[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33202-33207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16201]




[[Page 33201]]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Parts 9 and 170



Pesticide Worker Protection Standards; Language and Size Requirement 
for Warning Sign; Decontamination Requirements; Final Rules

Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 33202]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 170

RIN 2070-AC93
[OPP-250107A; FRL-5358-7]


Pesticide Worker Protection Standard; Language and Size 
Requirement for Warning Sign

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is amending the 1992 Worker Protection Standard (WPS) to 
allow the substitution of an alternative language for the Spanish 
portion of the warning sign. This change is designed to promote worker 
understanding of the information on the sign by allowing agricultural 
employers to tailor the sign to accommodate a work force whose 
predominant language is neither English nor Spanish. This would be an 
option for the agricultural employer and would not preclude the 
continued use of the English/Spanish sign, which would remain 
acceptable. This amendment also permits the use in nurseries and 
greenhouses of smaller warning signs no further apart than 25 feet and 
50 feet, depending on the size of the smaller sign. This modification 
to the existing criteria in the use of small size signs in greenhouses 
and nurseries is intended to more clearly identify the treated area and 
enhance worker safety.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become effective August 26, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John R. MacDonald or Donald Eckerman, 
Office of Pesticide Programs (7506C), Environmental Protection Agency, 
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and telephone 
number: Room 1121, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Arlington, VA 22202. Telephone: 703-305-7666. By electronic mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dabfb9b1bfa8b7bbb4f4beb5b4bbb6be9abfaabbb7bbb3b6f4bfaabbf4bdb5ac"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3055535b55425d515e1e545f5e515c54705540515d51595c1e5540511e575f46">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Entities potentially regulated by this 
action are agricultural employers who use pesticides that are regulated 
by the Worker Protection Standard.

                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Category                        Regulated entities     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry                                    Agricultural employers      
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide 
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether or not you are subject to regulation by 
this action, you should carefully examine 40 CFR part 180.
    This document discusses the background leading to this final rule 
amending the WPS; summarizes the public comments on the provision of 
the proposed amendments published in the Federal Register of September 
29, 1995 (60 FR 50682) (FRL-4969-4); provides EPA's responses to 
comments and final determination with respect to modification of the 
warning sign language and size requirement of the WPS, and provides 
information on the applicable statutory and regulatory review 
requirements.

I. Statutory Authority

    This rule is issued under the authority of section 25(a) of the 
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 
136w(a). Under FIFRA, EPA may register a pesticide if its use does not 
cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. FIFRA also 
directs the cancellation of any pesticide found to cause unreasonable 
adverse effects on the environment. FIFRA section 2(u) defines 
unreasonable adverse effects on the environment to mean any 
unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the 
economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits to the use of 
any pesticide. Thus, in deciding how to regulate a pesticide, FIFRA 
requires EPA to balance the risk associated with pesticide exposure to 
human health and the environment and the benefits of pesticide use to 
society and the economy.

