Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 33207

a. The authority citation for part 170

continues to read as follows:

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

b. In § 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:

§ 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 11⁄2

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 11⁄2 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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 170

[OPP–250108A; FRL–5358–8]

RIN 2070–AC93

Pesticide Worker Protection Standard;

Decontamination Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is amending the 1992

Worker Protection Standard (WPS) by

establishing the length of time for which

decontamination supplies are required

at 7 days following the expiration of

pesticide restricted-entry intervals

(REIs) of 4 hours or less. Pesticides with

REIs of 4 hours or less have passed an

EPA risk screening process because of

their low acute toxicity, an absence of

evidence of worker poisonings after the

REI, and a lack of other concerns about

toxicity. The decontamination

requirements for all other pesticides are

not affected by this amendment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become

effective August 26, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Linda Strauss or Joshua First, Office of

Pesticide Programs (7506C),

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

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

Office location: Room 1121, Crystal Mall

#2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA 22202. By telephone:

(703) 308-3240 or 305-7437. By

electronic mail:

strauss.linda@epamail.epa.gov or

first.joshua@epamail.epa.gov.

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 Federal Register document

discusses the background and events

leading to this final rule amending the

WPS; summarizes the public’s

comments on the provisions of the
33208 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

proposed amendments published in the

Federal Register of September 29, 1995

(60 FR 50686) (FRL–4969–5); provides

EPA’s response to these comments; and

presents the Agency’s final

determination to amend the

decontamination provisions of the WPS.

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(bb)

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 of the use of any

pesticide. Thus, in deciding how to

regulate a pesticide, FIFRA requires

EPA to balance the risks to human

health and the environment associated

with pesticide exposure and the benefits

of pesticide use to society and the

economy.

II. Background

A. This Notice

In 1992, EPA revised the WPS (40

CFR parts 156 and 170) (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

more 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 on entry into treated areas

during restricted entry intervals

following pesticide application.

Section 170.150 of the 1992 WPS

requires that a worker be provided with

a ‘‘decontamination site’’ which consists

of supplies (including water, soap,

disposable towels) for washing off

pesticide residues whenever that worker

‘‘performs any activity in an area where,

within the last 30 days, a pesticide has

been applied or a restricted-entry

interval has been in effect and contacts

anything that has been treated with the

pesticide.’’ (As explained in Unit V. of

this preamble, EPA is also making a

technical amendment to the WPS rule to

use the phrase ‘‘decontamination

supplies,’’ instead of ‘‘decontamination

site.’’ The phrase ‘‘decontamination

supplies’’ will be used in the rest of this

preamble.)

Decontamination supplies must

consist of soap and single-use towels

sufficient to meet workers’ needs and

enough water for routine washing and

emergency eyeflushing. EPA

recommends that at least 1 gallon of

water be available per worker; see the

WPS ‘‘How to Comply’’ manual. The

decontamination supplies must be

reasonably accessible to workers and

not more than 1⁄4 mile from where

workers are working. Section 170.150

also specifies additional requirements

regarding the general conditions and

location of decontamination supplies, as

well as requirements for these materials

after early entry activities.

Since the WPS was issued in 1992,

the National Association of State

Departments of Agriculture 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 concerns specifically

suggesting a change to the

decontamination requirement. With

regard to the decontamination

requirement, several commodity and

other groups stated their belief that the

duration of the 30–day requirement is

unnecessary because decontamination

supplies must be provided even when

there is no apparent risk, in their

estimation.

On September 29, 1995, EPA

proposed to amend the decontamination

requirement by reducing the length of

time that decontamination supplies are

required following use of pesticides

with restricted-entry intervals (REIs) of

4 hours or less. EPA proposed, for these

lower toxicity pesticides, that the length

of time be reduced from 30 days to a

length of time between 1 and 15 days

after the expiration of the REI. During

the public comment period, EPA

subsequently received more comments

from its stakeholders, including

growers, farmworker groups, state

agencies, and private citizens. This

action announces EPA’s final decision

to amend the decontamination

requirement in the WPS.

