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.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules 2843

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

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 the procedure for

considering exceptions to the WPS

provision that limits early entry during

a restricted entry interval (REI) to

perform agricultural tasks. EPA has

received a request for exception to the

early entry limitations for performing

limited contact tasks from the National

Association of State Departments of

Agriculture (NASDA). EPA is

considering a national exception to the

WPS early entry restrictions for

performing limited contact tasks. The

purpose of this Notice is to solicit

further information and comment to

assist EPA in determining whether the

conditions of entry under the proposed

exception would pose unreasonable

risks to workers performing the

permitted limited contact tasks during a

restricted entry interval. In addition,

EPA solicits further information about

the economic impact of granting or not

granting the proposed exception.

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)

exceptions to early entry restrictions for

irrigation activities; (3) reduced

restricted entry intervals (REIs) for low

risk pesticides; and (4) requirements for

crop advisors. The Agency is interested

in receiving comments on all options

and questions presented.

A. Worker Protection Standard

The Worker Protection Standard

(WPS) promulgated at 57 FR 38102,

August 21, 1992, is intended to reduce

the risk of pesticide exposure and

related poisonings and injuries among

agricultural workers and pesticide

handlers. The WPS includes provisions

to: (1) eliminate or reduce exposure to

pesticides; (2) mitigate exposures that

occur; and (3) inform employees about

the hazards of pesticides. Provisions to

reduce exposure include application

restrictions, use of personal protective

equipment (PPE), and entry restrictions.

B. Entry Restrictions

Agricultural workers, in general, are

prohibited from entering a pesticidetreated area during the restricted entry

interval (REI) specified on the product

labeling. REIs are the time period after

the end of the pesticide application

during which entry into the pesticide

treated area is restricted. In the absence

of pesticide-specific REIs, the WPS

establishes a range of interim REIs, from

12 to 72 hours, depending upon the

toxicity of the active ingredient(s) and

other factors.

C. Exceptions to Entry Restrictions

The WPS contains exceptions to the

general prohibitions against workers

entering a pesticide-treated area during

the REI. The exception provisions of

§170.112 permit entry into the treated

area during the REI (i.e. early entry)

under specified conditions to perform

tasks that result in contact with treated

surfaces:

(1) Short term tasks. Section

170.112(c) permits exceptions to the

general prohibition on work in treated

areas during REIs for short-term tasks,

with adequate PPE, decontamination,

and exposure time limits.

(2) Agricultural emergencies. Section

170.112(d) permits exceptions to the

prohibition against entry into treated

areas during REIs for agricultural

emergencies. The WPS permits early

entry by workers to perform tasks while

wearing early-entry PPE, and without

time limits, in response to an

agricultural emergency.

(3) EPA-approved exception. Section

170.112(e) permits exceptions to the

prohibition on work in treated areas

during REIs when EPA has approved a

special exception. Case-by-case

exceptions may be granted if affected

persons or organizations persuade EPA

that the benefits of the exception

outweigh the risks associated with the

exception.

In addition, §170.112(b) establishes

an exception for activities where no

contact with treated surfaces will occur.

Under this provision, often referred to

as ’no contact’ entry, workers are

allowed unlimited entry into pesticidetreated areas before the expiration of the

REI without personal protective

equipment when no contact with

pesticide residues on treated surfaces or

in soil, water, or air will occur.

II. Request for Exception and

Supporting Evidence

In a July 8, 1994 petition for

rulemaking, NASDA requested that EPA

reduce WPS requirements for low

contact work during the REI. In

particular, NASDA asked for limited

PPE for low contact activities, consisting

of coveralls, chemical-resistant gloves,

and footwear, and a ‘‘somewhat longer

period than the one-hour in twenty-four

hour period currently allowed by the

exception for short-term activities.’’

In a subsequent meeting with EPA on

low contact activities, NASDA

suggested defining low contact as

follows:

Low contact means a task related to the

production of agricultural plants that results

in minimal body exposure. Personal

protective equipment cannot be used to

achieve low contact status for purposes of

this definition, but rather the level of contact

must be inherent in the nature of the task

performed. The task must also meet one of

the following:

(1) Results in only incidental worker body

contact with treated surfaces due to the stage

of growth (seedlings) or nature of the crop

(size of plants), the way the task is performed

(use of long handled tools or operator

placement on equipment), or the way the

pesticide was applied (soil incorporated).

(2) Is a very short-term task, involving

worker body contact with treated surfaces

that are of only a few minutes’ duration and

which occur at widely separated intervals.

This proposed definition was

developed with the help of the

American Association of Pesticide

Control Officials (AAPCO).

