From 73507.555@compuserve.com Sun Jan 8 18:36:41 1995 Received: from dub-img-3.compuserve.com (dub-img-3.compuserve.com [198.4.9.3]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id SAA07974 for ; Sun, 8 Jan 1995 18:36:29 -0800 Received: by dub-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.9/5.941228sam) id VAA00255; Sun, 8 Jan 1995 21:35:49 -0500 Date: 08 Jan 95 21:32:21 EST From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Federal fresh chickens Message-ID: <950109023220_73507.555_HHB75-1@CompuServe.COM> California recently lost a battle in the fight over a federal standard that permits chickens stored at zero degrees F to be labeled as "fresh." In 1993 the state passed a law prohibiting the use of labels saying "fresh" for poultry stored below 26 degrees F. One member of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in a concurring opinion: "To clarify, I would note that Congress has given a federal bureaucrat the power to order that frozen chickens be labeled 'fresh.' We affirm this absurdity by holding quite properly that the California Legislature is federally pre-empted from requiring that frozen chicken be labeled 'frozen.'" California stores can still be required to tell the truth in advertising and display frozen chickens as what they are, even though the labels on the chickens themselves are required by federal law to say "fresh." Is that going to be just a tad confusing? The U.S. Department of Agriculture is reportedly going to do something to change this standard. I guess we are making progress. Incidentally, under federal law, a piece of chicken labeled to weigh one pound can actually weigh less than 16 ounces. California weights and measures officials cannot take action against poultry packed in federally approved plants because another federal standard says the weight on the package must only be the weight when packed. Allowance must be made for reasonable moisture loss occurring during good handling practices. This has proven to be unenforceable. California law is simple and enforceable: a package labeled one pound must weigh one pound at the time of sale. Bob Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com From ONN@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu Mon Jan 9 05:09:12 1995 Received: from gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (gnv.ifas.ufl.edu [128.227.242.11]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id FAA12020 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 1995 05:09:11 -0800 From: ONN@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu Received: from gnv.ifas.ufl.edu by gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (PMDF V4.3-10 #7627) id <01HLMVO3W1S08ZFKYQ@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>; Mon, 09 Jan 1995 08:07:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 09 Jan 1995 08:07:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: Creole Translation of Worker Safety Training Manual To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-id: <01HLMVO3XE028ZFKYQ@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> X-VMS-To: IN%"wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT The Pesticide Information Office at the University of Florida has completed a Creole translation of "Protect Yourself from Pesticides - A Guide for Agricultural Workers". Gempler's may print the publication, but is waiting to see if Congress takes any action regarding the WPS before printing other language versions of worker training materials. We have a limited supply of the Creole manual. We can supply one copy per request. This copy can be used for duplica- ting additional copies. Norm Nesheim Pesticide Information Coordinator Building 847, Box 110710 University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32600-0710 904/392-4721 onn@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu From Amy_E_BROWN@umail.umd.edu Mon Jan 9 05:54:21 1995 Received: from umailsrv1.UMD.EDU (umailsrv1.umd.edu [128.8.10.53]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id FAA12211 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 1995 05:54:20 -0800 Received: by umailsrv1.UMD.EDU (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA20964; Mon, 9 Jan 95 08:51:45 -0500 Message-Id: <9501091351.AA20964@umailsrv1.UMD.EDU> Date: Mon, 09 Jan 95 08:51 EST From: Amy_E_BROWN@umail.umd.edu (ab35) Subject: Re: Federal fresh chickens To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU In-Reply-To: <950109023220_73507.555_HHB75-1@CompuServe.COM> Dear forum users -- Bob Roach's recent communication on poultry was somewhat interesting but I fail to see its tie-in with WPS issues. There have been similar postings in the past. Those of us out-of-staters who are members of the forum are willing to wade through the stuff that's unique to California regulations for the sake of the occasional useful discussion. However, when forum users stray from the central issue of WPS some of us get frustrated. I know a number of people who have reluctantly quit the forum because of this. From Amy_E_BROWN@umail.umd.edu Mon Jan 9 06:04:34 1995 Received: from umailsrv1.UMD.EDU (umailsrv1.umd.edu [128.8.10.53]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id GAA12275 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 1995 06:04:33 -0800 Received: by umailsrv1.UMD.EDU (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA21185; Mon, 9 Jan 95 08:55:20 -0500 Message-Id: <9501091355.AA21185@umailsrv1.UMD.EDU> Date: Mon, 09 Jan 95 08:55 EST From: Amy_E_BROWN@umail.umd.edu (ab35) Subject: Re: Creole Translation of Worker Safety Training Manual To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU In-Reply-To: <01HLMVO3XE028ZFKYQ@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> > >The Pesticide Information Office at the University of Florida has completed >a Creole translation of "Protect Yourself from Pesticides - A Guide for Agricultural Workers". Gempler's may print the publication, but is waiting to see if >Congress takes any action regarding the WPS before printing other language >versions of worker training materials. We have a limited supply of the Creole >manual. We can supply one copy per request. This copy can be used for duplica- >ting additional copies. >Norm Nesheim >Pesticide Information Coordinator >Building 847, Box 110710 >University of Florida >Gainesville, FL 32600-0710 >904/392-4721 >onn@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu > Norm, I'd like a copy of your Creole WPS translation. Incidentally, I assume EPA is keeping track of all the translations that have been mentioned over the WPS-Forum; am I right? Amy Brown Entomology Dept. University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742> From CBeytes@aol.com Mon Jan 9 07:11:51 1995 Received: from mail04.mail.aol.com (mail04.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.53]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id HAA12603 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 1995 07:11:50 -0800 From: CBeytes@aol.com Received: by mail04.mail.aol.com (1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA26741; Mon, 9 Jan 1995 10:08:12 -0500 Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 10:08:12 -0500 Message-Id: <950109100531_3369709@aol.com> To: WPS-Forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: enforcement and penalties Now that the implementation dust has started to settle, the bigger question on greenhouse operators' minds (most have been in full compliance since last year) is enforcement and penalties. The WPS manual ignores this area completely, as far as tell. University people have told me that the EPA has given enforcement authority to the states. First, who at the state level will be enforcing WPS? Early questions to state agencies concerning WPS issues usually result in shrugged shoulders, confused looks and a response of "Beats me, ask Washington," evidence that many state agencies aren't yet familiar enough with the details of the law to make growers feel good about their ability to fairly enforce it. Second, what are the penalties for non-compliance? Are there federal guidelines that all enforcement agencies will be required to follow, or will they make it up as they go along? These are real concerns; I've already heard of a few cases going to court. I'd like to hear from someone at the federal level who has the facts, not just more questions. I'm interested in providing this information to my readers and may want help on a short article. Sincerely, Chris Beytes Managing editor, GrowerTalks P.S. Our WPS seminar at GrowerExpo was a great success, with our speakers able to provide the latest update on EPA's recent actions. However, we had a marketing seminar running concurrently, and attendance in it was three times higher, showing what's foremost in the minds of greenhouse growers today. My apologies to those who wanted to attend just the WPS seminar without having to pay for the full four day conference. I will be bringing the issue up at our Expo '96 planning meeting. From pbaker@ag.Arizona.EDU Mon Jan 9 10:30:19 1995 Received: from ag.Arizona.EDU (Ag.Arizona.EDU [128.196.42.70]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA15420 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 1995 10:30:13 -0800 Received: by ag.Arizona.EDU (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04568; Mon, 9 Jan 1995 11:30:48 +0700 Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 11:30:48 -0700 (MST) From: Paul B Baker To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Federal fresh chickens In-Reply-To: <9501091351.AA20964@umailsrv1.UMD.EDU> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII content-length: 943 Amy is right. Lets please keep it to the topic at hand and that is WPS. Thanks Paul Paul Baker (602) 621-4012 Pesticide Coordinator's Office (602) 621-4013 FAX Department of Entomology pbaker@ag.arizona.edu University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721 On Mon, 9 Jan 1995, ab35 wrote: > Dear forum users -- > > Bob Roach's recent communication on poultry was somewhat interesting but I > fail to see its tie-in with WPS issues. There have been similar postings in > the past. Those of us out-of-staters who are members of the forum are willing > to wade through the stuff that's unique to California regulations for the sake > of the occasional useful discussion. However, when forum users stray from > the central issue of WPS some of us get frustrated. I know a number of > people who have reluctantly quit the forum because of this. > From woodard@igc.apc.org Mon Jan 9 12:44:36 1995 Received: from mail.igc.apc.org (root@mail.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.38]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA18736 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 1995 12:44:35 -0800 Received: from ppp5.igc.org (woodard@ppp5.igc.org [198.94.6.5]) by mail.igc.apc.org (8.6.9/Revision: 1.55 ) with SMTP id MAA29372 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 1995 12:44:58 -0800 Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 12:44:58 -0800 Message-Id: <199501092044.MAA29372@mail.igc.apc.org> X-Sender: woodard@pop.igc.apc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: woodard@igc.apc.org (Woody) Subject: Re: enforcement and penalties Sender: woodard@igc.apc.org >University people have told me that the EPA has given enforcement authority >to the states. First, who at the state level will be enforcing WPS? Early >questions to state agencies concerning WPS issues usually result in shrugged >shoulders, confused looks and a response of "Beats me, ask Washington," >evidence that many state agencies aren't yet familiar enough with the details >of the law to make growers feel good about their ability to fairly enforce >it. In a Sept. 30, 1994 letter from Lynn Goldman (Assistant Administrator - EPA) to Richard W. Kirchoff (VP & CEO NASDA) she states: "After proposing the revisions, the Agency intends to issue guidance to States that will describe the potential revisions and recommend enforcement discreation until the crop advisor provisions are formally revised in early 1995." This leads me to beleive that enforcement is indeed in the hands of the states, not just with respect to crop advisors. Here in Florida, enforcement is ultimately conducted through the State Department of Agriculture, albeit a sub agency/department, which I imagine will be different for each state. Along these lines, I heard a 3 second blurb on the news about congress halting enforcement of all 'unfunded federal mandates', which was rudely followed by 20 minutes of Connie Chung's oops, and Power Rangers in congress. In light of NASDA's letter to congress, I was wondering if this was indeed true, or if anyone has heard similar things concerning WPS. >Second, what are the penalties for non-compliance? Are there federal >guidelines that all enforcement agencies will be required to follow, or will >they make it up as they go along? I'll quote Kathleen Osgood, the Florida Department of Ag and Consumer Services Pesticide Compliance Supervisor, from two separate grower meetings held in November here in Florida. She stated that the fine would be $10,000 per non-compliance offense, but followed this comment by stating that a first time violation would rarely result in a fine, but rather a warning, unless the violations were blatent, and worker safety was an obvious risk. She said a first time violation would just about guarantee future and continued inspections, and that subsequent violations would be fined, but at amounts nowhere near 10K realistically. /*************************************************************************** ******************/ Jeff Woodard Glades Crop Care voice: 407-746-3740 949 Turner Quay fax: 407-746-3775 Jupiter, FL 33478 e-mail: woodard@igc.apc.org - jwoodard@crl.nmsu.edu - woody@taipan.nmsu.edu woody@ios.com woody0@aol.com Life is nothing but a null pointer followed by a core dump. -My opinions are my own- /*************************************************************************** ******************/ From woodard@igc.apc.org Mon Jan 9 12:44:39 1995 Received: from mail.igc.apc.org (root@mail.