II. Background

    In 1992 EPA revised the Worker Protection Standard (40 CFR part 
170) (published in 57 FR 38102, August 21, 1992). The WPS is intended 
to reduce the risk of pesticide poisonings and injuries among 
agricultural workers who are exposed to pesticide residues, and to 
reduce the risk of pesticide poisonings and injuries among pesticide 
handlers who may face hazardous levels of exposure. The 1992 WPS 
superseded a rule promulgated in 1974 and expanded the WPS scope not 
only to include workers performing hand labor operations in fields 
treated with pesticides, but also to include all other workers exposed 
to pesticide residues in or on farms, forests, nurseries, and 
greenhouses, as well as pesticide handlers who mix, load, apply, or 
otherwise handle pesticides. In general, the WPS contains requirements 
for pesticide safety training, notification of pesticide applications, 
decontamination supplies, emergency medical assistance, use of personal 
protective equipment, and restrictions for entry into treated areas 
during restricted entry intervals following pesticide application.
    Section 170.120 of the WPS requires that warning signs containing 
prescribed graphics and text in both English and Spanish be posted 
around pesticide-treated areas. The words ``DANGER'' and ``PELIGRO,'' 
plus ``PESTICIDES'' and ``PESTICIDAS,'' are required at the top of the 
sign, and the words ``KEEP OUT'' and ``NO ENTRE'' are required at the 
bottom of the sign. All letters must be clearly legible and visible 
from all usual points of worker entry into the treated area. Also, the 
regulation allows additional information to be placed on the warning 
sign if the information does not detract from the appearance of the 
sign or change the meaning of the required information.
    WPS Sec. 170.120(c)(2) specifies that warning signs shall be at 
least 14 inches x 16 inches (standard) in size, and the letters shall 
be at least 1 inch in height, unless a smaller sign and smaller letters 
are necessary ``because the treated area is too small to accommodate a 
sign of this size.''
    Also, the signs must remain visible and legible during the time 
they are required to be posted. On agricultural establishments, the 
signs must be visible from all usual points of worker entry to the 
treated area, or if there are no usual points of entry, signs must be 
posted in the corners of the treated area or in any other location 
affording maximum visibility. On farms and in forests and nurseries, 
usual points of entry include each access road, each border with any 
labor camp adjacent to the treated area, and each footpath and other 
walking route that enters the treated area. In greenhouses, usual 
points of entry include each aisle or other walking route that enters 
the treated area.
    Since the WPS was issued in 1992, the National Association of State 
Departments of Agriculture, the American Association of Nurserymen, 
Oregon Association of Nurserymen, and other stakeholders have expressed 
an interest in addressing practical concerns with the WPS. The Agency 
received many requests and comments in the form of letters, petitions, 
and conversations at individual and public meetings to address concerns 
with the WPS, including some specifically suggesting a change to the 
warning sign requirements.
    In response to comments received, on September 29, 1995, EPA 
proposed to allow the agricultural employer the option to replace the 
Spanish portion of

[[Page 33203]]

the warning sign with an appropriate language that is more 
representative of the language read by the workforce. EPA also proposed 
allowing the use of smaller signs in greenhouses and nurseries when use 
of a larger sign may interfere with operations or the clear 
identification of treated areas. EPA also proposed setting a minimum 
size requirement for smaller signs that would apply to all uses of 
small signs, including uses already allowed by the WPS. Signs would 
have to meet all other posting requirements of the rule, including that 
they be visible and legible during the time they are posted.

III. Summary of the Final Rule Amendment

    The Agency is amending 40 CFR 170.120(c)(1) to allow the 
replacement of the Spanish portion of the warning sign with another 
language which is read by the largest group of workers at the work site 
who do not read English. The sign with substitute language must be in 
the same format as required by the regulations and be visible and 
legible.
    Additionally, the Agency is amending 40 CFR 170.120(c)(2) to allow 
operators of nurseries and greenhouses to use a sign smaller than the 
standard size of 14 inches by 16 inches. The Agency is establishing 
criteria for two additional sign sizes. Regardless of the size of the 
treated area in nurseries and greenhouses, the agricultural employer 
may chose to utilize a sign smaller than the standard size sign. If a 
sign is used with DANGER and PELIGRO in letters at least \7/8\ inch in 
height and the remaining letters at least \1/2\ inch in height and a 
red circle at least 3 inches in diameter containing an upraised hand 
and a stern face, the signs may be no further than 50 feet apart. If a 
sign is used with DANGER and PELIGRO in letters at least \7/16\ inch in 
height and the remaining letters at least \1/4\ inch in height and a 
red circle at least 1\1/2\ inches in diameter containing an upraised 
hand and a stern face, the signs may be no further than 25 feet apart. 
A sign with DANGER and PELIGRO in letters less than \7/16\ inch in 
height or with any words in letters less than \1/4\ inch in height or a 
red circle smaller than 1\1/2\ inches in diameter containing an 
upraised hand and a stern face will not satisfy the requirements of the 
rule.
    These changes modify the rule's existing criterion for allowing 
smaller signs in nurseries and greenhouses and facilitate posting 
treated areas. No other sections of the posted warning signs provision 
are affected by this final action.