NASDA also provided EPA with lists

of tasks that they assert could require

entry into treated areas during an REI,

and proposed that allowance for the

accomplishment of these tasks be

covered under any definition of ’low

contact’. The lists of proposed low or

limited contact activities were provided

to NASDA by state pesticide regulatory

agencies. In reviewing the lists of tasks,

EPA found: (1) many of the tasks may

already be allowed under the exception

for activities with no contact set out in

§170.112(b), (2) other tasks were

identified as clearly hand labor tasks or

handler tasks that could result in

substantial contact with pesticide

treated surfaces, (3) many tasks were

irrigation-related activities, which EPA

is addressing in a separate exception

proposal, and (4) some were non-hand

labor tasks that could, in some

circumstances, be accomplished with

minimal contact with pesticide residues

on treated plants, soil, and other

surfaces, depending on how the task

was performed.

III. EPA’s Exception Proposal

A. Background

NASDA’s membership includes state

Departments of Agriculture, the state

agencies that, in most instances, are

responsible for enforcing the WPS. EPA
2844 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules

has seriously considered NASDA’s

request and acknowledges that there

may be certain non-hand labor tasks that

may be necessary while a treated area

remains under an REI, such that the

benefits resulting from the performance

of these tasks outweigh the risks

associated with the tasks as long as the

workers can perform the early entry

tasks with minimal contact. While the

WPS does provide in §170.112 for

exceptions for short-term tasks and ’no

contact’ tasks, EPA recognizes that there

may be non-hand labor tasks that may

not be able to be performed under the

time limitations of the short-term (1

hour) exception, or may not completely

fit under the provisions of the no

contact or agricultural emergency

exceptions.

B. Discussion of EPA’s proposal

EPA proposes an exception that

would allow workers to perform limited

contact tasks for up to 3 hours during

the REI if: (1) the tasks must be

performed during the REI, (2) the

inhalation exposure level or ventilation

criteria have been met (3) the tasks

result in minimal contact with treated

surfaces, (4) contact with pesticides is

limited to forearms, hands, lower legs,

and feet, and (5) the specified PPE

requirements are met.

There may be non-hand labor tasks

that must be performed during the REI

that are necessary for crop production.

Examples of possible limited contact

tasks include: (1) the operation and

repair of weather monitoring

equipment, and frost protection

equipment, (2) repair of greenhouse

heating, air conditioning, and

ventilation equipment (3) repair of nonapplication field equipment, and (4)

maintaining and moving beehives.

The following scenarios provide

examples of limited contact tasks:

(1) The information collected from

weather monitoring equipment is often

critical for the successful

implementation of integrated pest

management and agricultural

production (e.g., rainfall amounts,

degree days). Weather information is

used to schedule pesticide and

irrigation applications, and it may be

necessary to enter the treated area

during an REI to collect the information.

Weather equipment may be stationed in

more than one location around a large

treated area, and it may take longer than

1 hour for the worker to walk to each

site to complete the information

collection. The worker must walk

through the treated area, but all of the

treated plants are well below kneeheight and/or are sufficiently spaced

apart so that the task may be

accomplished in a manner that results

in minimal contact with treated

surfaces, and such contact is only to

lower arms, hands, lower legs, and feet.

(2) On occasion, unanticipated repairs

must be made to non-application field

equipment while in the treated area

during an REI. The immediate repair of

the non-application field equipment is

necessary and important to crop

production. The nature of the

breakdown, and/or the size of the

equipment may hinder the removal of

the equipment from the treated field for

repair, and the repair may not be able

to be completed within an hour.

The proposed exception specifically

excludes pesticides whose labeling

requires ‘‘double notification’’, i.e., the

labeling requires both the posting of

treated areas and oral notification to

workers. EPA requires double

notification for a pesticide when

exposure — for example, contact with

treated surfaces — has the potential to

cause acute illness or injury. 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) and PPE requirements would

still apply. For the convenience of

commenters, the following Appendix A

lists the active ingredients subject to

WPS that may be subject to the double

notification requirement.

Appendix A

Worker Protection Standard ‘‘Double

Notification’’ Active Ingredient List

Please note that Appendix A (From

PR Notice 93–7, Appendix 3–A) is

incomplete in several respects: first, it

does not contain the active ingredients

in products already bearing mandatory

posting requirements prior to adoption

of the WPS and that must be retained

under WPS; second, it may contain a

few active ingredients that will be found

to not require double notification upon

further EPA review (such as

reregistration), and third, active

ingredients requiring double

notification may be added during

reregistration or other Agency action.