B. Future Considerations

The requirement for maintaining

decontamination supplies in the field

for 30 days when workers are present

was a risk-mitigation measure prompted

by the risks to workers by some of the

most acutely toxic pesticides. The

requirement’s length (30 days) was

largely based on available data on

pesticide-related poisonings from the

1980s. A combination of EPA regulatory

actions during the past decade

eliminating some of the most acutely

toxic pesticides and the other worker

protection requirements may mitigate

risks sufficiently to prompt

consideration of a reassessment, should

relevant new data become available.

The Agency is committed to assessing

new data to resolve questions about the

appropriateness of the length of time

associated with this requirement, for

some or all pesticide products. The EPA

registration and reregistration programs,

as well as focused contract efforts, can

be the sources of new data. EPA will

monitor these data and, if appropriate,

apply them toward re-evaluating the

WPS requirement that decontamination

supplies be maintained in the field for

30 days if workers are present.

III. Summary of This Final Rule

Amendment

EPA is amending 40 CFR 170.150 to

establish the length of time for which

decontamination supplies are required

at 7 days following the expiration of

pesticide restricted-entry intervals

(REIs) of 4 hours or less. Because such

pesticides are relatively low in toxicity,

and therefore may pose very little or no

risk to workers, EPA is reducing the

time from 30 days to 7 days following

the end of the REI of any of these

pesticides or a mix of such pesticides.

This change will not apply for situations

where REIs for two or more pesticides

are in effect, unless all pesticides have

REIs of 4 hours or less. EPA is retaining

the 30–day decontamination

requirement for pesticides with REIs of

more than 4 hours and those pesticides

without REIs. However, in order to

clarify the meaning of the existing

requirement, EPA has modified the

language of 40 CFR 170.150(a)(1).

EPA is not amending other aspects of

the decontamination requirement,

including the provision on

decontamination supplies for handlers,

which is located in 40 CFR 170.250.

EPA has made the risk-benefit finding to

alter the length of the decontamination
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 33209

requirement only for pesticide products

with REIs of 4 hours or less, but not for

other products.

In the Federal Register of May 3, 1995

(60 FR 21965) (FRL–4950–8), EPA

issued PR Notice 95-3 listing active

ingredients subject to the WPS rule

which had been reviewed for toxicity

and found to pose little or no risk to

workers. Pesticide products containing

these active ingredients would be

eligible for a reduced REI of 4 hours. As

explained more fully in the PR Notice,

EPA examined each active ingredient

for acute toxicity risk and other forms of

toxicity-related risk, including cancer,

birth defects, effects on the reproductive

and nervous system and long-term harm

to health, as well as data on reported

field poisonings. Whenever EPA lacked

information on a particular type of

potential adverse effect, the Agency

considered information on pesticide

chemicals with similar molecular

structures. The Agency will list an

active ingredient as eligible for a

reduced REI only if all of the

information available indicates that it

will be of low toxicity to humans, i.e.,

that it poses little or no risk to workers.

A pesticide product will actually be

assigned the 4-hour REI only if data on

that particular pesticide formulation

satisfy additional criteria indicating that

the formulation is not acutely toxic.

Only those pesticide products which

either meet the criteria of PR Notice 95-

3 or which have been reviewed on a

case-by-case basis will have REls that

short, and all of those products pose

little or no risk to workers.

Any end-use pesticide that has an

approved 4-hour REI will have met or

exceeded the standard for low or

insignificant risk described in the May

3, 1995 Pesticide Regulatory (PR) Notice

95-3. For instance, pesticides approved

for a 4-hour REI have a very low acute

toxicity and have not been found to

have other associated developmental,

reproductive, neurotoxic, or

carcinogenic effects. Additionally, none

of their active ingredients is a

cholinesterase inhibitor, and the Agency

does not have any information about

poisoning incidents (illness or injury

reports) that are ‘‘definitely’’ or

‘‘probably’’ related to post-application

exposures to the active ingredient.

In summary, in deciding to amend the

decontamination requirement for low

toxicity pesticides, EPA has weighed the

risks of possible increased exposure to

products with REIs of 4 hours or less

against the benefits of reduced grower

costs. EPA has concluded that the very

low risk posed by these products do not

justify the costs of maintaining

decontamination supplies for more than

7 days after the expiration of the REI.