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.38]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA18741 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 1995 12:44:38 -0800 Received: from ppp5.igc.org (woodard@ppp5.igc.org [198.94.6.5]) by mail.igc.apc.org (8.6.9/Revision: 1.55 ) with SMTP id MAA29455 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 1995 12:45:18 -0800 Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 12:45:18 -0800 Message-Id: <199501092045.MAA29455@mail.igc.apc.org> X-Sender: woodard@pop.igc.apc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: woodard@igc.apc.org (Woody) Subject: Re: Federal fresh chickens Sender: woodard@igc.apc.org Sorry to waste more bandwidth on this... Flames to /dev/null please. Although chickens stray a long ways from WPS, I saw the comment as refreshing, and a humorous comparison of other regulations with WPS. Yes, WPS in concept/theory is good, but in practice, many growers are too busy running around posting paper, filing, cross filing, training, and ordering a different set of PPE for each different chemical to comply with regulations that few people know who is actually enforcing. This makes it difficult to concentrate on 'big picture' issues like total use reduction through IPM and sustainable cultural practices. One has to stand back and chuckle every once in a while, even if it is at a fresh frozen chicken. >Amy is right. Lets please keep it to the topic at hand and that is WPS. >Thanks Paul > >Paul Baker (602) 621-4012 >> Bob Roach's recent communication on poultry was somewhat interesting but I >> fail to see its tie-in with WPS issues. There have been similar postings in >> the past. Those of us out-of-staters who are members of the forum are willing >> to wade through the stuff that's unique to California regulations for the sake ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Amen. /*************************************************************************** ******************/ Jeff Woodard Glades Crop Care voice: 407-746-3740 949 Turner Quay fax: 407-746-3775 Jupiter, FL 33478 e-mail: woodard@igc.apc.org - jwoodard@crl.nmsu.edu - woody@taipan.nmsu.edu woody@ios.com woody0@aol.com Life is nothing but a null pointer followed by a core dump. -My opinions are my own- /*************************************************************************** ******************/ From 73507.555@compuserve.com Mon Jan 9 21:51:01 1995 Received: from dub-img-2.compuserve.com (dub-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.9.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id VAA26555 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 1995 21:51:00 -0800 Received: by dub-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.9/5.941228sam) id AAA11998; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 00:50:24 -0500 Date: 10 Jan 95 00:49:05 EST From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Relevance of chickens to WPS Message-ID: <950110054904_73507.555_HHB40-1@CompuServe.COM> Amy, Allow me to explain myself. After returning from a long weekend I checked my mail and found that the box was empty! I just thought the forum needed a jump start. As for the relevance to the Worker Protection Standard, my point is that federal standards are sometimes absurd. I was voicing frustration at having a federal bureaucracy impose upon the states rules that are bad. Members may come and members may go but every time I hear the latest subscriber count, it is higher than the last. > Dear forum users -- > > Bob Roach's recent communication on poultry was somewhat interesting but I > fail to see its tie-in with WPS issues. There have been similar postings in > the past. Those of us out-of-staters who are members of the forum are willing > to wade through the stuff that's unique to California regulations for the sake > of the occasional useful discussion. However, when forum users stray from > the central issue of WPS some of us get frustrated. I know a number of > people who have reluctantly quit the forum because of this. > Bob Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com From <@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU:AFRENCH@ERS.BITNET> Tue Jan 10 07:30:17 1995 Received: from nak.berkeley.edu (nak.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.136.21]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id HAA29883 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 07:30:17 -0800 Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by nak.berkeley.edu (8.6.8.1/1.40) id HAA12471; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 07:30:16 -0800 Message-Id: <199501101530.HAA12471@nak.berkeley.edu> Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1606; Tue, 10 Jan 95 07:31:07 PST Received: from ERS.BITNET by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 7889; Tue, 10 Jan 95 07:31:07 PST Received: from ERS (AFRENCH) by ERS.BITNET (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 6695; Tue, 10 Jan 95 10:30:08 EST Date: Tue, 10 Jan 95 10:28:16 EST From: Al French Subject: WPS Proposed Rules Will Publish Tomorrow To: WPS-FORUM@are.Berkeley.EDU X-Acknowledge-To: The following five WPS proposed rules will publish in the Federal Register on January 11, 1995. Training grace period and phase-in period associated with grace period, 16 pgs. Crop advisors; exemption, 12 pgs. Exceptions to early entry retrictions; irrigation activities, 35 pgs. Exceptions to early entry retrictions; limited contact activities, 13 pgs. Reduced restricted entry intervals for pesticides; policy, 12 pgs. Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs 202/720-4737 afrench@ers.bitnet or afrench%ers.bitnet@vtbit.cc.vt.edu From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Tue Jan 10 11:26:58 1995 Received: from [128.32.251.103] (gia5mac23.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.103]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA05137 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 11:26:55 -0800 X-Sender: howardr@are.berkeley.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 11:27:23 -0800 To: wps-forum From: ray@acpa.org (by way of howardr@are.berkeley.edu (Howard R. Rosenberg)) Subject: EPA Press Release of 1/5/95 Last week EPA issued the following Press Release to explain the Agency's current position on WPS enforcement and actions proposed to meet NASDA's concerns. -------------------------------- FOR RELEASE: THURSDAY, JANUARY 5, 1995 The Worker Protection Standard (WPS) to protect the health of agricultural workers from occupational exposure to pesticides went into full effect on Jan. l. In a memorandum sent to the states and EPA Regional Offices, EPA is urging continued efforts to educate and assist the agricultural community in carrying out the provisions of the agricultural standard. In response to requests that certain elements of the standard, established in l992, be more flexible and practical for states and farmers to implement, EPA today also issued five proposed revisions to the standard. The standard is designed to protect the health and safety of approximately 3.5 million agricultural workers from occupational exposure to pesticides on farms, in forests, greenhouses and nurseries. It was slated to go into full effect on April l5, l994. However, Congress extended the effective date of some provisions of WPS until Jan. l, l995. "Our goal in moving this standard forward is twofold: to protect the public health of the nation's agricultural workers, particularly when they handle pesticides, and to provide states and farmers with a flexible, common-sense approach that will help them implement the standard on a day-to-day basis," said EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner. "We will continue to work with the states and with farmers to ensure that their needs are met as this important standard is carried out." Browner noted that the standard would prevent adverse health effects among farmworkers, and reduce both medical costs and lost work time for the nation's agricultural workers. The WPS requires that steps be taken to reduce farmworker exposure to pesticides and to inform and educate farmworkers so that they can take measures necessary to protect themselves. To prepare for the Jan. l implementation of the agricultural worker regulations, EPA has produced and distributed more than 800,000 WPS compliance manuals, nearly two million handbooks for agricultural workers and pesticide handlers and over 475,000 safety posters. Training flipcharts, a guide to preventing heat stress, a train-the-trainer program, training videos and fact sheets have been produced and are available from numerous sources at a reasonable cost. Currently, WPS training programs are under way by state agencies, cooperative extension services and private training organizations. Recognizing the unique circumstances and diversity in agricultural settings affected by the WPS, EPA is striving to address and accommodate the concerns raised regarding the WPS. During the past year, EPA met directly with many affected organizations to resolve problems and improve implementation of the standard. As a result, EPA has issued proposed changes to five areas of the WPS, many of which will provide relief to the regulated community. The agricultural community and the public will have at least 30 days to comment on the proposed changes before the Agency finalizes them, which is expected in March. The proposals include the following: A proposal to reduce the restrictions on performing certain irrigation activities following application of pesticides. A proposal to allow workers to enter areas treated with certain lower risk pesticides after four hours rather than l2 hours. Approximately 80 lower risk pesticides are potential candidates for the proposal, including many biological and microbial pesticides. A proposal to shorten the grace period before which employers must train workers in pesticide safety. The rule also proposes to shorten the interval before which workers must be retrained. A proposal to exempt crop advisors from certain provisions of the WPS regulations, particularly those that apply to early entry to treated areas following pesticide application. A proposal to reduce the requirements that apply to workers who enter areas treated with pesticides in the case of specified activities that would result in limited contact to pesticides. Persons who want to receive educational materials or other information about the Worker Protection Standard for agricultural workers should contact their state pesticide agency or EPA regional office or EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs at 703-305-7371. From SMITH.JUDY@epamail.epa.gov Tue Jan 10 13:59:25 1995 Received: from VAXTM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV (vaxtm1.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.95]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id NAA08603 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 13:59:22 -0800 Received: from pyxis.rtpnc.epa.gov by epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #5309) id <01HLOSW9TSO08WZXNP@epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 16:56:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from mr.rtpnc.epa.gov by mail.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #5309) id <01HLOSSW11KW8WY1HG@mail.