Nonetheless, EPA believes that this list

contains the bulk of the active

ingredients subject to double

notification. These listed 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 is

considered by EPA as high risk to

workers. In addition, the exception

excludes pesticides whose labels

prohibit any person from entering

during the REI. In other words, the label

does not allow the use of the exceptions

set out in §170.112.

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

dodine .................................................................................................................................................................... 044301 2439-10-3

endothall, dimethylcocoamine ................................................................................................................................ 038905

endothall, disodium salt ......................................................................................................................................... 038903 129-67-9

ethephon ................................................................................................................................................................ 099801 16672-87-0
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules 2845

COMMON NAME CHEMICAL

CODE CAS NUMBER

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

EPA is proposing to establish a

reduced set of PPE for limited contact

tasks, although the worker may wear the

PPE specified on the label even if the

early entry PPE specified on the label is

less restrictive than the reduced set.

Based on the limitations in the

exception, EPA expects that contact will

not be significant and a reduced set of

PPE will be adequate.

EPA is proposing to limit the

exception to 24 months (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

EPA is proposing an exception to the

early entry restriction for limited

contact tasks, and is considering the

following definition for ’limited contact

task’:

‘‘For the purposes of this exception,

the term ’limited contact task’ means a

non-hand labor task that is performed

by workers that results in minimal

contact with treated surfaces (including

but not limited to soil, water, air,

surfaces of plants, and equipment), and

where such contact with treated

surfaces is limited to the forearms,

hands, lower legs, and feet.’’

Under the proposed exception, a

worker may enter a treated area during

a restricted entry interval to perform a

limited contact task if the agricultural

employer ensures that the following

requirements are met:

(1) 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

restricted entry interval.

(2) No hand labor activity is

performed.

(3) The time in a treated area under

a restricted entry interval for any worker

does not exceed 3 hours in any 24 hour

period.

(4) The personal protective equipment

for early entry must be provided to the

worker by the agricultural employer for

all tasks. Such personal protective

equipment shall either: (a) conform with

the label requirements for early entry

PPE; or (b) consist of coveralls, chemical

resistant gloves, socks, and chemical

resistant footwear. In either case, the

PPE must conform to the standards set

out in §170.112(c)(4)(i) through (x).

(5) Workers are notified verbally,

before such workers enter a treated area,

that the establishment is relying on this

exception to allow workers to enter

treated areas to perform limited contact

tasks.

(6) The task cannot be delayed until

after the expiration of the restricted

entry interval, or the pesticide

application could not be delayed until

the task was completed.

(7) For all limited contact tasks, the

requirements of §170.112(c)(3) -(9) are

met. These are WPS requirements for all

early entry situations that involve

contact with treated surfaces, and

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) informing workers of safety

information on the product labeling, (c)

provision, proper management, and care

of personal protective equipment, (d)

heat-related illness prevention, (e)

requirements for decontamination

facilities, and (f) prohibition on taking

personal protective equipment home.

IV. Options Considered

EPA considered including hand labor

tasks in this exception, but determined

that hand labor tasks could not be

performed with limited contact. 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. These

activities include, but are not limited to,
2846 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules

harvesting, detasseling, thinning,

weeding, topping, planting, sucker

removal, pruning, disbudding, roguing,

and packing produce into containers in

the field. Hand labor does not include

operating, moving, or repairing

irrigation or watering equipment or

performing the tasks of crop advisors.

Hand labor tasks involve substantial

contact and are by nature high exposure

scenarios and potentially high risk.

EPA considered eliminating the PPE

requirement for coveralls, but has

several concerns about eliminating this

requirement. Under §170.112(c), early

entry workers are required to remove

PPE before going home and may not

take it home. If only long sleeved shirts

and long pants are worn, it may not be

possible for workers to remove their

work clothes when they leave the

treated area, enter their vehicles, and

return home. This could result in

contamination of the vehicles from their

clothing, causing an increased exposure

risk to potentially toxic pesticide

residues for all vehicle occupants.

Additionally, EPA believes that

coveralls will assure greater risk

reduction for workers since the WPS

requires agricultural employers to

assure proper handling, care and

maintenance of these items. There is no

such requirement for personal clothing.

EPA considered requiring that

protective eyewear be included in the

minimum PPE requirement if required

on the product labeling for early entry

because of concern about workers

rubbing or wiping residues into their

eyes from hands, gloves, or sleeves. EPA

decided not to propose a requirement

for eyewear as part of the minimal set

at this time because the performance of

limited contact tasks should result in

minimal worker contact with treated

surfaces.