Reducing the length of time

decontamination supplies are required

for the 4-hour REI products may also

encourage the use of these low toxicity

products, thereby lowering potential

risk to workers. The Agency finds

substantial justification for this

amendment for the reasons summarized

in this Unit and discussed in detail in

the Response to Comments section

below.

IV. Summary of Response to Comments

EPA received a total of 15 comments

on the proposal to amend the

requirements relating to the provision of

decontamination supplies. Comments

were received from States, commodity

and industry groups, farmworker

groups, and individuals.

A. Comments on the Requirement’s

Scope and Duration of Time

Comments

The Agency proposed to reduce the

length of time for which

decontamination supplies are required

when established low toxicity pesticides

are used. The proposal indicated EPA

was considering a timeframe from 1 to

15 days and requested comment.

In their comments, farmworker groups

were opposed to shortening the 30-day

time period for any pesticides,

including those with 4-hour REIs. One

such group suggested, however, that if

EPA shortened the time period for the

decontamination requirement, the

duration should not be less than 15

days. They stated that EPA’s

understanding of identified low-toxicity

pesticides is inadequate. Further, they

stated that, even in situations where

there is no known risk from these

pesticides, decontamination supplies

are needed to address pesticide

exposure resulting from drift, spills, and

other accidents. Finally, some

commenters noted that on small farms

that are not required to have OSHA

handwashing facilities, these supplies

may be the only water source available

for workers in case of an emergency.

On the other hand, some grower

groups commented that EPA should not

require that decontamination supplies

be made available after the REI expires.

Others supported reducing the duration

that decontamination supplies are

provided for all pesticides to a range of

1 to 15 days. These commenters stated

that the current requirement is

unnecessary and burdensome, given the

low risk from pesticide exposure after

the end of the REI and the high cost of

supplying and transporting the supplies.

The California Department of

Pesticide Regulation stated that, when

EPA assigns permanent, chemicalspecific REIs during pesticide

reregistration, decontamination sites

(supplies) should be required only

during the REI. (EPA reregistration

involves a comprehensive review of

pesticides to ensure current scientific

standards are met.) Thus, they argued,

EPA should consider the generic 30–day

period requirement as an interim

requirement. State agricultural agencies

in Georgia and Arizona recommended

reducing the requirement to 7 days for

all pesticides. Comments from the

Michigan Department of Agriculture

supported reducing the timeframe if it

were limited to the low toxicity

pesticides.

Agency Response

The purpose of the decontamination

requirement is two-fold. First, the

decontamination supplies allow a

worker, whose skin or eyes have been

exposed to pesticide residues, to wash

off the residues quickly and thoroughly

in or near the site where the exposure

occurred in order to prevent adverse

effects, including acute and chronic

effects. Prompt action may dramatically

reduce further exposure and can prevent

or mitigate illness or injury. Second, the

availability of decontamination supplies

allows workers to engage in routine

washing which has been demonstrated

to reduce pesticide exposure (i.e.,

washing off hands before using the

toilet, smoking or eating) and which is

taught as part of the WPS training

program required for all workers before

they may enter any pesticide-treated

areas.

In the 1992 WPS rule, EPA set the

length of time that decontamination

supplies must be available to workers at

30 days after the expiration of any REI

at a treated site. In choosing to require

the 30-day period, EPA relied on an

analysis of pesticide poisoning incident

data. Examination of these data

indicated that poisoning episodes from

re-entry to treated areas could continue

up to and beyond 30 days after the end

of the REI. Thus, the Agency concluded

that there could be sufficient pesticide

residues to cause poisoning episodes up

to 30 days after the end of the REI, and

that the availability of decontamination

supplies was an inexpensive method of

mitigating this potential risk (See 57 FR

38123). No information presented in

public comments has justified any

departure from the 1992 decision for

chemicals other than the low toxicity

pesticides addressed in PR Notice 95-3.

Thus, this conclusion remains

unchanged.

EPA disagrees with the comments

suggesting that the requirement for
33210 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

decontamination supplies should be

eliminated for all pesticides after the

REI has expired and should be

shortened significantly for all

pesticides. Some of these comments

recommend, in effect, that EPA rely on

the REI to address the risks of all

potential exposures of workers entering

pesticide-treated areas. REls, however,

were not developed for that purpose.