IV. Summary of Response to Comments

    EPA's proposal to change the language and size requirement for 
warning signs received 30 comments from farm worker groups, a farm 
supply company, States, a professional association, commodity groups, 
and agricultural employers.

A. Languages Other Than English or Spanish

    In the September 29, 1995 proposal, EPA proposed to allow 
agricultural employers the option to replace the Spanish portion of the 
warning sign with an appropriate language that is more representative 
of the language read by the work force in order to promote worker 
understanding of the information on the sign and to enhance worker 
safety. For agricultural employers who wish to replace the Spanish 
portion of the sign, EPA proposed options to accomplish this, including 
the use of stickers with the appropriate second language, writing in 
the substitute language on a sign produced with a blank portion, or 
using originally produced warning signs with a second language other 
than Spanish.
    Several comments from farmworker groups recommended that all 
languages represented by workers on a site, in addition to English and 
Spanish, be required on the warning signs. Farmworker Justice Fund, 
Inc. noted that agricultural employers must be aware of the languages 
used by their crews to comply with other provisions and legal 
requirements. On the other hand, the Rural Opportunities, Inc. noted 
concerns that signs may become crowded and result in confusion and be 
unreadable; they specifically opposed handwriting additional languages. 
The Migrant Legal Action Program, Inc. expressed concerns about the 
accuracy of translations, the need to update signs based on the 
changing composition of the work force, and an increased enforcement 
burden.
    Comments from the agricultural equipment supply company, Gempler's, 
indicate that it can and will produce warning signs in different 
languages shortly after translations become available. The Farmworker 
Justice Fund, Inc. has suggested that EPA provide translations of the 
standard phrases contained on the warning sign in the various languages 
that may be encountered across the country.
    Two state agencies support the EPA proposal while two different 
state agencies objected to the substitution of another language for 
Spanish. One of the objecting agencies noted that the symbols on the 
current sign are effective thereby negating the need for the proposed 
change and noted the difficulty and expense of complying, especially 
when there are frequent workcrew changes. The other state agency did 
not present supporting reasons for their objections.
    The American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) commented that EPA 
should use the standards for signs adopted by the American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI). The recently adopted ANSI standard for 
signs relies heavily on symbols in lieu of language. ASSE believes this 
approach is especially valid with farmworkers, because of their high 
illiteracy rate in any language. Comments from agricultural employers 
generally supported the proposal and supported the option to permit 
handwriting of substitute languages for Spanish.
    For several reasons, the Agency has decided to adopt the September 
29, 1995 proposal and has decided against requiring employers to post 
warning signs with all languages represented in the workforce on the 
establishment. Under both the 1992 WPS and this final amendment, 
employers are permitted, but not required, to add languages.
    The Agency is concerned that if every language read by the workers 
were required on every warning sign, the signs would become overcrowded 
with text or become so large that they would become unwieldy, or both. 
Additionally, the Agency believes it is unreasonable to impose a 
requirement that potentially could require an employer with a rapidly 
changing work force to change the warning sign posted with each hire.
    EPA recognizes the benefit of presenting information in a language 
workers understand and that symbols are effective in conveying 
environmental warnings. Therefore, the red circle graphic currently 
required on the WPS warning sign should prove effective in reaching the 
worker population, even if the workers cannot read the text.
    EPA also recognizes the potential for increased complexity and 
burden associated with using additional or substitute languages on the 
English/Spanish warning sign. EPA believes that the flexibility 
provided by this final rule, allowing employers to substitute 
languages, outweighs the potential for problems due to inaccurate 
translations and illegible signs. Employers can accomplish substitution 
by use of commercial prepared signs, handwritten signs, or by 
stickering over existing signs as long as the languages on the sign 
remain visible and legible. The Agency is committed to making publicly