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 16:54:19 -0500 (EST) Received: with PMDF-MR; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 16:49:19 EST MR-Received: by mta CARINA; Relayed; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 16:49:19 -0500 Alternate-recipient: prohibited Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 16:36:00 -0500 (EST) From: JUDY SMITH 703-305-6605 Subject: EPA Draft Proposal for Crop Advisors To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-id: <01HLOST1PQEU8WY1HG@mr.rtpnc.epa.gov> X-Envelope-to: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Posting-date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 16:43:00 -0500 (EST) Importance: normal Priority: normal X400-MTS-identifier: [;91946101105991/2261238@MAIL] A1-type: MAIL Hop-count: 1 The following document will appear in the Federal Register on January 11, 1995. Interested stakeholders are urged to comment on the document and instructions concerning mechanisms available for making comments are provided withi= n the=20 draft notice. =20 Judy Smith US EPA CT&OS Branch Field Operations Division 703-305-7666 =20 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY =20 40 CFR Part 170 =20 [OPP-250100; FRL-4928-7] =20 RIN 2070-AC82=20 =20 Pesticide Worker Protection Standard; Requirements for Crop= =20 Advisors =20 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.=20 =20 ACTION: Proposed rule. -----------------------------------------------------------= ------ - =20 SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to amend the worker protection= =20 requirements for agricultural establishments, by exempting= =20 certified or licensed crop advisors from the requirements. = EPA is=20 also proposing to exempt crop advising employees of certifi= ed or=20 licensed crop advisors from the WPS requirements except pes= ticide=20 safety training. A temporary exemption for all persons doin= g crop=20 advising tasks to allow time for acquiring licensing or= =20 certification is also proposed.=20 =20 DATES: Written comments must be received on or before (inse= rt=20 date 30 days from date of publication in the Federal Regist= er). (Federal Register date of publication is January 11, 1995.) =20 ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments to: Public Resp= onse=20 and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (75= 06C),=20 Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agen= cy, 401 M St.,=20 SW., Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring comments to: Ro= om 1132,=20 Crystal Mall 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA= 22202.=20 Information submitted in any comment concerning this docume= nt may=20 be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that= =20 information as ``Confidential Business Information'' (CBI).= =20 Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accor= dance=20 with procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. A copy of the c= omment=20 that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion i= n the=20 public record. Information not marked confidential may be d= isclosed=20 publicly by EPA without prior notice. All written comments,= =20 including non-CBI copies, will be available for public insp= ection=20 in Rm. 1132 at the Virginia address given above, from 8 a.m= . to 4=20 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.=20 =20 Comments and data may also be submitted electronically= by any=20 of three different mechanisms: by sending electronic mail = (e-mail)=20 to: Docket-OPPTS@epamail.epa.gov; by sending a ``Subscribe'= '=20 message to listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov and once subs= cribed,=20 send your comments to RIN-2070-AC69; or through the EPA El= ectronic=20 Bulletin Board by dialing 202-488-3671, enter selection ``= DMAIL,''=20 user name ``BB_USER'' or 919-541-4642, enter selection ``M= AIL,''=20 user name ``BB_USER.'' Electronic comments must be submitte= d as an=20 ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any f= orm of=20 =0C=00 encryption. Comments and data will also be accepted on disk= s in=20 WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII file format. All c= omments=20 and data in electronic form must be identified by the docke= t number=20 OPP-250100 since all five documents in this separate part p= rovide=20 the same electronic address. No CBI should be submitted thr= ough e- mail. Electronic comments on this proposed rule, but not t= he=20 record, may be viewed or new comments filed online at many = Federal=20 Depository Libraries. Additional information on electronic= =20 submissions can be found in unit VI. of this document. = =20 =20 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald E. Eckerman, Office= of=20 Pesticide Programs (7506C), Environmental Protection Agency= , 401 M=20 Street, SW Washington, DC 20460. Office location and telep= hone=20 number: Room 1101, Crystal Mall 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hig= hway,=20 Arlington, VA 22202 Telephone: 703-305-7371. =20 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is proposing this rule in re= sponse=20 to comments received from crop advisor groups requesting ex= emptions=20 from the Worker Protection Standard (WPS). Specifically, EP= A is=20 proposing to amend 40 CFR Part 170, governing worker protec= tion=20 requirements on agricultural establishments, to exempt cert= ified or=20 licensed crop advisors from the requirements of the rule. E= PA is=20 also proposing to exempt crop advising employees of certifi= ed or=20 licensed crop advisors from the WPS requirements except pes= ticide=20 safety training. A temporary exemption for all persons doin= g crop=20 advising tasks to allow time for acquiring licensing or= =20 certification is also proposed.=20 =20 I. Statutory Authority=20 =20 This proposed rule is issued under the authority of se= ction=20 25(a) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticid= e Act=20 (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136w(a).=20 =20 II. Background =20 This proposed WPS rule amendment is one of a series of= Agency=20 actions in response to concerns raised since publication of= the=20 final rule in August 1992 by those interested in and affect= ed by=20 the rule. In addition to this proposed amendment, EPA is pu= blishing=20 four other notices soliciting public comment on concerns ra= ised by=20 various affected parties. Other actions EPA is considering = include:=20 (1) modification to the worker training requirements; (2)= =20 exceptions to early entry restrictions for irrigation activ= ities;=20 (3) reduced restricted entry intervals (REIs) for low risk= =20 pesticides; and (4) reduced early entry restrictions for ac= tivities=20 involving limited contact with treated surfaces. The Agency= is=20 interested in receiving comments on all options and questio= ns=20 presented. =20 FIFRA authorizes EPA to regulate the sale, distributio= n, and=20 use of pesticides in the United States. The Act generally r= equires=20 that EPA license by registration each pesticide product sol= d or=20 distributed in the United States, if use of that the pestic= ide=20 =0C=00 product will not cause ``unreasonable adverse effects on th= e=20 environment,'' a determination that takes into account the= =20 economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of t= he use=20 of the product. =20 In 1992 EPA revised the WPS (40 CFR Part 170) (57 FR 3= 8102,=20 August 21, 1992) which is intended to protect agricultural = workers=20 and handlers from risks associated with agricultural pestic= ides.=20 The 1992 WPS superseded the original WPS promulgated in 197= 4 and=20 expanded the WPS scope to include not only workers performi= ng hand=20 labor operations in fields treated with pesticides, but als= o=20 workers in or on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses= , as=20 well as pesticide handlers who mix, load, apply, or otherwi= se=20 handle pesticides for use at these locations in the product= ion of=20 agricultural commodities. The revisions to the WPS were int= ended to=20 reduce the risk of pesticide poisonings and injuries among= =20 agricultural workers who are exposed to pesticide residues = and=20 pesticide handlers who may face more hazardous levels of ex= posure. =20 Under the 1992 WPS, crop advisors are defined by the t= asks=20 performed, specifically, as persons who assess pest numbers= or=20 damage, pesticide distribution, or the status or requiremen= ts of=20 agricultural plants. The term does not include any person w= ho is=20 performing hand labor tasks. Crop consultants, pest control= =20 advisors, silviculturalists, scouts and crop advisors commo= nly=20 perform crop advising tasks on farms, nurseries, greenhouse= s and=20 forests. As such, these individuals when performing crop ad= visor=20 tasks are included under the definition of crop advisor in = the WPS. =20 Persons performing crop advisor tasks during the pesti= cide=20 application, before the inhalation exposure level listed in= the=20 labeling has been reached or one of the ventilation criteri= a has=20 been met, or during a restricted entry interval (REI), are = included=20 in the WPS's definition of handlers. As handlers, crop advi= sors may=20 enter treated areas during the REI without time limitations= , if=20 provided with the personal protective equipment (PPE) requi= red on=20 the product labeling and other protections as handlers. Emp= loyees=20 of agricultural establishments who are performing crop-advi= sing=20 tasks in a treated area within 30 days of the expiration of= an REI=20 are provided the same protections as workers under Part 170= .=20 Employees of commercial pesticide handling establishments w= ho are=20 performing crop advisor tasks in a treated area after the= =20 expiration of an REI are excluded from the definition of ``= worker''=20 under Part 170 and, therefore, their presence in the treate= d area=20 does not trigger any WPS requirements. =20 During the 1992 rulemaking, USDA expressed concerns ab= out=20 limiting the access of crop consultants and integrated pest= =20 management (IPM) scouts to treated areas immediately follow= ing=20 pesticide applications. In response to this concern, EPA in= cluded=20 crop advisors in the definition of handlers rather than wor= kers so=20 as to allow crop advisors unlimited access to treated areas= during=20 application and the REIs. =20 =0C=00 =20 Since promulgation of the WPS, EPA has received a numb= er of=20 comments on the requirements for crop advisors. Crop adviso= r groups=20 and the National Association of State Departments of Agricu= lture=20 (NASDA) have commented that crop advisors are capable, by v= irtue of=20 their knowledge, training and experience, of determining th= e=20 appropriate precautions to be followed when working in pest= icide=20 treated areas, and therefore should be excluded from the WP= S. The=20 National Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants (NAICC) c= ommented=20 that crop consultants, and their field survey and scouting= =20 employees, should be exempted from many of the provisions o= f the=20 WPS. =20 In April 1994, Congress passed the Pesticide Complianc= e Dates=20 Extension Act which, among other things, exempted crop advi= sors=20 from the requirements of the WPS until January 1, 1995. Thi= s delay=20 was to allow time for EPA to resolve concerns that had been= raised=20 relative to the WPS, including the crop advisor requirement= s. Since=20 the delay legislation, EPA has received additional comments= , which=20 are discussed under the appropriate sections in this preamb= le.=20 =20 III. Exemption of a Qualified Subset of Crop Advisors from = WPS=20 Requirements =20 EPA is proposing to exempt a qualified subset of crop= =20 advisors, those who are certified or licensed, and their cr= op=20 advisor employees from all requirements of the WPS except f= or=20 pesticide safety training. Crop advisors who are certified = or=20 licensed could substitute the training received during lice= nsing or=20 certification, if equivalent to the WPS training. =20 EPA is also proposing to exempt all individuals perfor= ming=20 crop advisor activities from all the WPS requirements until= January=20 1, 1996 to allow time for individuals to obtain certificati= on or=20 licensing. After January 1, 1996 only crop advisors who are= =20 certified or licensed and their direct employees will be ex= empt.=20 All others performing crop advising tasks will be subject t= o the=20 full WPS requirements. Based on the comments received since= the=20 1992 rulemaking, EPA reconsidered the requirements applicab= le to=20 crop advisors and has determined that there may be a subset= of crop=20 advisors, those who are licensed or certified and trained i= n=20 pesticide safety, that could be exempted from providing the= =20 protections of the WPS for themselves and their employees. =20 In general, the purpose of the WPS is to protect agric= ultural=20 employees from the risks of exposure to pesticides. Trained= crop=20 advisors who are licensed or certified are generally more i= nformed=20 about the hazards associated with pesticides and good pesti= cide=20 safety practices and should be capable of making informed j= udgement=20 about risks and what protections should be provided for ind= ividuals=20 performing crop advising tasks. =20 EPA discussed the WPS with the Agronomy Society of Ame= rica in=20 order to obtain more information that would help EPA define= the=20 subset of crop advisors that could potentially be exempted.