labels will require coveralls,

chemical-resistant gloves, shoes, and

socks). EPA requests comment on

whether to require chemical-resistant

footwear for all irrigation workers under

this exception, because of the long

period of potential exposure. The

Agency did not include protective

eyewear in the proposed exception,

since exposure is limited to feet, lower

legs, hands, and forearms. Also many

pesticides that are highly irritating to

skin (and are excluded from this

exception) are also highly irritating to

the eyes. Therefore, many of the

products most irritating to the eyes also

will be excluded from the exception.

However, EPA solicits comment on

whether protective eyewear should be

included in the minimum PPE

requirement for early-entry irrigation

workers under any exception due to

concern about workers rubbing or

wiping residues into their eyes from

hands, gloves, or sleeves.

VI. Public Docket and Electronic

Comments

A record has been established for this

rulemaking under docket number ‘‘OPP250098’’ (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

confidential business information (CBI),

is available for inspection from 8 a.m. to

4 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays. The public

record is located in Room1132 of the

Public Response and Program Resources

Branch, Field Operations Division

(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, CM

#2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA. Written comments

should be mailed to: Public Response

and Program Resources Branch, Field

Operations Division (7506C) Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

As part of an interagency

‘‘streamlining’’ initiative, EPA is

experimenting with submission of

public comments on selected Federal

Register actions electronically through

the Internet in addition to accepting

comments in traditional written form.

This proposed exception is one of the

actions selected by EPA for this

experiment. From the experiment, EPA

will learn how electronic commenting

works, and any problems that arise can

be addressed before EPA adopts

electronic commenting more broadly in

its rulemaking activities. Electronic

commenting through posting to the EPA

Bulletin Board or through the Internet

using the ListServe function raise some

novel issues that are discussed below in

this Unit.

To submit electronic comments,

persons can either ‘‘subscribe’’ to the

Internet ListServe application or ‘‘post’’

comments to the EPA Bulletin Board. To

‘‘Subscribe’’ to the Internet ListServe

application for this proposed exception,

send an e-mail message to:

listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov that

says ‘‘Subscribe RIN–2070–AC69 <first

name> <last name>.’’ Once you are

subscribed to the ListServe, comments

should be sent to: RIN–2070–

AC69@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov. All

comments and data in electronic form

should be identified by the docket

number OPP-250098 since all five

documents in this separate part provide

the same electronic address.

For online viewing of submissions

and posting of comments, the public

access EPA Bulletin Board is also

available by dialing 202–488–3671,

enter selection ‘‘DMAIL,’’ user name

‘‘BB—USER’’ or 919–541–4642, enter

selection ‘‘MAIL,’’ user name ‘‘BB—

USER.’’ When dialing the EPA Bulletin

Board type <Return> at the opening

message. When the ‘‘Notes’’ prompt

appears, type ‘‘open RIN– 2070–AC69’’

to access the posted messages for this

document. To get a listing of all files,

type ‘‘dir/all’’ at the prompt line.

Electronic comments can also be sent

directly to EPA at:

Docket-OPPTS@epamail.epa.gov.

Electronic comments must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption. To obtain further

information on the electronic comment

process, or on submitting comments on

this proposed exception electronically

through the EPA Bulletin Board or the

Internet ListServe, please contact John

A. Richards (Telephone: 202–260–2253;

FAX: 202–260–3884; Internet:

richards.john@epamail.epa.gov).

Persons who comment on this

proposed rule, and those who view

comments electronically, should be

aware that this experimental electronic

commenting is administered on a

completely public system. Therefore,

any personal information included in

comments and the electronic mail

addresses of those who make comments

electronically are automatically

available to anyone else who views the

comments. Similarly, since all

electronic comments are available to all

users, commenters should not submit

electronically any information which

they believe to be CBI. Such information

should be submitted only directly to

EPA in writing as described earlier in

this Unit.

Commenters and others outside EPA

may choose to comment on the

comments submitted by others using the

RIN–2070–AC69 ListServe or the EPA

Bulletin Board. If they do so, those

comments as well will become part of

EPA’s record for this rulemaking.

Persons outside EPA wishing to discuss

comments with commenters or
2842 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules

otherwise communicate with

commenters but not have those

discussions or communications sent to

EPA and included in the EPA

rulemaking record should conduct those

discussions and communications

outside the RIN–2070–AC69 ListServe

or the EPA Bulletin Board.

The official record for this

rulemaking, as well as the public

version, as described above will be kept

in paper form. Accordingly, EPA will

transfer all comments received

electronically in the RIN–2070–AC69

ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board, in

accordance with the instructions for

electronic submission, 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. All the electronic comments

will be available to everyone who

obtains access to the RIN–2070–AC69

ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board;

however, the official rulemaking record

is the paper record maintained at the

address in ‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at the

beginning of this document. (Comments

submitted only in written form will not

be transferred into electronic form and

thus may be accessed only by reviewing

them in the Public Response and

Program Resources Branch as described

above.)