[[Page 33204]]

available a list of acceptable translations of the required warnings, 
and believes that there will be an adequate supply of commercially 
produced signs before the rule becomes effective. Employers are 
currently using commercially produced English/Spanish signs which are 
readily available at reasonable cost. Although the 1992 WPS allows for 
handwritten signs, the Agency does not expect that handwritten signs 
will be used significantly more often under this rule amendment than 
under current practice. Nonetheless, the Agency believes it is 
appropriate to give employers the flexibility to prepare their own 
signs to respond to the needs of the work force, in the event that 
commercially produced signs are unavailable.
    It appears that signs with a substitute language would benefit 
about 5% of the population of agricultural workers, since about 95% of 
the work force understand English or Spanish (U.S. Department of Labor, 
National Agricultural Worker Survey, 1990). The Association of 
Farmworker Opportunity Programs believes that the proportion of the 
agricultural work force that speaks neither English or Spanish is 
greater than 5%.
    Moreover, the Agency acknowledges that agricultural employers must 
be aware of the languages used by workers to comply with other WPS 
provisions. This will enable the employer to readily identify the 
appropriate language(s) and choose a substitute language for the 
warning sign. State inspectors monitoring compliance with other WPS 
requirements, such as training, will become aware of the languages used 
on a particular establishment. This will enable inspectors to ascertain 
if a substitute language is appropriate on the warning sign.

B. Use of Smaller Signs

    In addition to allowing the use of smaller signs when the treated 
area is too small to accommodate the 14 inches x 16 inches sign, EPA 
proposed allowing the use of smaller signs in greenhouses and nurseries 
when use of a larger sign may interfere with operations or the clear 
identification of treated areas. The proposal would not have precluded 
the continued use of a small sign based on space limitations, as 
presently allowed. EPA also proposed setting a minimum size requirement 
for smaller signs that would apply to all uses of small signs, 
including uses already allowed by the WPS. Signs would have to meet all 
other posting requirements of the rule, including that they be visible 
and legible during the time they are posted.
    The 1992 WPS set standards for the large sign and permitted 
proportionally smaller signs. Minimum lettering size was established as 
was the relationship between the size of the hand in the symbol 
relative to the size of lettering as well as the color and contrast of 
the lettering and symbol with the background. Based on these 
specifications, commercial suppliers have marketed a standard size sign 
(14 inches x 16 inches) and smaller size signs, particularly 5 inches x 
5 inches for use in greenhouses and nurseries. The commercially 
available 5 inches x 5 inches sign has ``DANGER'' and ``PELIGRO'' in 
letters \7/16\ inch tall with the minimum size lettering of \1/4\ inch. 
The red circle graphic is 1\3/4\ inches in diameter and the signs 
conform with all other requirements for WPS signs.
    Nurseries and greenhouses in Oregon have been utilizing the 
commercially available 5 inches x 5 inches signs and Oregon OSHA 
requires these signs to be posted at a distance not exceeding 25 feet 
between signs. EPA has monitored the effectiveness of these smaller 
signs in coordination with Oregon and participated in field visits to 
sites where the smaller signs were in use.
    All state agency comments supported the use of smaller size signs 
in greenhouses and nurseries. The ASSE's comments discussed previously 
in Unit IV.A. of this preamble pertains to this discussion as well. The 
ASSE commented that EPA should review the recommendations of the 
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) in regard to signs, 
especially lettering size, use of symbols and posting distances. The 
ANSI standards indicate that written statements on a sign are readable 
at a distance 300 times the height of the lettering. ASSE recommends 
that EPA use the ANSI standards for signs and supported the use of 
symbols in lieu of language.
    Several farm worker groups commented that the need for smaller size 
signs in greenhouses and nurseries requires further substantiation, and 
that the effectiveness of smaller signs be field tested extensively. 
Worker organizations also expressed concerns that small signs would be 
chosen over large signs as a means of minimizing public awareness of 
pesticide applications.
    Grower and commodity group comments were generally supportive of 
the proposal. However, some expressed concerns regarding the subjective 
nature of the proposed requirement that small signs can only be used 
when a large sign would interfere with operations or the clear 
identification of the treated area. They view these criteria as vague, 
unclear, and open to varied and inconsistent interpretation by 
government regulators.
    After considering the comments and recognizing that there will be a 
range of different situations in greenhouses and nurseries where 
employers would want to use small signs, EPA has decided to establish 
criteria based upon size and posting distance for the use of smaller 
signs. EPA attempted to balance the concerns of the various parties 
with particular attention to the concerns of workers and greenhouse and 
nursery operators. EPA shared the concerns of the workers regarding the 
effectiveness of small signs. EPA also understands the greenhouse and 
nursery operators' desire for objective criteria on when small signs 
can be utilized. EPA believes that by specifying maximum posting 
distances in conjunction with minimum sign size, the warning message 
will still be effectively communicated. EPA further believes that this 
approach eliminates the need for the proposed requirement that small 
signs may be used only when the larger sign would interfere with 
operations or the clear identification of the treated area in 
greenhouses and nurseries. Therefore, the final rule permits the use of 
a small sign in greenhouses and nurseries at the discretion of the 
agricultural employer. Since this standard will result in greater cost 
than the large sign, EPA anticipates small sign use only in those 
instances where the benefits clearly justify the increased cost.
    In addition to the standard size sign of at least 14 inches x 16 
inches with letters at least one inch in height specified in the 1992 
WPS, this amendment establishes two additional sets of criteria for 
signs. One set of criteria permits a sign with letters at least a \1/4\ 
inch in height, ``DANGER'' and ``PELIGRO'' words at least \7/16\ inch 
in height and a red circle at least 1\1/2\ inches in diameter 
containing an upraised hand and a stern face to be posted at a distance 
not to exceed 25 feet. The second set of criteria permits a sign with 
letters at least \1/2\ inch in height, ``DANGER'' and ``PELIGRO'' words 
at least \7/8\ inch in height and a red circle at least 3 inches in 
diameter containing an upraised hand and a stern face to be posted at a 
distance not to exceed 50 feet. The lettering and symbols can always be 
larger and the posting distances closer. Given the larger scale 
operations in forests and on farms, the Agency is retaining the 
requirement for the standard size sign to be used in forests and on 
farms except where the size of the treated area would