= The=20 =0C=00 Agronomy Society of America informed EPA that it has a Cert= ified=20 Crop Advisor program administered in each participating Sta= te by a=20 board made up of representatives of various State agencies,= =20 universities, commodity associations, and other at-large me= mbers.=20 In order to be certified as a crop advisor under this progr= am, the=20 individual must pass an examination on specified subject ar= eas,=20 have a combination of education and experience as a crop ad= visor,=20 and to maintain certification, complete continuing educatio= n=20 credits. The subject areas in the examination include pesti= cide=20 safety, WPS requirements, and various subjects related to= =20 agricultural plant production. =20 In addition, a variety of licensing and certification = programs=20 for crop advisors are administered by States across the cou= ntry.=20 For example, California licenses crop advisors and requires= that=20 licensees meet certain minimum qualifications including a m= inimum=20 number of college level semester units in areas related to= =20 agriculture, and two years of technical experience. =20 The National Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants = (NAICC)=20 commented that most of their members have degrees in agricu= lture=20 and train their employees in pesticide safety. NAICC furthe= r=20 suggested that nationally recognized registries of crop= =20 consultants, or State level licenses or certifications, cou= ld be=20 used to define the crop advisors who would be exempt from W= PS.=20 Those individuals not meeting the requirements of a licensi= ng or=20 certification program could continue to work as crop adviso= rs under=20 the same protections as currently required in the WPS. NASD= A=20 recommended in a July 1994 petition for rulemaking that the= WPS=20 ``exclude paid crop advisors that work on a full-time basis= for a=20 group of agricultural employers but only part-time for any = single=20 farmer.'' NASDA did not provide its rationale for excluding= this=20 category of crop advisors from the WPS. NASDA also recommen= ded that=20 the WPS exclude persons such as government agency employees= ,=20 pesticide company representatives, and university researche= rs who=20 perform crop advisor tasks. =20 EPA is proposing, in =A7 170.202(c)(2), =A7 170.130(b)= (2) and=20 =A7 170.230(b)(2) to exempt from the WPS protections, crop = advisors=20 who are licensed or certified by a program administered or = approved=20 by a State, Tribal, or Federal agency having jurisdiction o= ver such=20 licensing or certification, provided that the licensing or= =20 certification requires pesticide safety training that inclu= des all=20 the information set forth in =A7 170.230(c)(4). EPA is also= proposing=20 in =A7 170.202(c)(2) to exempt employees of licensed or cer= tified=20 crop advisors from the WPS protections except the pesticide= safety=20 training requirements. =20 Under EPA's proposal, certified or licensed crop advis= ors,=20 (including government agency personnel, pesticide company= =20 representatives, or university researchers) would be exempt= from=20 the WPS requirements. Currently under the WPS, if employers= of=20 government agency personnel, pesticide company representati= ves, or=20 university researchers do not have a contractual relationsh= ip or=20 =0C=00 exchange compensation of any type with an agricultural=20 establishment or commercial pesticide handling establishmen= t for=20 crop advising activities, then neither the agricultural emp= loyer=20 nor the commercial pesticide handling establishment is requ= ired to=20 provide the WPS protections to the government agency person= nel,=20 pesticide company representatives, or university researcher= s. =20 Also under EPA's proposal, those crop advisors who do = not=20 become certified or licensed will remain subject to the ful= l=20 requirements of the WPS if they are not employed by a licen= sed or=20 certified crop advisor. After January 1, 1996 only crop adv= isors=20 who are certified or licensed and their direct employees wi= ll be=20 exempt. All others performing crop advising tasks will be s= ubject=20 to the full WPS requirements. =20 EPA solicits comments on other possible ways for crop = advisors=20 to obtain training and experience equivalent to being certi= fied or=20 licensed by a program administered or approved by a State, = Tribal,=20 or Federal agency. Commenters suggesting other types of pro= grams=20 should include information on the requirements for such pro= grams=20 and how completion of the program could be verified for enf= orcement=20 purposes. =20 While EPA is willing to propose exempting the employee= s of=20 certified or licensed crop advisors from WPS requirements, = it=20 remains concerned that employees may not have necessary pro= tections=20 readily available. EPA is interested in receiving comments = on=20 industry practices that would assure that proper protection= s are=20 available to employees. These include but are not limited t= o=20 routine use of PPE and/or provision of PPE and decontaminat= ion=20 supplies to employees. =20 IV. Temporary Exemption for Crop Advisor Activities =20 EPA is proposing in =A7 170.202(c)(2) to exempt all in= dividuals=20 performing crop advisor activities until January 1, 1996. T= his will=20 effectively extend the exemption for crop advisors in the d= elay=20 legislation referenced earlier in this document and will al= low=20 those crop advisors who are not now licensed or certified t= o obtain=20 such credentials prior to the end of the temporary exemptio= n. =20 EPA would like comment on the proposed temporary exemp= tion=20 expiration date and its feasibility in terms of sufficient = time for=20 crop advisors to complete licensing or certification requir= ements.=20 Also, is a total temporary exemption necessary? Should a su= bset of=20 crop advisors be exempt? Or should the exemption apply to o= nly a=20 few of the WPS requirements? =20 V. Technical Amendments =20 EPA is revising =A7 170.202 (c) which exempts owners o= f=20 agricultural establishments from Subpart C requirements for= =20 handlers, by reorganizing the paragraph into two parts: one= for=20 owners of agricultural establishments and one for crop advi= sors.=20 =0C=00 The existing exemption for agricultural owners is being= =20 redesignated as paragraph (1) and it has been reformatted. = No=20 substantive change has been made to the exemption for agric= ultural=20 establishment owners. =20 VI. Public Docket and Electronic Comments =20 A record has been established for this rulemaking unde= r docket=20 number "OPP-250100" (including comments and data submitted= =20 electronically as described below). A public version of th= is=20 record, including printed paper versions of electronic comm= ents,=20 which does not include any information claimed as confident= ial=20 business information (CBI), is available for inspection fro= m 8 a.m.=20 to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.= The=20 public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public Respons= e and=20 Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C)= , Office=20 of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, CM#= 2, 1921=20 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. Written comments s= hould be=20 mailed to: Public Response and Program Resources Branch, F= ield=20 Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,= =20 Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington= , DC=20 20460. =20 As part of an interagency "streamlining" initiative, E= PA is=20 experimenting with submission of public comments on selecte= d=20 Federal Register actions electronically through the Interne= t in=20 addition to accepting comments in traditional written form.= This=20 proposed exception is one of the actions selected by EPA fo= r this=20 experiment. From the experiment, EPA will learn how electr= onic=20 commenting works, and any problems that arise can be addres= sed=20 before EPA adopts electronic commenting more broadly in its= =20 rulemaking activities. Electronic commenting through post= ing to=20 the EPA Bulletin Board or through the Internet using the Li= st Serve=20 function raise some novel issues that are discussed below i= n this=20 Unit. =20 To submit electronic comments, persons can either "sub= scribe"=20 to the Internet List Serve application or "post" comments t= o the=20 EPA Bulletin Board. To "Subscribe" to the Internet ListSer= ve=20 application for this proposed exception, send an e-mail mes= sage to: =20 listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov that says "Subscribe RIN-= 2070- AC69 ." Once you are subscribed to = the=20 ListServe, comments should be sent to: RIN-2070- AC69@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov. All comments and data in elec= tronic=20 form should be identified by the docket number OPP-250100 s= ince all=20 five documents in this separate part provide the same elect= ronic=20 address. =20 For online viewing of submissions and posting of comme= nts, the=20 public access EPA Bulletin Board is also available by diali= ng 202- 488-3671, enter selection "EMAIL" user name "BB-USER" or 91= 9-541- 4642, enter selection "MAIL," user name "BB-USER." When di= aling=20 the EPA Bulletin Board type at the opening message= . When=20 the "Notes" prompt appears, type "open RIN-2070-AC69" to ac= cess the=20 =0C=00 posted messages for this document. To get a listing of all= files,=20 type "dir/all" at the prompt line. Electronic comments can= also be=20 sent directly to EPA at: =20 Docket-OPPTS@epamail.epa.gov =20 =20 Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file= =20 avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encr= yption. =20 To obtain further information on the electronic comment pro= cess, or=20 on submitting comments on this proposed exception electroni= cally=20 through the EPA Bulletin Board or the Internet List Serve, = please=20 contact John A. Richards (Telephone: 202-260-2253; FAX: 2= 02-260- 3884; Internet: richards.john@epamail.epa.gov). =20 Persons who comment on this proposed rule, and those w= ho view=20 comments electronically, should be aware that this experime= ntal=20 electronic commenting is administered on a completely publi= c=20 system. Therefore, any personal information included in co= mments=20 and the electronic mail addresses of those who make comment= s=20 electronically are automatically available to anyone else w= ho views=20 the comments. Similarly, since all electronically ant inf= ormation=20 which they believe to be CBI. Such information should be s= ubmitted=20 only directly to EPA in writing as described earlier in thi= s Unit. =20 Commenters and others outside EPA may choose to commen= t on the=20 comments submitted by others using the RIN-2070-AC69 ListSe= rve or=20 the EPA Bulletin Board. If they do so, those comments as w= ell will=20 become part of EPA's record for this rulemaking. Persons o= utside=20 EPA wishing to discuss comments with commenters or otherwis= e=20 communicate with commenters but not have those discussions = or=20 communications sent to EPA and included in the EPA rulemaki= ng=20 records should conduct those discussions and communications= outside=20 the RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board. =20 The officials record for this rulemaking, as well as = the=20 public version, as described above will be kept in paper fo= rm. =20 Accordingly, EPA will transfer all comments received electr= onically=20 in the RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board, i= n=20 accordance with the instructions for electronic submission,= into=20 printed,m paper form as they are received and will place th= e paper=20 copies in the official rulemaking record which will also in= cluded=20 all comments submitted directly in writing. All the elect= ronic=20 comments will be available to everyone who obtains access t= o the=20 RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board; however,= the=20 official rulemaking record is the paper record maintained a= t the=20 address in f"Addresses" at the beginning of this document.