The Agency currently has two types of

REIs: interim REIs established by the

1992 WPS rule (or by the Agency based

on epidemiological information and/or

preliminary adverse toxicological data)

and chemical- and crop-specific REls

established by EPA after case-by-case

consideration of data. The WPS interim

REls are based on the acute toxicity of

the active ingredient in pesticides

subject to the WPS. Acute toxicity (the

capacity of a substance to cause toxic or

adverse effects as a consequence of a

single, short duration exposure) is a

significant concern with respect to

protection of agricultural workers, and

the acute toxicity of an active ingredient

is a suitable proxy for evaluating the

potential for this type of risk under field

conditions.

The WPS established interim REIs for

pesticides of 12 to 72 hours, based on

the level of acute toxicity displayed by

the active ingredients in the product,

when tested in established laboratory

assays (See 57 FR 38110-38111; August

21, 1992). Workers are generally

prohibited from entering treated sites

during an REI; the more acutely toxic

the active ingredient, the longer the REI.

Because interim REIs established by the

WPS or through other Agency actions

do not reflect consideration of all

potential factors or risks, however, EPA

cannot conclude that they will protect

against all potential worker exposures.

Chemical- and crop-specific REls are

established after taking into account

other factors, not considered when

interim REls were created, which may

influence the level of potential risk to

workers. A number of factors affect the

level of risk faced by a worker

performing activities in or on a

pesticide-treated area. In addition to the

acute toxicity of the pesticide, the

Agency considers the potential for other

adverse effects, such as cancer, birth

defects, damage to the reproductive or

nervous systems arising from exposures

of longer duration. Typically, these

effects occur at much lower levels of

exposure than do acute toxic effects.

The Agency is also able to consider the

level of pesticide residues remaining at

a treated site, using information on the

rate at which the residues decline

following pesticide application. Finally,

EPA is able to take into account the

extent to which the residues are

transferred to and enter into the human

body as a consequence of the pattern of

work activity an employee performs at

a treated site. In fact, using more

complete information during the

chemical-by-chemical review conducted

in the reregistration process, a number

of interim REIs have been replaced by

chemical or crop-specific REIs that are

longer than the interim REIs set by the

1992 rule.

On the other hand, even permanent,

product-specific REIs established during

registration and reregistration are based

on ‘‘average’’ conditions. They do not

and cannot practically take into account

differences due to temperature and

humidity; rainfall and irrigation

practices; degree of sunlight; crop type,

height, and density; region-specific

production practices or worker activity

and length of exposure. Evidence

indicates the importance of washing

pesticides off as soon as possible after

an exposure to mitigate adverse effects.

Retaining decontamination

requirements for a period of 30 days

after the expiration of an REI for

pesticides other than the low toxicity

pesticides lessens the chances that

workers will be harmed by pesticide

residues and decreases their chronic

exposures to pesticides.

If there were no requirement for

making decontamination supplies

available, the Agency would be able to

reduce the potential for such risks by

extending REIs. Such an approach,

however would be more burdensome to

agricultural producers than retaining the

requirement for decontamination

supplies. Longer REIs would be

considerably more likely to interfere

with agricultural operations. Therefore,

EPA continues to believe that the risk

mitigation from making

decontamination supplies available to

workers clearly justifies the additional

costs of complying with this

requirement.

Even in the ideal situation, where

worker entry into pesticide-treated areas

is based on on-site field tests, situations

may arise where workers will be

exposed to unacceptable levels of

residues. These situations include

mistakes in warnings about areas not yet

safe to enter, ‘‘hot spots’’ within the

treated areas from spills, application

mistakes, etc. In addition, the

establishment of a residue level that is

‘‘safe’’ for entry involves, at this time,

only an analysis of exposure to a

specific product on a specific occasion.

The Agency is also concerned about

acute and delayed health effect risks

from the cumulative effect of multiple

exposures to a single product and

multiple exposures to multiple

products. Since the opportunities for

exposure are so variable, providing

decontamination supplies for a period

of 30 days after the REI for pesticides

other than the low toxicity pesticides

seems to be a prudent, low-cost measure

that can reduce pesticide-related

illnesses and injuries that may stem

from such exposures.