Because the electronic comment

process is still experimental, EPA

cannot guarantee that all electronic

comments will be accurately converted

to printed, paper form. If EPA becomes

aware, in transferring an electronic

comment to printed, paper form, of a

problem or error that results in an

obviously garbled comment, EPA will

attempt to contact the comment

submitter and advise the submitter to

resubmit the comment either in

electronic or written form. Some

commenters may choose to submit

identical comments in both electronic

and written form to ensure accuracy. In

that case, EPA requests that commenters

clearly note in both the electronic and

written submissions that the comments

are duplicated in the other medium.

This will assist EPA in processing and

filing the comments in the rulemaking

record.

As with ordinary written comments,

at the time of receipt, EPA will not

attempt to verify the identities of

electronic commenters nor to review the

accuracy of electronic comments.

Electronic and written comments will

be placed in the rulemaking record

without any editing or change by EPA

except to the extent changes occur in

the process of converting electronic

comments to printed, paper form.

If it chooses to respond officially to

electronic comments on this proposed

rule, EPA will do so either in a notice

in the Federal Register or in a response

to comments document placed in the

rulemaking record for this proposed

rule. EPA will not respond to

commenters electronically other than to

seek clarification of electronic

comments that may be garbled in

transmission or conversion to printed,

paper form as discussed above. Any

communications from EPA employees

to electronic commenters, other than

those described in this paragraph, either

through Internet or otherwise are not

official responses from EPA.

VII. Agency Decision on Proposed

Exception

EPA will publish in the Federal

Register its decision whether to grant

the requests for exception, as well as its

final decision on a national exception.

EPA will base its decision on whether

the benefits of the exceptions outweigh

the costs, including the value of the

health risks attributable to the

exception. An exception may be

withdrawn by the Agency at any time if

the Agency receives poisoning

information or other data that indicate

that the health risks imposed by the

early-entry exception are unacceptable

or if the Agency receives other

information that indicates that the

exception is no longer necessary or

prudent.

List of Subjects

Administrative practice and

procedure, Labeling, Occupational

safety and health, Pesticides and pests.

Dated: January 3, 1995.

Lynn R. Goldman,

Assistant Administrator for Prevention,

Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

[FR Doc. 95–585 Filed 1–6–95; 12:16 pm]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

40 CFR Part 170

[OPP–250101; FRL–4930–4]

Exceptions to Worker Protection

Standard Early Entry Restrictions;

Limited Contact Activities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed exceptions to rule;

request for comment.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing an

exception to the Worker Protection

Standard for Agricultural Pesticides

(WPS), that would allow, under

specified conditions, workers to perform

early entry limited contact tasks for up

to 3 hours per day during a restricted

entry interval (REI). Early entry is entry

into a pesticide-treated area before the

expiration of the REI.

DATES: Comments, data, or evidence

should be submitted on or before

February 27, 1995. EPA does not intend

to extend this comment period.

ADDRESSES: Comments identified by the

document control number OPP– 250101

should be submitted in triplicate by

mail to: Public Response and Program

Resources Branch, Field Operations

Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection

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

DC 20460. All written comments filed

pursuant to this notice will be available

for public inspection in Room 1132,

Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Highway, Arlington, VA, (703) 305–

5805, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Monday thru Friday except legal

holidays.

Comments and data may also be

submitted electronically by any of three

different mechanisms: by sending

electronic mail (e-mail) to: DocketOPPTS@epamail.epa.gov; by sending a

‘‘Subscribe’’ message to

listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov and

once subscribed, send your comments to

RIN–2070–AC69; or through the EPA

Electronic Bulletin Board by dialing

202–488–3671, enter selection

‘‘DMAIL,’’ user name ‘‘BB—USER’’ or

919–541–4642, enter selection ‘‘MAIL,’’

user name ‘‘BB—USER.’’ Comments and

data will also be accepted on disks in

WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII

file format. Electronic comments must

be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding

the use of special characters and any

form of encryption. All comments and

data in electronic form must be

identified by the docket number OPP–

250101 since all five documents in this

separate part provide the same

electronic address. No CBI should be

submitted through e-mail. Electronic

comments on this proposed rule, but not

the record, may be viewed or new

comments filed online at many Federal

Depository Libraries. Additional

information on electronic submissions

can be found in unit VI. of this

document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cathy Kronopolus, Certification,

Training and Occupational Safety

Branch (7506C), Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460, (703) 305–7371.