= =20 (Comments submitted only in written form will not be transf= erred=20 into electronic from and thus may be accessed only by revie= wing=20 them in the Public Response and Program Resources Branch as= =20 described above.) =20 Because the electronic comment process is still experi= mental,=20 epa cannot guarantee that all electronic comments will be= =20 =0C=00 accurately converted to printed, paper form. If EPA become= s aware,=20 in transferring an electronic comment to printed, paper for= m, of a=20 problem or error that results in an obviously garbled comme= nt, EPA=20 will attempt to contact the comment submitter and advise th= e=20 submitter to resubmitted the comment either in electronic o= r=20 written form. Some commenters may choose to submit identic= al=20 comments in both electronic and written form to ensure accu= racy. =20 In that case, EPA requests that commenters clearly note in = both the=20 electronic and written submissions that the comments are du= plicated=20 in the other medium. This will assist EPA in processing an= d filing=20 the comments in the rulemaking record. =20 As with ordinary written comments, at the time of rec= eipt,=20 EPA will not attempt to verify the identities of electronic= =20 commenters nor to review the accuracy of electronic comment= s. =20 Electronic and written comments will be placed in the rulem= aking=20 records without any editing or change by EPA except to the = extent=20 changes occur in the process of converting electronic comme= nts to=20 printed paper form.=20 =20 If it chooses to respond officially to electronic comm= ents on=20 this proposed rule, EPA will do so either in a notice in th= e=20 Federal Register or in a response to comments document plac= ed in=20 the rulemaking record for this proposed rule. EPA will not= respond=20 to commenters electronically other than to seek clarificati= on of=20 electronic comments that may be garbled in transmission or= =20 conversion to printed, paper form as discussed above. Any= =20 communications from EPA employees to electronic commenters,= other=20 than those described in this paragraph, either through Inte= rnet or=20 otherwise are not official responses from EPA. =20 =20 VII. Statutory Requirements =20 As required by FIFRA sec. 25(a), this proposed rule wa= s=20 provided to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and to Congr= ess for=20 review. The FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel waived its revi= ew. =20 VIII. Consultations =20 EPA has had informal consultations with some States th= rough=20 the EPA regional offices and at regularly scheduled meeting= s of=20 SFIREG where State representatives were present. No signifi= cant=20 issues were identified as a result of EPA's discussion with= the=20 States. Additionally, as a result of consultation with USDA= , EPA=20 has revised its proposal to include the employees of crop a= dvisors=20 in the proposed exemption and has proposed the temporary ex= emption=20 to allow time for crop advisors to become certified or lice= nsed.=20 EPA has also revised this document to clarify the proposal = and to=20 more directly request specific comment on the options. =20 IX. Regulatory Assessment Requirements =20 A. Executive Order 12866=20 =0C=00 =20 Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Octobe= r 4,=20 1993), it has been determined that this is a ``significant= =20 regulatory action'' because it raised potentially novel leg= al or=20 policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President'= s=20 priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Or= der. In=20 addition, the Agency estimates that the total potential cos= t=20 savings associated with the proposed amendment would range = =66rom=20 $1.7 million to $3.5 million over a ten year period, with a= single=20 crop advisor potentially saving as much as $1200 over a ten= year=20 period. This action was submitted to OMB for review, and an= y=20 comments or changes made have been documented in the public= record.=20 =20 B. Regulatory Flexibility Act =20 This rule was reviewed under the provisions of sec. 3(= a) of=20 the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and it was determined that = the=20 proposed rule would not have an adverse impact on any small= =20 entities. The proposed rule will provide cost savings to an= =20 estimated 2,500 to 5,000 crop advisors and an additional 15= ,000=20 employees of crop advisors who will be affected by the prop= osed=20 amendments. I therefore certify that this proposal does not= require=20 a separate Regulatory Impact Analysis under the Regulatory= =20 Flexibility Act. =20 C. Paperwork Reduction Act =20 EPA has determined that there are no information colle= ction=20 burdens under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act= , 44=20 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., associated with the requirements conta= ined in=20 this proposal. =20 =20 List of Subjects In Part 170 =20 Administrative practice and procedure, Occupational sa= fety and=20 health, Pesticides and pests. =20 =20 Dated: January 3, 1995. =20 Carol M. Browner, =20 Administrator. =20 =20 =20 Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 170 be amen= ded as=20 follows:=20 =20 PART 170 WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD=20 =20 1. The authority citation for Part 170 would continue = to read=20 as follows:=20 =20 =0C=00 Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136w.=20 =20 =20 2. In Section 170.130 by paragraph (b) to read as foll= ows: =20 =20 =A7 170.130. Pesticide safety training for workers.= =20 =20 * =09 * =09 *=09 *=09 * =20 (b) Exceptions. The following persons need not be trai= ned=20 under this section:=20 =20 (1) A worker who is currently certified as an applicat= or of=20 restricted-use pesticides under part 171 of this chapter.= =20 =20 (2) A worker who satisfies the training requirements o= f part=20 171 of this chapter.=20 =20 (3) A worker who satisfies the handler training requir= ements=20 of =A7 170.230(c).=20 =20 (4) A person who is licensed or certified as a crop ad= visor by=20 a program administered or approved by a State, Tribal or Fe= deral=20 agency having jurisdiction over such licensing or certifica= tion,=20 provided that a requirement for such licensing or certifica= tion is=20 pesticide safety training that includes all the information= set out=20 in =A7 170.230(c)(4) =20 * =09 * =09 *=09 *=09 * =20 =20 3. In Section 170.202 by revising paragraph (c) to rea= d as=20 follows: =20 =A7 170.202. Applicability of this subpart.=20 =20 * =09 * =09 *=09 *=09 * =20 =20 (c) Exemptions. The handlers listed in this paragraph= are=20 exempt from the specified provisions of this subpart. =20 (1) Owners of agricultural establishments. (i) The ow= ner of=20 an agricultural establishment is not required to provide to= himself=20 or members of his immediate family who are performing handl= ing=20 tasks on their own agricultural establishment the protectio= ns of:=20 =20 (A) Section 170.210(b) and (c). (B) Section 170.222. (C) Section 170.230 (D) Section 170.232.=20 (E) Section 170.234.=20 (F) Section 170.235.=20 =0C=00 (G) Section 170 240(e) through (g). (H) Section 170.250.=20 (I) Section 170.260.=20 =20 (ii) The owner of the agricultural establishment must = provide=20 the protections required by paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this sec= tion to=20 other handlers and other persons who are not members of his= =20 immediate family.=20 =20 (2) Licensed or certified crop advisors and their empl= oyees.=20 =20 (i) A person who is licensed or certified as a crop ad= visor by=20 a program administered or approved by a State, Tribal or Fe= deral=20 agency having jurisdiction for such licensing or certificat= ion,=20 provided that a requirement for such licensing or certifica= tion is=20 pesticide safety training that includes all the information= set out=20 in =A7 170.230(c)(4), is not required to provide to himself= or his=20 crop advisor employees the protections of:=20 =20 (A) Section 170.210(b) and (c).=20 (B) Section 170.232.=20 (C) Section 170.240.=20 (D) Section 170.250.=20 (E) Section 170.260.=20 =20 (ii) Any individual when performing tasks as a crop ad= visor is=20 exempt until January 1, 1996 from the requirements of: =20 (A) Section 170.210(b) and (c).=20 (B) Section 170.230.=20 (C) Section 170.232.=20 (D) Section 170.240.=20 (E) Section 170.250.=20 (F) Section 170.260.=20 =20 5. In =A7 170.230 by revising paragraph (b) to read as= follows:=20 =20 =A7 170.230. Pesticide safety training for handlers. =20 * =09 * =09 *=09 *=09 * =20 =20 (b) Exceptions. The following persons need not be trai= ned=20 under this section:=20 =20 (1) A handler who is currently certified as an applica= tor of=20 restricted-use pesticides under part 171 of this chapter. (2) A handler who satisfies the training requirements = of part=20 171 of this chapter. (3) A person who is licensed or certified as a crop ad= visor by=20 a program administered or approved by a State, Tribal or Fe= deral=20 agency having jurisdiction over such licensing or certifica= tion,=20 provided that a requirement for such licensing or certifica= tion is=20 pesticide safety training that includes all the information= set out=20 =0C=00 in paragraph (c)(4) of this section. =20 * =09 * =09 *=09 *=09 * =20 [FR Doc. 95-????? Filed ??-??-95; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-F=20 From SMITH.JUDY@epamail.epa.gov Tue Jan 10 14:03:35 1995 Received: from VAXTM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV (vaxtm1.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.95]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id OAA08707 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 14:03:32 -0800 Received: from pyxis.rtpnc.epa.gov by epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #5309) id <01HLOT25ZVQ88X0948@epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 17:01:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from mr.rtpnc.epa.gov by mail.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #5309) id <01HLOSZ2DN348WY34Y@mail.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 16:59:15 -0500 (EST) Received: with PMDF-MR; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 16:55:35 EST MR-Received: by mta CARINA; Relayed; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 16:55:35 -0500 Alternate-recipient: prohibited Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 16:43:00 -0500 (EST) From: JUDY SMITH 703-305-6605 Subject: EPA's Limited Contact Proposal To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-id: <01HLOSZ616TI8WY34Y@mr.rtpnc.epa.gov> X-Envelope-to: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.edu MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Posting-date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 16:53:00 -0500 (EST) Importance: normal Priority: normal X400-MTS-identifier: [;53556101105991/2261344@MAIL] A1-type: MAIL Hop-count: 1 The following document will appear in the Federal Register = on January 11, 1995. Interested parties are encouraged to pro= vide comments for the Agency; mechanisms for providing comments = are outlined within the document. =20 Judy Smith CT&OSB Field Operations Division 703-305-7666 =20 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY =20 40 CFR Part 170 =20 [OPP-250101; FRL-4930-4] =20 Exceptions to Worker Protection Standard Early Entry=20 Restrictions; Limited Contact Activities =20 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).=20 =20 ACTION: Proposed exceptions to rule; request for comment. -----------------------------------------------------------= ------ =20 SUMMARY: EPA is proposing an exception to the Worker Protec= tion=20 Standard for Agricultural Pesticides (WPS), that would allo= w,=20 under specified conditions, workers to perform early entry= =20 limited contact tasks for up to 3 hours per day during a= =20 restricted entry interval (REI). Early entry is entry into = a=20 pesticide-treated area before the expiration of the REI.= =20 =20 DATES: Comments, data, or evidence should be submitted on o= r=20 before [Insert date 45 days after date of publication in th= e=20 Federal Register]. EPA does not intend to extend this comm= ent=20 period. (This document will be published on January 11, 199= 5.) =20 ADDRESSES: Comments identified by the document control numb= er OPP-=20 250101 should be submitted in triplicate by mail to: Public= =20 Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Div= ision=20 (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protec= tion=20 Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. All written c= omments=20 filed pursuant to this notice will be available for public= =20 inspection in Room 1132, Crystal Mall 1B2, 1921 Jefferson D= avis=20 Highway, Arlington, VA, (703) 305-5805, from 8:00 a.m. to 4= :30 p.m.