Other commenters objected to

shortening the time period even for the

low- toxicity pesticides, because

decontamination supplies could

mitigate risks associated with unsafe

exposures resulting from spills, drift, or

most other accidents. Even in the face

of application mistakes, such as spills,

and insufficient entry warnings, EPA

can lower the decontamination

timeframe for pesticides that have

passed EPA’s screening process because

of their low acute toxicity, an absence

of evidence of worker poisonings after

the REI, and lack of other toxicity

concerns.

Further, while mitigating exposure to

drift is one of the purposes of having

decontamination supplies available for

30 days after the expiration of the REI,

the primary purpose of the

decontamination requirements is to

mitigate potential adverse effects of

exposure to pesticide residues

remaining in the treated area after the

REI has expired. In addition, because

off-site drift can occur at any time and

consist of low or high toxicity

pesticides, it cannot be most effectively

remedied by time-limited measures. If

decontamination supplies were the sole

means of addressing drift, the Agency

would have to require that supplies

always be available, regardless of the

length of the REI or the toxicity of the

pesticide. While EPA recognizes that

having decontamination supplies

available at all times would reduce the

risk from drift, it would not reduce risk

adequately to outweigh the costs of

permanently maintaining

decontamination supplies in all treated

fields.

The most effective means of

mitigating drift exposure is to prevent

drift from occurring. Accordingly, the

WPS requires that no pesticide be

applied so as to contact, either directly

or through drift, any worker or other

person other than the person applying

the pesticide. The Agency is also

working to develop engineering and use

controls to address further the problem

of pesticide drift. With regard to

pesticide spills, the WPS requires

decontamination supplies during

pesticide application, when spills are

most likely to occur. Finally, reducing

the duration of decontamination
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 33211

supplies for pesticides with REIs of 4

hours or less will also encourage the use

of low toxicity products, which may

afford greater risk reduction than if

pesticides with higher toxicity levels

were used.

The costs of supplying and

maintaining decontamination supplies

(which consist of water, soap, and

disposable towels) are relatively low.

Supplies are generally not bulky and

can be taken with the workers on foot,

in a vehicle, or on a tractor. The

requirement will be satisfied so long as

the decontamination supplies are

reasonably accessible to workers (within

1/4 mile or at the nearest point of

vehicular access), and the water is of a

quality and temperature that will not

cause illness or injury when it contacts

the skin or eyes or if it is swallowed.

Although the costs of maintaining

decontamination supplies are low, the

risks posed by products with REI of 4

hours or less are negligible after the first

7 days of the decontamination period.

Therefore, the costs of maintaining

decontamination supplies for more than

7 days are not justified by the very low

risk posed by these products.

EPA disagrees with those commenters

who asserted that decontamination

supplies should be required for all

pesticides for 30 days following the

expiration of the REI. Some comments

objected to the proposed reduction for

lower toxicity pesticides because they

believe EPA did not have a full

understanding of the potential risks of

these products. Under PR Notice 95-3,

both pesticide active ingredients and

specific product formulations go

through a careful screen to determine

their eligibility for a reduced REI. The

screen provided EPA with a good

understanding of the nature of potential

risks posed by these products.

The Agency notes that many of the

products which have been identified

under PR Notice 95-3 are biological

pesticides, which are generally low in

toxicity to humans. These products

were not in wide use before the 1990s

and were not specifically considered as

part of the development of the 1992

WPS. In recent years, EPA has adopted

a policy of encouraging the use of these

products because they are inherently

less risky than conventional chemical

pesticides. Shortening the duration of

the requirement for decontamination

supplies is one way EPA can distinguish

these lower toxicity pesticides from

more risky pesticide products and can

provide an incentive for pesticide users

to choose these products.

In its proposal, EPA proposed to

reduce the amount of time

decontamination supplies would be

required for certain lower toxicity

pesticides, those with REIs of 4 hours or

less, but did not specify the length of

the shortened time period. The Agency

noted that it was considering time

periods in the range of 15 days to 1 day,

and EPA specifically requested

comment on this time period. In

response, commenters suggested a range

of timeframes, including 7 days for all

pesticides. EPA has decided that

decontamination supplies must be

available for 7 days following the

expiration of the REI of pesticides for

which EPA has data to indicate a low

level of toxicity. This timeframe

represents a significant shortening of the

requirement and corresponds to the

midpoint of the range of times suggested

between 1 and 15 by commenters.

