33202 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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:

eckerman.donald@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 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 § 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 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 11⁄2

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 11⁄2 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
33204 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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 13⁄4 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 11⁄2

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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 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 11⁄2 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 41⁄2 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 121⁄2 feet of

a warning sign before actually entering

the treated area.

If the ANSI standard is applied to the

11⁄2 inches in diameter red circle

containing an upraised hand and stern

face, the viewing distance is 371⁄2 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 121⁄2 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 OPP250107. 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
33206 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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:

§ 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:
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