EPA considered eliminating PPE

requirements for tasks that must be

performed when unanticipated repairs

of non-application field equipment

arise, but rejected this option because

EPA believes that in some instances

equipment repair could result in

significant exposure. Unanticipated

equipment repairs would be expected to

occur infrequently, and some repairs

may be able to be performed with

almost no contact to treated surfaces.

EPA continues to be concerned that

some PPE is needed to provide adequate

protection for all worker activities given

the range and nature of equipment

repair tasks and the potential for even

limited exposure to highly toxic

pesticides.

V. Comments Solicited

EPA is interested in a full range of

comments and information on the

proposed exception and on the

exception options presented, and is

providing 45 days for the submission of

comments.

1. Need for an exception. EPA solicits

comment on whether early entry for

limited contact activities is necessary.

Specifically, EPA requests comments on

why specific limited contact tasks could

not normally be delayed until the

expiration of the REI, or why the

application could not be delayed until

the tasks are completed. EPA requests

comments on why alternative practices

would not be technically or financially

viable (such as placing beehives and

weather monitoring stations outside

areas normally treated with pesticides).

EPA also requests comments on the

economic impacts on agricultural

employers if they cannot enter the

treated area during the REI for limited

contact activities. Commenters should

be task specific in their response.

EPA requests information on the

expected costs in terms of decreased

yield, grade or quality or other

economic cost as a result of being

unable to perform some tasks during an

REI. In addition, EPA requests

information on the frequency of tasks

that must be done during an REI and the

amount of time required to complete

those tasks per occurrence and per

agricultural establishment for a typical

growing season.

2. Definition of ‘‘limited contact’’.

EPA requests specific comments on the

proposed definition of ’limited contact

tasks’. EPA is particularly concerned

about defining limited contact activities

in a way that may inadvertently result

in unnecessary routine early entry,

which may increase risk to workers.

Does the proposed definition encompass

tasks or activities that are inherently

high risk? Are there non-hand labor

activities that should be covered by the

exception but do not fall under the

definition as proposed? EPA also

requests information on whether worker

exposures for the tasks that fall within

the proposed exception could

reasonably be limited to lower legs and

feet, hands and forearms, or if greater

exposure would result due to the nature

of the activity.

EPA also solicits comments on

whether there are hand labor tasks that

must be done during the REI, and

whether these tasks can be

accomplished without subjecting

workers to substantial contact.

3. Safety and feasibility factors. EPA

requests information on the safety and

feasibility of a limited contact

exception. Information should include,

at minimum, the feasibility of

performing the limited contact activity

while wearing PPE; means of mitigating

heat stress concerns; the cumulative

amount of time required, per worker,

per day for necessary limited contact

activities; any suggested methods of

reducing the worker’s exposure for a

given task; and any other alternative

practices, such as mechanical devices

that reduce workers’ exposure to treated

surfaces. The information should

describe the costs (time and materials)

of providing the protective measures in

the terms of the proposed exception.

4. Duration of exposure. Because

exposure is determined both by the

amount and the duration of contact with

pesticides, EPA proposes to limit the

total amount of time in treated areas to

perform limited contact tasks to 3 hours

per worker per day. EPA believes most

limited contact activities can be

completed in significantly less than 3

hours, but certain circumstances may

exist that would necessitate more than

3 cumulative hours of early entry. EPA

requests comment on whether 3 hours is

adequate, or if some amount of time less

than 3 hours would be sufficient.

5. Exclusion of ‘‘double notification’’.

EPA requests comments on the

exclusion of double notification

pesticides from this proposed exception.

What impact, if any, on agricultural

growers might result if double

notification pesticides were to be

excluded from the limited contact

exception? Will the exclusion of double

notification pesticides from the

exception sufficiently reduce risk to

workers? EPA also requests information

on pesticide-related worker injuries or

illnesses as a result of performing the

types of tasks that would fall under this

proposed limited contact exception.

6. PPE requirements. EPA solicits

comments on the risks and benefits for

the PPE options under a limited contact

exception. Is PPE feasible for workers

performing limited contact tasks, and to

what extent is PPE necessary to reduce

worker risk for different tasks?

EPA specifically requests information

on whether protective eyewear should

be included in the minimum PPE

requirement if required on the product

labeling for early entry because of

concern about workers rubbing or

wiping residues into their eyes from

hands, gloves, or sleeves.

EPA is interested in any information

concerning whether there are certain

limited contact tasks (such as repair of

non-application equipment and frost

protection tasks) and early entry

situations (such as entry into fields that
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules 2847

have been treated with toxicity category

IV pesticides) that may not require the

use of PPE, or may allow the use of a

reduced set of PPE ( e.g., only

waterproof gloves and chemical

resistant boots).