=20 Monday thru Friday except legal holidays. Comments and dat= a may=20 also be submitted electronically by any of three different= =20 mechanisms: by sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: Docket- OPPTS@epamail.epa.gov; by sending a ``Subscribe'' message t= o=20 listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov and once subscribed, send= your=20 comments to RIN-2070-AC69; or through the EPA Electronic Bu= lletin=20 Board by dialing 202-488-3671, enter selection ``DMAIL,'' u= ser name=20 ``BB_USER'' or 919-541-4642, enter selection ``MAIL,'' user= name=20 ``BB_USER.'' Comments and data will also be accepted on di= sks in=20 WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII file format. Elect= ronic=20 comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the us= e of=20 special characters and any form of encryption. All comments= and=20 data in electronic form must be identified by the docket nu= mber=20 OPP-250101 since all five documents in this separate part p= rovide=20 the same electronic address. No CBI should be submitted thr= ough e- mail. Electronic comments on this proposed rule, but not t= he=20 record, may be viewed or new comments filed online at many = Federal=20 Depository Library. Additional information on electronic= =20 submissions can be found in unit VI. of this document. = =20 =20 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathy Kronopolus, Certific= ation,=20 =0C=00 Training and Occupational Safety Branch (7506C), Environmen= tal=20 Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, (7= 03) 305- 7371.=20 =20 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: =20 I. Background=20 =20 Section 170.112(e) of the Worker Protection Standard f= or=20 Agricultural Pesticides (WPS) (40 CFR part 170), published = at 57 FR=20 38102 (August 21, 1992), provides the procedure for conside= ring=20 exceptions to the WPS provision that limits early entry dur= ing a=20 restricted entry interval (REI) to perform agricultural tas= ks. EPA=20 has received a request for exception to the early entry lim= itations=20 for performing limited contact tasks from the National Asso= ciation=20 of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA). EPA is conside= ring a=20 national exception to the WPS early entry restrictions for= =20 performing limited contact tasks. The purpose of this Notic= e is to=20 solicit further information and comment to assist EPA in= =20 determining whether the conditions of entry under the propo= sed=20 exception would pose unreasonable risks to workers performi= ng the=20 permitted limited contact tasks during a restricted entry i= nterval.=20 In addition, EPA solicits further information about the eco= nomic=20 impact of granting or not granting the proposed exception.= =20 =20 This proposed WPS rule amendment is one of a series of= Agency=20 actions in response to concerns raised since publication of= the=20 final rule in August 1992 by those interested in and affect= ed by=20 the rule. In addition to this proposed amendment, EPA is pu= blishing=20 four other notices soliciting public comment on concerns ra= ised by=20 various affected parties. Other actions EPA is considering = include:=20 (1) modification to the worker training requirements; (2)= =20 exceptions to early entry restrictions for irrigation activ= ities;=20 (3) reduced restricted entry intervals (REIs) for low risk= =20 pesticides; and (4) requirements for crop advisors. The Age= ncy is=20 interested in receiving comments on all options and questio= ns=20 presented. =20 A. Worker Protection Standard=20 =20 The Worker Protection Standard (WPS) promulgated at 57= FR=20 38102, August 21, 1992, is intended to reduce the risk of p= esticide=20 exposure and related poisonings and injuries among agricult= ural=20 workers and pesticide handlers. The WPS includes provisions= to: (1)=20 eliminate or reduce exposure to pesticides; (2) mitigate ex= posures=20 that occur; and (3) inform employees about the hazards of= =20 pesticides. Provisions to reduce exposure include applicati= on=20 restrictions, use of personal protective equipment (PPE), a= nd entry=20 restrictions.=20 =20 B. Entry Restrictions =20 Agricultural workers, in general, are prohibited from = entering=20 a pesticide-treated area during the restricted entry interv= al (REI)=20 =0C=00 specified on the product labeling. REIs are the time period= after=20 the end of the pesticide application during which entry int= o the=20 pesticide treated area is restricted. In the absence of pes= ticide- specific REIs, the WPS establishes a range of interim REIs,= from 12=20 to 72 hours, depending upon the toxicity of the active=20 ingredient(s) and other factors.=20 =20 C. Exceptions to Entry Restrictions =20 The WPS contains exceptions to the general prohibition= s=20 against workers entering a pesticide-treated area during th= e REI.=20 The exception provisions of =A7 170.112 permit entry into t= he treated=20 area during the REI (i.e. early entry) under specified cond= itions=20 to perform tasks that result in contact with treated surfac= es: =20 (1) Short term tasks. Section 170.112(c) permits exce= ptions=20 to the general prohibition on work in treated areas during = REIs for=20 short-term tasks, with adequate PPE, decontamination, and e= xposure=20 time limits. =20 (2) Agricultural emergencies. Section 170.112(d) perm= its=20 exceptions to the prohibition against entry into treated ar= eas=20 during REIs for agricultural emergencies. The WPS permits e= arly=20 entry by workers to perform tasks while wearing early-entry= PPE,=20 and without time limits, in response to an agricultural eme= rgency. =20 (3) EPA-approved exception. Section 170.112(e) permit= s=20 exceptions to the prohibition on work in treated areas duri= ng REIs=20 when EPA has approved a special exception. Case-by-case exc= eptions=20 may be granted if affected persons or organizations persuad= e EPA=20 that the benefits of the exception outweigh the risks assoc= iated=20 with the exception. =20 In addition, =A7 170.112(b) establishes an exception f= or=20 activities where no contact with treated surfaces will occu= r. Under=20 this provision, often referred to as 'no contact' entry, wo= rkers=20 are allowed unlimited entry into pesticide-treated areas be= fore the=20 expiration of the REI without personal protective equipment= when no=20 contact with pesticide residues on treated surfaces or in s= oil,=20 water, or air will occur.=20 =20 II. Request for Exception and Supporting Evidence =20 In a July 8, 1994 petition for rulemaking, NASDA reque= sted=20 that EPA reduce WPS requirements for low contact work durin= g the=20 REI. In particular, NASDA asked for limited PPE for low con= tact=20 activities, consisting of coveralls, chemical-resistant glo= ves, and=20 footwear, and a ``somewhat longer period than the one-hour = in=20 twenty-four hour period currently allowed by the exception = for=20 short-term activities.'' =20 In a subsequent meeting with EPA on low contact activi= ties,=20 NASDA suggested defining low contact as follows: =20 =0C=00 =09 "Low contact means a task related to the produc= tion of=20 agricultural plants that results in minimal body expos= ure.=20 Personal protective equipment cannot be used to achiev= e low=20 contact status for purposes of this definition, but ra= ther the=20 level of contact must be inherent in the nature of the= task=20 performed. The task must also meet one of the followin= g: =20 (1) Results in only incidental worker body contact wit= h=20 treated surfaces due to the stage of growth (seedlings= ) or=20 nature of the crop (size of plants), the way the task = is=20 performed (use of long handled tools or operator plac= ement on=20 equipment), or the way the pesticide was applied (soil= =20 incorporated). =20 (2) Is a very short-term task, involving worker body20= contact=20 with treated surfaces that are of only a few minutes' = duration=20 and which occur at widely separated intervals." =20 This proposed definition was developed with the help o= f the=20 American Association of Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO)= .. =20 NASDA also provided EPA with lists of tasks that they = assert=20 could require entry into treated areas during an REI, and p= roposed=20 that allowance for the accomplishment of these tasks be cov= ered=20 under any definition of 'low contact'. The lists of propose= d low or=20 limited contact activities were provided to NASDA by state= =20 pesticide regulatory agencies. In reviewing the lists of ta= sks, EPA=20 found: (1) many of the tasks may already be allowed under t= he=20 exception for activities with no contact set out in =A7 170= .112(b),=20 (2) other tasks were identified as clearly hand labor tasks= or=20 handler tasks that could result in substantial contact with= =20 pesticide treated surfaces, (3) many tasks were irrigation-= related=20 activities, which EPA is addressing in a separate exception= =20 proposal, and (4) some were non-hand labor tasks that could= , in=20 some circumstances, be accomplished with minimal contact wi= th=20 pesticide residues on treated plants, soil, and other surfa= ces,=20 depending on how the task was performed.=20 =20 III. EPA's Exception Proposal =20 A. Background =20 NASDA's membership includes state Departments of Agric= ulture,=20 the state agencies that, in most instances, are responsible= for=20 enforcing the WPS. EPA has seriously considered NASDA's req= uest and=20 acknowledges that there may be certain non-hand labor tasks= that=20 may be necessary while a treated area remains under an REI,= such=20 that the benefits resulting from the performance of these t= asks=20 outweigh the risks associated with the tasks as long as the= workers=20 can perform the early entry tasks with minimal contact. Whi= le the=20 WPS does provide in =A7 170.112 for exceptions for short-te= rm tasks=20 and 'no contact' tasks, EPA recognizes that there may be no= n-hand=20 labor tasks that may not be able to be performed under the = time=20 limitations of the short-term (1 hour) exception, or may no= t=20 =0C=00 completely fit under the provisions of the no contact or= =20 agricultural emergency exceptions.=20 =20 B. Discussion of EPA's proposal =20 EPA proposes an exception that would allow workers to = perform=20 limited contact tasks for up to 3 hours during the REI if: = (1) the=20 tasks must be performed during the REI, (2) the inhalation = exposure=20 level or ventilation criteria have been met (3) the tasks r= esult in=20 minimal contact with treated surfaces, (4) contact with pes= ticides=20 is limited to forearms, hands, lower legs, and feet, and (5= ) the=20 specified PPE requirements are met. =20 There may be non-hand labor tasks that must be perform= ed=20 during the REI that are necessary for crop production. Exam= ples of=20 possible limited contact tasks include: (1) the operation a= nd=20 repair of weather monitoring equipment, and frost protectio= n=20 equipment, (2) repair of greenhouse heating, air conditioni= ng, and=20 ventilation equipment (3) repair of non-application field= =20 equipment, and (4) maintaining and moving beehives. =20 The following scenarios provide examples of limited co= ntact=20 tasks: =20 (1) The information collected from weather monitoring= =20 equipment is often critical for the successful implementati= on of=20 integrated pest management and agricultural production (e.g= .,=20 rainfall amounts, degree days). Weather information is used= to=20 schedule pesticide and irrigation applications, and it may = be=20 necessary to enter the treated area during an REI to collec= t the=20 information. Weather equipment may be stationed in more tha= n one=20 location around a large treated area, and it may take longe= r than=20 1 hour for the worker to walk to each site to complete the= =20 information collection. The worker must walk through the tr= eated=20 area, but all of the treated plants are well below knee-hei= ght=20 and/or are sufficiently spaced apart so that the task may b= e=20 accomplished in a manner that results in minimal contact wi= th=20 treated surfaces, and such contact is only to lower arms, h= ands,=20 lower legs, and feet. =20 (2) On occasion, unanticipated repairs must be made to= non- application field equipment while in the treated area durin= g an=20 REI. The immediate repair of the non-application field equi= pment is=20 necessary and important to crop production. The nature of t= he=20 breakdown, and/or the size of the equipment may hinder the = removal=20 of the equipment from the treated field for repair, and the= repair=20 may not be able to be completed within an hour. =20 The proposed exception specifically excludes pesticide= s whose=20 labeling requires ``double notification'', i.e., the labeli= ng=20 requires both the posting of treated areas and oral notific= ation to=20 workers. EPA requires double notification for a pesticide w= hen=20 exposure _ for example, contact with treated surfaces _ has= the=20 potential to cause acute illness or injury. For pesticides = that=20 =0C=00 contain double notification requirements on their labeling,= the=20 short-term (1 hour per worker per day) exception at 40 CFR= =20 170.112(c) and PPE requirements would still apply. For the= =20 convenience of commenters, the following Appendix A lists t= he=20 active ingredients subject to WPS that may be subject to th= e double=20 notification requirement.