[[Page 33205]]

not accommodate a 14 inches x 16 inches size sign.
    EPA believes that proponents of using smaller warning signs inside 
greenhouses and in nurseries have adequately demonstrated the need for 
greater flexibility than allowed in the 1992 WPS. Representatives of 
greenhouse operators and nurserymen have repeatedly raised issues with 
using the standard-size 14 inches x 16 inches WPS warning signs, and 
have persuaded the Oregon Department of Occupational Safety that their 
concerns have sufficient merit to conduct considerable field testing 
with smaller signs in the Oregon horticultural industry. In addition, 
although there is no systematic survey of either the greenhouse or 
nursery industry, observations during site visits by EPA staff to a 
number of such operations in different parts of the country have 
supported the conclusion that more flexibility in using smaller signs 
would enhance worker safety by more clearly identifying treated areas 
as well as aid industry compliance. Finally, EPA notes that using more, 
smaller signs generally would cost more than using the minimum number 
of standard size warning signs. The Agency does not believe employers 
would seek regulatory changes that would increase compliance costs 
unless there were offsetting factors, such as greater convenience of 
operations and worker safety.
    The smallest sign must contain a red circle at least 1\1/2\ inches 
in diameter containing an upraised hand and stern face, lettering at 
least \1/4\ inch tall with the ``DANGER'' and ``PELIGRO'' words at 
least \7/16\ inch tall. EPA estimates that this size lettering and 
graphic will result in a minimum size sign of 4\1/2\ inches x 5 inches. 
When signs of this size are used they must be posted no more than 25 
feet apart. This spacing means that any person who approaches a posted 
area will always be within 12\1/2\ feet of a warning sign before 
actually entering the treated area.
    If the ANSI standard is applied to the 1\1/2\ inches in diameter 
red circle containing an upraised hand and stern face, the viewing 
distance is 37\1/2\ feet. Therefore, the red circle graphic on the sign 
easily meets the ANSI criteria for recognition when the posting 
distance is 25 feet. Also, under this criteria a \7/16\ inch word could 
be read at 11 feet. If the worker entered anywhere other than exactly 
between the signs, the worker would be closer to a sign than 12\1/2\ 
feet.
    The Agency believes that it is not necessary that all words on the 
WPS warning sign be large enough to be read for the sign to fulfill its 
purpose of alerting individuals that they are approaching an area that 
has been treated with pesticides and that entry into the area is 
prohibited. As with common traffic signs and other types of signs, it 
is sufficient that an individual recognize the sign to know what it 
means. This view is also expressed in the ANSI standard with respect to 
signs containing warning of environmental hazards. Since workers are 
required to be informed on the meaning of the WPS warning signs before 
they enter any area where pesticides have been recently used, EPA 
expects that most or all workers will understand the significance of 
the sign even if they cannot read all of the words on it.
    Because there is ample technical basis and field experience showing 
that properly spaced small signs will provide acceptable notice to 
people approaching treated areas, EPA has decided that no further field 
trials are necessary at this time to support the promulgation of this 
final rule. The Agency, however, will continue to monitor the 
implementation of this provision and will consider further revision if 
reports identify additional concerns.