Although the Agency’s data show that

these pesticides pose a low risk,

reducing the duration of

decontamination supplies to 7 days after

the REI expires still provides an

additional safeguard from any possible

adverse effects of exposure to these low

toxicity pesticides.

In sum, the Agency concludes that it

is appropriate to reduce the duration of

the decontamination requirement for

pesticides which have REIs of 4 hours

or less, from 30 days to 7 days. This

conclusion is based on its identification

of a group of pesticide products which

may pose little or no risk to agricultural

workers. EPA has concluded that the

low risks posed by these products do

not justify the costs of maintaining

decontamination supplies for more than

7 days after the expiration of the REI.

The benefits of shortening the time

period do not appear to be outweighed

by any potential increase in risk. At the

same time, EPA has decided to retain for

other pesticides the requirement that

decontamination supplies be available

to workers for 30 days following

expiration of the REI for pesticide

treated areas.

B. Location of Decontamination

Supplies

Comments

The American Farm Bureau stated

that EPA should allow decontamination

supplies to be located in an area under

an REI provided that the site (supplies)

is reasonably accessible to workers.

Agency Response

Section 170.150(c)(4) states that

decontamination supplies may be

placed in an area under an REI if

workers are performing early entry

activities permitted by § 170.112

involving contact with treated areas,

and this location is necessary for the

supplies to be reasonably accessible to

workers. Early entry (entry by a worker

into a treated area after a pesticide

application but before the REI has

expired) is allowed under certain

conditions specified in the rule. Thus,

the WPS allows for decontamination

supplies to be placed in an area under

an REI for use by those performing early

entry activities under the rule, since

these workers are already allowed

access to the area. Placement of the

decontamination supplies within a

treated area is allowed if this choice of

site is necessary for the supplies to be

reasonably accessible to workers. The

rule, however, does not allow

agricultural workers, who are not

performing early entry activities, into

the area under the REI, and therefore

supplies for these workers must be

located outside the area under an REI.

C. Decontamination Requirement After

Harvest

Comments

The American Farm Bureau

commented that decontamination

supplies should not be required after

crops are harvested because there are

few post-harvest, farm practices that

bring workers into contact with treated

surfaces. They also believe that there is

such a small number of crops where

contact with treated surfaces occurs,

and that therefore, EPA should identify

the specific crops that do require

decontamination supplies after the REI

expires.

Agency Response

The Agency agrees that the

decontamination supplies should not be

required when workers will not contact

pesticide-treated surfaces at post-harvest

times. 40 CFR 170.150(a) states that

decontamination supplies are required

when a worker ‘‘performs any activity in

an area where, within the last 30 days,

a pesticide has been applied or a

restricted-entry interval has been in

effect and contacts anything that has

been treated with a pesticide, including

but not limited to, soil, water or surfaces

of plants. . . .’’ In those cases where

there is no contact with pesticidetreated surfaces, as may be the situation

when all treated surfaces have been

completely removed during harvest, the

rule already allows entry without

requiring decontamination supplies.

In response to the request to identify

certain crops for which

decontamination supplies would be

required, there are cultural activities for

virtually all crops which involve contact

with previously-treated surfaces, and

activities in which there is no contact.

Given this fact, it would be difficult for

the Agency to determine at which times
33212 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

decontamination supplies would be

needed on the basis of the specific crop.

Rather, EPA will continue to require

these supplies when there is contact

with pesticide-treated surfaces.

V. Technical Amendment

EPA is revising §§ 170.150 and 170.

250 to replace the words

‘‘decontamination site’’ with

‘‘decontamination supplies.’’ In the past

and in public comments on the

proposal, the phrase ‘‘decontamination

site’’ has sometimes been misconstrued

to mean a physical, stationary structure

or trailer where supplies are kept. The

WPS, however, only requires specific

decontamination supplies be made

available. These supplies must be

reasonably accessible to and not more

than 1⁄4 mile from the workers. They

may be kept in a backpack or

decontamination kit in the field or in a

van or truck. The text has been

reformatted without changing the

meaning of the provision.

VI. Public Docket

A record has been established for this

rulemaking under docket number OPP250108A. 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. Written

requests should be mailed to: Public

Response and Program Resources

Branch (7506C), Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

VII. Statutory Review

As required by FIFRA section 25(a),

this final rule was provided to the

United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA) and to Congress for review.