=20 =20 Appendix A=20 =20 Worker Protection Standard ``Double Notification'' Active= =20 Ingredient List=20 =20 Please note that Appendix A (From PR Notice 93-7, Appe= ndix 3- A) is incomplete in several respects: first, it does not co= ntain=20 the active ingredients in products already bearing mandator= y=20 posting requirements prior to adoption of the WPS and that = must be=20 retained under WPS; second, it may contain a few active ing= redients=20 that will be found to not require double notification upon = further=20 EPA review (such as reregistration), and third, active ingr= edients=20 requiring double notification may be added during reregistr= ation or=20 other Agency action. Nonetheless, EPA believes that this l= ist=20 contains the bulk of the active ingredients subject to doub= le =20 notification. These listed pesticides contain an active ing= redient=20 categorized as highly toxic when absorbed through the skin = (acute=20 dermal toxicity), or as highly irritating (corrosive) when = it=20 contacts the skin, or otherwise is considered by EPA as hig= h risk=20 to workers. In addition, the exception excludes pesticides = whose=20 labels prohibit any person from entering during the REI. In= other=20 words, the label does not allow the use of the exceptions s= et out=20 in =A7 170.112. =20 Notification Active Ingredient List (PR Notice 93-7, Appen= dix 3-A) =20 COMMON NAME CHEMICAL CODE CAS NUMBER aldicarb =09 =09 098301 =09 116-06-3 aldoxycarb=09 =09 110801 =09 1646-88-4 arsenic acid=09 =09 006801 =09 7778-39-4 arsenic trioxide =09 007001 =09 1327-53-3 carbofuran=09 =09 090601 =09 1563-66-2 = =20 chlorflurenol=09 =09 098801 =09 2536-31-4 chloropicrin=09 =09 081501 =09 76-06-2 cuprous oxide=09 =09 025601 =09 1317-39-1 disulfoton=09 =09 032501 =09 298-04-4 dodine =09 =09 044301 =09 2439-10-3 endothall, dimethylcocoamine=09 038905 =09 =09 =09= =20 endothall, disodium=20 salt =09 =09 038903 =09 129-67-9 ethephon =09 =09 099801 =09 16672-87-0 ethoprop =09 =09 041101 =09 13194-48-4 fonofos =09 =09 041701 =09 944-22-9 (s)-(+)-lactic acid =09 128929 =09 79-33-4 metam-sodium=09 =09 039003 =09 137-42-8 =0C=00 methamidophos=09 =09 101201 =09 10265-92-6 methyl bromide =09 053201 =09 74-83-9 methyl parathion =09 053501 =09 298-00-0 mevinphos =09 =09 015801 =09 7786-34-7 nicotine =09 =09 056702 =09 54-11-5 paraquat =09 =09 061601 =09 1910-42-5 parathion =09 =09 057501 =09 56-38-2 phorate =09 =09 057201 =09 298-02-2 profenofos=09 =09 111401 =09 41198-08-7 propargite=09 =09 097601 =09 2312-35-8 sabadilla alkaloids =09 002201 =09 8051-02-3 sulfotepp =09 =09 079501 =09 3689-24-5 sulfuric acid=09 =09 078001 =09 7664-93-9 sulprofos =09 =09 111501 =09 35400-43-2 tefluthrin=09 =09 128912 =09 79538-32-2 terbufos =09 =09 105001 =09 13071-79-9 TPTH =09 =09 =09 083601 =09 76-87-9 = =09 =20 =09 =09 =09 =09 =20 =20 EPA is proposing to establish a reduced set of PPE for= limited=20 contact tasks, although the worker may wear the PPE specifi= ed on=20 the label even if the early entry PPE specified on the labe= l is=20 less restrictive than the reduced set. Based on the limitat= ions in=20 the exception, EPA expects that contact will not be signifi= cant and=20 a reduced set of PPE will be adequate. =20 EPA is proposing to limit the exception to 24 months (= 2=20 years), and to review and revise the terms of the exception= as=20 appropriate based upon experience during that 2 years.=20 =20 C. Proposed Terms of Exception =20 EPA is proposing an exception to the early entry restr= iction=20 for limited contact tasks, and is considering the following= =20 definition for 'limited contact task': =20 ``For the purposes of this exception, the term 'limite= d=20 contact task' means a non-hand labor task that is performed= by=20 workers that results in minimal contact with treated surfac= es=20 (including but not limited to soil, water, air, surfaces of= plants,=20 and equipment), and where such contact with treated surface= s is=20 limited to the forearms, hands, lower legs, and feet.'' =20 Under the proposed exception, a worker may enter a tre= ated=20 area during a restricted entry interval to perform a limite= d=20 contact task if the agricultural employer ensures that the= =20 following requirements are met: =20 (1) The pesticide product does not have a statement in= the=20 pesticide product labeling requiring both the posting of tr= eated=20 areas and oral notification to workers (``double notificati= on''),=20 or a restriction prohibiting any person, other than an=20 appropriately trained and equipped handler, from entering d= uring=20 the restricted entry interval. =0C=00 =20 (2) No hand labor activity is performed. =20 (3) The time in a treated area under a restricted entr= y=20 interval for any worker does not exceed 3 hours in any 24 h= our=20 period. =20 (4) The personal protective equipment for early entry = must be=20 provided to the worker by the agricultural employer for all= tasks.=20 Such personal protective equipment shall either: (a) confor= m with=20 the label requirements for early entry PPE; or (b) consist = of=20 coveralls, chemical resistant gloves, socks, and chemical r= esistant=20 footwear. In either case, the PPE must conform to the stand= ards set=20 out in =A7 170.112(c)(4)(i) through (x). =20 (5) Workers are notified verbally, before such workers= enter=20 a treated area, that the establishment is relying on this e= xception=20 to allow workers to enter treated areas to perform limited = contact=20 tasks. =20 (6) The task cannot be delayed until after the expirat= ion of=20 the restricted entry interval, or the pesticide application= could=20 not be delayed until the task was completed. =20 (7) For all limited contact tasks, the requirements of= =20 =A7 170.112(c)(3) -(9) are met. These are WPS requirements = for all=20 early entry situations that involve contact with treated su= rfaces,=20 and include (a) a prohibition against entry during the firs= t 4=20 hours, and until applicable ventilation criteria have been = met, and=20 until any label specified inhalation exposure level has bee= n=20 reached, (b) informing workers of safety information on the= product=20 labeling, (c) provision, proper management, and care of per= sonal=20 protective equipment, (d) heat-related illness prevention, = (e)=20 requirements for decontamination facilities, and (f) prohib= ition on=20 taking personal protective equipment home.=20 =20 =20 IV. Options Considered =20 EPA considered including hand labor tasks in this exce= ption,=20 but determined that hand labor tasks could not be performed= with=20 limited contact. The WPS defines hand labor as any agricult= ural=20 activity performed by hand or with hand tools that causes a= worker=20 to have substantial contact with surfaces (such as plants, = plant=20 parts, or soil) that may contain pesticide residues. These= =20 activities include, but are not limited to, harvesting,= =20 detasseling, thinning, weeding, topping, planting, sucker r= emoval,=20 pruning, disbudding, roguing, and packing produce into cont= ainers=20 in the field. Hand labor does not include operating, moving= , or=20 repairing irrigation or watering equipment or performing th= e tasks=20 of crop advisors. Hand labor tasks involve substantial cont= act and=20 are by nature high exposure scenarios and potentially high = risk. =20 EPA considered eliminating the PPE requirement for cov= eralls,=20 but has several concerns about eliminating this requirement= . Under=20 =0C=00 =A7 170.112(c), early entry workers are required to remove = PPE before=20 going home and may not take it home. If only long sleeved s= hirts=20 and long pants are worn, it may not be possible for workers= to=20 remove their work clothes when they leave the treated area,= enter=20 their vehicles, and return home. This could result in conta= mination=20 of the vehicles from their clothing, causing an increased e= xposure=20 risk to potentially toxic pesticide residues for all vehicl= e=20 occupants. Additionally, EPA believes that coveralls will a= ssure=20 greater risk reduction for workers since the WPS requires= =20 agricultural employers to assure proper handling, care and= =20 maintenance of these items. There is no such requirement fo= r=20 personal clothing. =20 EPA considered requiring that protective eyewear be in= cluded=20 in the minimum PPE requirement if required on the product l= abeling=20 for early entry because of concern about workers rubbing or= wiping=20 residues into their eyes from hands, gloves, or sleeves. EP= A=20 decided not to propose a requirement for eyewear as part of= the=20 minimal set at this time because the performance of limited= contact=20 tasks should result in minimal worker contact with treated= =20 surfaces. =20 EPA considered eliminating PPE requirements for tasks = that=20 must be performed when unanticipated repairs of non-applica= tion=20 field equipment arise, but rejected this option because EPA= =20 believes that in some instances equipment repair could resu= lt in=20 significant exposure. Unanticipated equipment repairs would= be=20 expected to occur infrequently, and some repairs may be abl= e to be=20 performed with almost no contact to treated surfaces. EPA c= ontinues=20 to be concerned that some PPE is needed to provide adequate= =20 protection for all worker activities given the range and na= ture of=20 equipment repair tasks and the potential for even limited e= xposure=20 to highly toxic pesticides.=20 =20 =20 V. Comments Solicited =20 EPA is interested in a full range of comments and info= rmation=20 on the proposed exception and on the exception options pres= ented,=20 and is providing 45 days for the submission of comments. =20 1. Need for an exception. EPA solicits comment on whet= her=20 early entry for limited contact activities is necessary.= =20 Specifically, EPA requests comments on why specific limited= contact=20 tasks could not normally be delayed until the expiration of= the=20 REI, or why the application could not be delayed until the = tasks=20 are completed. EPA requests comments on why alternative pra= ctices=20 would not be technically or financially viable (such as pla= cing=20 beehives and weather monitoring stations outside areas norm= ally=20 treated with pesticides). EPA also requests comments on the= =20 economic impacts on agricultural employers if they cannot e= nter the=20 treated area during the REI for limited contact activities.= =20 Commenters should be task specific in their response. =20 =0C=00 EPA requests information on the expected costs in term= s of=20 decreased yield, grade or quality or other economic cost as= a=20 result of being unable to perform some tasks during an REI.= In=20 addition, EPA requests information on the frequency of task= s that=20 must be done during an REI and the amount of time required = to=20 complete those tasks per occurrence and per agricultural= =20 establishment for a typical growing season. =20 2. Definition of ``limited contact''. EPA requests spe= cific=20 comments on the proposed definition of 'limited contact tas= ks'. EPA=20 is particularly concerned about defining limited contact ac= tivities=20 in a way that may inadvertently result in unnecessary routi= ne early=20 entry, which may increase risk to workers. Does the propose= d=20 definition encompass tasks or activities that are inherentl= y high=20 risk? Are there non-hand labor activities that should be co= vered by=20 the exception but do not fall under the definition as propo= sed? EPA=20 also requests information on whether worker exposures for t= he tasks=20 that fall within the proposed exception could reasonably be= limited=20 to lower legs and feet, hands and forearms, or if greater e= xposure=20 would result due to the nature of the activity. =20 EPA also solicits comments on whether there are hand l= abor=20 tasks that must be done during the REI, and whether these t= asks can=20 be accomplished without subjecting workers to substantial c= ontact. =20 3. Safety and feasibility factors. EPA requests inform= ation on=20 the safety and feasibility of a limited contact exception.