7. Duration of exception. EPA

requests comments on whether the

proposed 24 month (2–year) limit is

appropriate for this exception, or why a

longer or shorter period may be more

practical.

VI. Public Docket and Electronic

Comments

A record has been established for this

rulemaking under docket number ‘‘OPP250101’’ (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.

EPA is interested in a full range of

comments and information on these

proposed revisions and particularly

welcomes comments supported by data.

Comments are requested on: (1) general

worker and handler hiring and

employment practices, such as the rate

of turnover and employment among

agricultural workers and handlers, (2)

the practicality and effectiveness of the

proposed elimination of the grace

period, including how the frequency of

hiring would affect the frequency of

training sessions, situations where

training before entry would not be

possible, mechanisms that are available

or will be available to provide training

on short notice and the estimated costs

of reducing or eliminating the grace

period or providing a weekly training

regimen, (3) the proposal to eliminate

the phase-in period for the training

grace period and (4) the retraining

interval, including the impacts of a

retraining interval of less than 5 years,

worker and handler retention of safety

training information over time, whether

agricultural workers and handlers have

a greater need for retraining than

workers in other occupations, the

effectiveness of the pesticide poster in

reinforcing previous training and the

burdens the various retraining options

might place on agricultural employers

or other entities that may perform

worker or handler training. Comments

should be distinguished as applying to

workers, handlers, or both, as

applicable.

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 Notice 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 Notice, send an email 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.

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 should be identified by

the docket number OPP–250101 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.

To obtain further information on the

electronic comment process, or on

submitting comments on this Notice

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

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
2848 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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. EPA Decision on Proposed

Exception

EPA will publish in the Federal

Register its final decision on whether to

grant the request for a national

exception. EPA will base its decision on

whether the benefits of the exceptions

outweigh the costs. An exception may

be withdrawn by EPA at any time if EPA

receives poisoning information or other

data that indicate that the health risks

imposed by the early entry exception

are unacceptable or if EPA receives

other information that indicates that the

exception is no longer necessary or

prudent.

Dated: January 3, 1995.

Lynn R. Goldman,

Assistant Administrator for Prevention,

Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

[FR Doc. 95–586 Filed 1–6–95; 12:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

40 CFR Part 156

[OPP–00399; FRL–4927–6]

Worker Protection Standard; Reduced

Restricted Entry Intervals for Certain

Pesticides, Request for Comments on

Draft Policy

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice, Request for Comment.

SUMMARY: EPA is soliciting comments

on a proposed policy, which would be

issued in a Pesticide Regulation Notice

(PRN) entitled: ‘‘Worker Protection

Standard: Reduced Restricted Entry

Intervals for Certain Pesticides. EPA

proposes to allow registrants to reduce

the interim Worker Protection Standard

(WPS) restricted entry intervals (REIs)

from 12 to 4 hours for certain low risk

pesticides. A proposed list of active

ingredients that are candidates for

reduced interim WPS REIs would be

included in the PRN. End-use products

containing active ingredients that

appear on the list would be evaluated

using the criteria described within the

PRN to determine if the current REI may

be reduced to 4 hours. To facilitate the

availability of the proposed policy to

anyone who may be interested in

commenting, this notice presents the

proposed policy as it would appear in

a PRN.

DATES: Written comments, identified by

the docket number [OPP– 00399], must

be received on or before February 27,

1995.

ADDRESSES: By mail, submit comments

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. In person, bring comments

to: Public Response and Program

Resources Branch, Field Operations

Division, RM 1132, Crystal Mall #2,

1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA. Telephone number for

the OPP Docket is (703) 305– 5805.

Information submitted and any

comment(s) concerning this notice may

be claimed confidential by marking any

part or all of that information as

‘‘Confidential Business Information’’

(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(s) 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 to the submitter.

Information on the proposed notice and

any written comments will be available

for public inspection in Room 1128 at

the Virginia address given above, from

8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, excluding 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-00399 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 XV. of this

document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail, Judy Smith or Ameesha Mehta,

Certification, Training, and

Occupational Safety Branch, Field

Operations Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Office location

and telephone number: 11th floor,

Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Highway, Arlington, VA, 22202, (703)–

305–7666.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Agency is proposing to issue a Pesticide

Regulation Notice (PRN) to allow

registrants to reduce the current interim

WPS REIs from 12 to 4 hours for certain

low risk pesticides. In order to provide

ample opportunity for review and