During the development of this rule,

EPA addressed all of USDA’s concerns

and comments through extensive

informal consultations, and the final

rule was presented formally to USDA

for comment. The USDA had no

comment on this final rule. The FIFRA

Scientific Advisory Panel waived its

review.

VIII. 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 original requirements

were discussed in conjunction with

their promulgation in 1992 as part of the

Worker Protection Standards.

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 (Pub. 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

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

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 information

collection requirement related to

Worker Protection Standards 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, or require any

separate approval from OMB.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 170

Administrative practice and

procedure, Occupational safety and

health, Pesticides and pests.

Dated: June 18, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

Therefore, 40 CFR part 170 is

amended as follows:

PART 170—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 170

continues to read as follows:

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

2. In § 170.150 by revising paragraphs

(a), (b)(3), (c)(1), (c)(2)(ii), (c)(3), and

(c)(4) to read as follows:

§ 170.150 Decontamination.

(a)(1) Requirement. The agricultural

employer must provide

decontamination supplies for workers in

accordance with this section whenever:

(i) Any worker on the agricultural

establishment is performing an activity

in the area where a pesticide was

applied or a restricted-entry interval

(REI) was in effect within the last 30

days, and;

(ii) The worker contacts anything that

has been treated with the pesticide,

including, but not limited to soil, water,

plants, plant surfaces, and plant parts.

(2) Exception. The 30–day time period

established in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this

section shall not apply if the only

pesticides used in the treated area are

products with an REI of 4 hours or less

on the label (but not a product without

an REI on the label). When workers are

in such treated areas, the agricultural

employer shall provide

decontamination supplies for not less
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 33213

than 7 days following the expiration of

any applicable REI.

(b) * * *

(3) The agricultural employer shall

provide soap and single-use towels in

quantities sufficient to meet worker’s

needs.

* * * * *

(c) Location. (1) The decontamination

supplies shall be located together and be

reasonably accessible to and not more

than 1/4 mile from where workers are

working.

(2) * * *

(ii) The agricultural employer may

permit workers to use clean water from

springs, streams, lakes, or other sources

for decontamination at the remote work

site, if such water is more accessible

than the water located at the nearest

place of vehicular access.

(3) The decontamination supplies

shall not be maintained in an area being

treated with pesticides.

(4) The decontamination supplies

shall not be maintained in an area that

is under a restricted-entry interval,

unless the workers for whom the

supplies are provided are performing

early-entry activities permitted by

§ 170.112 and involving contact with

treated surfaces and the

decontamination supplies would

otherwise not be reasonably accessible

to those workers.

* * * * *

3. In § 170.250 by revising paragraphs

(a), (b)(3) and (b)(4), the introductory

text of (c), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3)(ii), (c)(4)

introductory text, and (c)(4)(i) to read as

follows:

§ 170.250 Decontamination.

(a) Requirement. During any handling

activity, the handler employer shall

provide for handlers, in accordance

with this section, decontamination

supplies for washing off pesticides and

pesticide residues.

(b) * * *

(3) The handler employer shall

provide soap and single-use towels in

quantities sufficient to meet handlers’

needs.

(4) The handler employer shall

provide one clean change of clothing,

such as coveralls, for use in an

emergency.

(c) Location. The decontamination

supplies shall be located together and be

reasonably accessible to and not more

than 1⁄4 mile from each handler during

the handling activity.

(1) Exception for mixing sites. For

mixing activities, decontamination

supplies shall be at the mixing site.

(2) Exception for pilots.

Decontamination supplies for a pilot

who is applying pesticides aerially shall

be in the airplaine or at the aircraft

loading site.

(3) * * *

(ii) The handler employer may permit

handlers to use clean water from

springs, streams, lakes, or other sources

for decontamination at the remote work

site, if such water is more accessible

than the water located at the nearest

place of vehicular access.

(4) Decontamination supplies in

treated areas. The decontamination

supplies shall not be in an area being

treated with pesticides or in an area

under a restricted-entry interval, unless:

(i) The decontamination supplies are

in the area where the handler is

performing handling activities;

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–16202 Filed 6–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F