V. Public Docket

    A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket 
number OPP-250107. This record is available for public inspection from 
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The public record is 
located in Rm. 1132, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Crystal Mall 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Arlington, VA.

VI. Statutory Review

    As required by FIFRA section 25(a), this rule was provided to the 
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Congress for review. 
The final rule was provided formally to USDA, as required by FIFRA. The 
USDA had no comment on the final rule. The FIFRA Scientific Advisory 
Panel waived its review.

VII. Regulatory Assessment Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 
it has been determined that this rule is not ``significant'' and is 
therefore not subject to OMB review. The Agency believes that the 
amendments associated with this action constitute regulatory relief, 
and therefore will not impose any additional costs. The analysis 
related to the costs of the sign requirements were discussed in 
conjunction with their promulgation in 1992 as part of the Worker 
Protection Standards. Each amendment provides an alternative to an 
existing requirement, allowing the regulated community to choose the 
most effective and appropriate language and size for the sign they use.

B. Executive Order 12898

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), 
entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 
Populations and Low-Income Populations, the Agency has considered 
environmental justice related issues with regard to the potential 
impacts of this action on the environmental and health conditions in 
low-income and minority communities.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 
(P.L. 104-4), this action does not result in the expenditure of $100 
million or more by any State, local or tribal governments, or by anyone 
in the private sector, and will not result in any ``unfunded mandates'' 
as defined by Title II. The costs associated with this action are 
described in the Executive Order 12866 section above.
    Under Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993), EPA 
must consult with representatives of affected State, local, and tribal 
governments before promulgating a discretionary regulation containing 
an unfunded mandate. This action does not contain any mandates on 
States, localities or tribes and is therefore not subject to the 
requirements of Executive Order 12875.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 
the Agency determined that this regulatory action does not impose any 
adverse economic impacts on small entities. I therefore certify that 
this regulatory action does not require a separate regulatory 
flexibility analysis. Information relating to this determination has 
been provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration, and is included in the docket for this rulemaking. Any 
comments regarding the economic impacts that this proposed regulatory 
action may impose on small entities should be submitted to the Agency 
at the address listed above.

E. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act 
(APA) as amended by the Small Business

[[Page 33206]]

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Title II of Pub. L. 104-
121, 110 Stat. 847), EPA submitted a report containing this rule and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives and the Comptroller General of the General Accounting 
Office prior to publication of the rule in today's Federal Register. 
This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2) of the 
APA as amended.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the existing 
information collection requirement related to these sign requirments 
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq. and assigned OMB control number 2070-0148 (EPA ICR No. 1759.01). 
The amendments contained in this rule do not increase the burden hours 
or costs associated with this requirement, except to perhaps decrease 
any unnecessary burdens that may have resulted from the lack of these 
options. Since the base requirement and its burden have not changed, 
EPA has not prepared any amendment to the existing ICR.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. This notice satisfies that initial 
display and EPA is also amending the table at 40 CFR part 9, which 
lists all the currently approved information collection requests (ICR) 
control numbers issued by OMB for various regulations, which appears at 
40 CFR part 9. This amendment updates the table to accurately display 
OMB approval of the information requirements contained in this final 
rule. The display of the OMB control number in this notice and its 
subsequent codification in the Code of Federal Regulations satisfies 
the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.) and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320. The ICR was 
previously subject to public notice and comment prior to OMB approval. 
As a result, EPA finds that there is ``good cause'' under section 
553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)) to 
amend this table without additional notice and comment. Due to the 
technical nature of the table, further notice and comment would be 
unnecessary.
    Send comments on the burden estimates and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated 
collection techniques to EPA at the address provided above, with a copy 
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked 
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Please remember to include the ICR 
number in any correspondence.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 9

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 170

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Labeling, Occupational safety and health, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: June 18, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 9-[AMENDED]

    1. In part 9:
    a. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1321, 1326, 1330, 1344, 
1345(d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 
Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g-1, 
300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2, 300j-3, 
300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 9601-
9657, 11023, 11048.

    b. Section 9.1 is amended by deleting the entry for 170.112 under 
the category ``Worker Protection Standards for Agricultural 
Pesticides'' and adding the following entry to read as follows:


Sec. 9.1   OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    *    *    *    *    *

                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                40 CFR citation                      OMB control No.    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
                  *        *        *        *        *                 
Worker Protection Standards for Agricultural Pesticides.................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
part 170.......................................                2070-0148
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    *    *    *    *    *

PART 170--[AMENDED]

    2. In part 170:

[[Page 33207]]

    a. The authority citation for part 170 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    b. In Sec. 170.120, by revising paragraph (c)(2), redesignating 
existing paragraphs (c)(3) through (c)(7) as (c)(4) through (c)(8) 
respectively, and adding a new paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:


Sec. 170.120   Notice of applications.

    *    *    *    *    *
    (c)  *  *  *
    (2) The standard sign shall be at least 14 inches by 16 inches with 
letters at least 1 inch in height. Farms and forests shall use the 
standard size sign unless a smaller sign is necessary because the 
treated area is too small to accommodate a sign of this size. In 
nurseries and greenhouses, the agricultural employer may, at any time, 
use a sign smaller than the standard size sign. Whenever a small sign 
is used on any establishment, there are specific posting distances 
depending on the size of the lettering and symbol on the sign. If a 
sign is used with DANGER and PELIGRO in letters at least \7/8\ inch in 
height and the remaining letters at least \1/2\ inch in height and a 
red circle at least 3 inches in diameter containing an upraised hand 
and a stern face, the signs shall be no further than 50 feet apart. If 
a sign is used with DANGER and PELIGRO in letters at least \7/16\ inch 
in height and the remaining letters at least \1/4\ inch in height and a 
red circle at least 1\1/2\ inches in diameter containing an upraised 
hand and a stern face, the signs shall be no further than 25 feet 
apart. A sign with DANGER and PELIGRO in letters less than \7/16\ inch 
in height or with any words in letters less than \1/4\ inch in height 
or a red circle smaller than 1\1/2\ inches in diameter containing an 
upraised hand and a stern face will not satisfy the requirements of the 
rule. All signs must meet the requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this 
section.
    (3) The employer may replace the Spanish portion of the warning 
sign with a non-English language read by the largest group of workers 
who do not read English. The replacement sign must be in the same 
format as the original sign and be visible and legible.
    *    *    *    *    *

[FR Doc. 96-16201 Filed 6-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>