= =20 Information should include, at minimum, the feasibility of= =20 performing the limited contact activity while wearing PPE; = means of=20 mitigating heat stress concerns; the cumulative amount of t= ime=20 required, per worker, per day for necessary limited contact= =20 activities; any suggested methods of reducing the worker's = exposure=20 for a given task; and any other alternative practices, such= as=20 mechanical devices that reduce workers' exposure to treated= =20 surfaces. The information should describe the costs (time a= nd=20 materials) of providing the protective measures in the term= s of the=20 proposed exception. =20 4. Duration of exposure. Because exposure is determine= d both=20 by the amount and the duration of contact with pesticides, = EPA=20 proposes to limit the total amount of time in treated areas= to=20 perform limited contact tasks to 3 hours per worker per day= . EPA=20 believes most limited contact activities can be completed i= n=20 significantly less than 3 hours, but certain circumstances = may=20 exist that would necessitate more than 3 cumulative hours o= f early=20 entry. EPA requests comment on whether 3 hours is adequate,= or if=20 some amount of time less than 3 hours would be sufficient. =20 5. Exclusion of ``double notification''. EPA requests= =20 comments on the exclusion of double notification pesticides= from=20 this proposed exception. What impact, if any, on agricultur= al=20 growers might result if double notification pesticides were= to be=20 excluded from the limited contact exception? Will the exclu= sion of=20 double notification pesticides from the exception sufficien= tly=20 =0C=00 reduce risk to workers? EPA also requests information on pe= sticide- related worker injuries or illnesses as a result of perform= ing the=20 types of tasks that would fall under this proposed limited = contact=20 exception. =20 6. PPE requirements. EPA solicits comments on the risk= s and=20 benefits for the PPE options under a limited contact except= ion. Is=20 PPE feasible for workers performing limited contact tasks, = and to=20 what extent is PPE necessary to reduce worker risk for diff= erent=20 tasks? =20 EPA specifically requests information on whether prote= ctive=20 eyewear should be included in the minimum PPE requirement i= f=20 required on the product labeling for early entry because of= concern=20 about workers rubbing or wiping residues into their eyes fr= om=20 hands, gloves, or sleeves. =20 EPA is interested in any information concerning whethe= r there=20 are certain limited contact tasks (such as repair of non- application equipment and frost protection tasks) and early= entry=20 situations (such as entry into fields that have been treate= d with=20 toxicity category IV pesticides) that may not require the u= se of=20 PPE, or may allow the use of a reduced set of PPE ( e.g., o= nly=20 waterproof gloves and chemical resistant boots). =20 7. Duration of exception. EPA requests comments on whe= ther the=20 proposed 24 month (2-year) limit is appropriate for this ex= ception,=20 or why a longer or shorter period may be more practical.= =20 =20 VI. Public Docket and Electronic Comments =20 A record has been established for this rulemaking unde= r docket=20 number "OPP-250101" (including comments and data submitted= =20 electronically as described below). A public version of th= is=20 record, including printed paper versions of electronic comm= ents,=20 which does not include any information claimed as confident= ial=20 business information (CBI), is available for inspection fro= m 8 a.m.=20 to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.= The=20 public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public Respons= e and=20 Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C)= , Office=20 of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, CM#= 2, 1921=20 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. Written comments s= hould be=20 mailed to: Public Response and Program Resources Branch, F= ield=20 Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,= =20 Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington= , DC=20 20460. =20 As part of an interagency "streamlining" initiative, E= PA is=20 experimenting with submission of public comments on selecte= d=20 Federal Register actions electronically through the Interne= t in=20 addition to accepting comments in traditional written form.= This=20 proposed exception is one of the actions selected by EPA fo= r this=20 experiment. From the experiment, EPA will learn how electr= onic=20 commenting works, and any problems that arise can be addres= sed=20 =0C=00 before EPA adopts electronic commenting more broadly in its= =20 rulemaking activities. Electronic commenting through post= ing to=20 the EPA Bulletin Board or through the Internet using the Li= st Serve=20 function raise some novel issues that are discussed below i= n this=20 Unit. =20 To submit electronic comments, persons can either "sub= scribe"=20 to the Internet List Serve application or "post" comments t= o the=20 EPA Bulletin Board. To "Subscribe" to the Internet ListSer= ve=20 application for this proposed exception, send an e-mail mes= sage to: =20 listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov that says "Subscribe RIN-= 2070- AC69 ." Once you are subscribed to = the=20 ListServe, comments should be sent to: RIN-2070- AC69@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov. All comments and data in elec= tronic=20 form should be identified by the docket number OPP-250101 s= ince all=20 five documents in this separate part provide the same elect= ronic=20 address. =20 For online viewing of submissions and posting of comme= nts, the=20 public access EPA Bulletin Board is also available by diali= ng 202- 488-3671, enter selection "EMAIL" user name "BB-USER" or 91= 9-541- 4642, enter selection "MAIL," user name "BB-USER." When di= aling=20 the EPA Bulletin Board type at the opening message= . When=20 the "Notes" prompt appears, type "open RIN-2070-AC69" to ac= cess the=20 posted messages for this document. To get a listing of all= files,=20 type "dir/all" at the prompt line. Electronic comments can= also be=20 sent directly to EPA at: =20 Docket-OPPTS@epamail.epa.gov =20 Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file= =20 avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encr= yption. =20 To obtain further information on the electronic comment pro= cess, or=20 on submitting comments on this proposed exception electroni= cally=20 through the EPA Bulletin Board or the Internet List Serve, = please=20 contact John A. Richards (Telephone: 202-260-2253; FAX: 2= 02-260- 3884; Internet: richards.john@epamail.epa.gov). =20 Persons who comment on this proposed rule, and those w= ho view=20 comments electronically, should be aware that this experime= ntal=20 electronic commenting is administered on a completely publi= c=20 system. Therefore, any personal information included in co= mments=20 and the electronic mail addresses of those who make comment= s=20 electronically are automatically available to anyone else w= ho views=20 the comments. Similarly, since all electronically ant inf= ormation=20 which they believe to be CBI. Such information should be s= ubmitted=20 only directly to EPA in writing as described earlier in thi= s Unit. =20 Commenters and others outside EPA may choose to commen= t on the=20 comments submitted by others using the RIN-2070-AC69 ListSe= rve or=20 the EPA Bulletin Board. If they do so, those comments as w= ell will=20 become part of EPA's record for this rulemaking. Persons o= utside=20 EPA wishing to discuss comments with commenters or otherwis= e=20 communicate with commenters but not have those discussions = or=20 =0C=00 communications sent to EPA and included in the EPA rulemaki= ng=20 records should conduct those discussions and communications= outside=20 the RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board. =20 The officials record for this rulemaking, as well as = the=20 public version, as described above will be kept in paper fo= rm. =20 Accordingly, EPA will transfer all comments received electr= onically=20 in the RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board, i= n=20 accordance with the instructions for electronic submission,= into=20 printed,m paper form as they are received and will place th= e paper=20 copies in the official rulemaking record which will also in= cluded=20 all comments submitted directly in writing. All the elect= ronic=20 comments will be available to everyone who obtains access t= o the=20 RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board; however,= the=20 official rulemaking record is the paper record maintained a= t the=20 address in f"Addresses" at the beginning of this document.= =20 (Comments submitted only in written form will not be transf= erred=20 into electronic from and thus may be accessed only by revie= wing=20 them in the Public Response and Program Resources Branch as= =20 described above.) =20 Because the electronic comment process is still experi= mental,=20 epa cannot guarantee that all electronic comments will be= =20 accurately converted to printed, paper form. If EPA become= s aware,=20 in transferring an electronic comment to printed, paper for= m, of a=20 problem or error that results in an obviously garbled comme= nt, EPA=20 will attempt to contact the comment submitter and advise th= e=20 submitter to resubmitted the comment either in electronic o= r=20 written form. Some commenters may choose to submit identic= al=20 comments in both electronic and written form to ensure accu= racy. =20 In that case, EPA requests that commenters clearly note in = both the=20 electronic and written submissions that the comments are du= plicated=20 in the other medium. This will assist EPA in processing an= d filing=20 the comments in the rulemaking record. =20 As with ordinary written comments, at the time of rec= eipt,=20 EPA will not attempt to verify the identities of electronic= =20 commenters nor to review the accuracy of electronic comment= s. =20 Electronic and written comments will be placed in the rulem= aking=20 records without any editing or change by EPA except to the = extent=20 changes occur in the process of converting electronic comme= nts to=20 printed paper form.=20 =20 If it chooses to respond officially to electronic comm= ents on=20 this proposed rule, EPA will do so either in a notice in th= e=20 Federal Register or in a response to comments document plac= ed in=20 the rulemaking record for this proposed rule. EPA will not= respond=20 to commenters electronically other than to seek clarificati= on of=20 electronic comments that may be garbled in transmission or= =20 conversion to printed, paper form as discussed above. Any= =20 communications from EPA employees to electronic commenters,= other=20 than those described in this paragraph, either through Inte= rnet or=20 otherwise are not official responses from EPA. =20 =0C=00 VII. EPA Decision on Proposed Exception =20 EPA will publish in the Federal Register its final dec= ision on=20 whether to grant the request for a national exception. EPA = will=20 base its decision on whether the benefits of the exceptions= =20 outweigh the costs. An exception may be withdrawn by EPA at= any=20 time if EPA receives poisoning information or other data th= at=20 indicate that the health risks imposed by the early entry e= xception=20 are unacceptable or if EPA receives other information that= =20 indicates that the exception is no longer necessary or prud= ent. =20 =20 Dated: January 3, 1995. =20 Lynn R. Goldman, Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxi= c=20 Substances. =20 [FR Doc. 95-????? Filed ??-??-95; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-F From SMITH.JUDY@epamail.epa.gov Tue Jan 10 14:10:00 1995 Received: from VAXTM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV (vaxtm1.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.95]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id OAA08902 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 14:09:55 -0800 Received: from pyxis.rtpnc.epa.gov by epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #5309) id <01HLOT8PO1WG8WZFDI@epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 17:07:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from mr.rtpnc.epa.gov by mail.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #5309) id <01HLOT5GUT0G8WY1MB@mail.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 17:04:36 -0500 (EST) Received: with PMDF-MR; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 17:02:04 EST MR-Received: by mta CARINA; Relayed; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 17:02:04 -0500 Alternate-recipient: prohibited Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 16:54:00 -0500 (EST) From: JUDY SMITH 703-305-6605 Subject: EPA Safety Training Proposal for Workers To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-id: <01HLOT5SZ8TQ8WY1MB@mr.rtpnc.epa.gov> X-Envelope-to: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Posting-date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 17:00:00 -0500 (EST) Importance: normal Priority: normal X400-MTS-identifier: [;40207101105991/2261389@MAIL] A1-type: MAIL Hop-count: 1 The following document will be published in the Federal Register on January 11, 1995. Interested parties are encouraged to provide comment to the Agency; various mechanisms are outlined in the document for providing comment. =20 Judy Smith CT&OSB Field Operations Division 703-305-7666 =20 =20 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY =20 =20 40 CFR Part 170=20 =20 [OPP-250097; FRL094901094] =20 RIN No. 2070-AC69=20 =20 Pesticide Safety Training for Workers and Handlers; Grace P= eriod =20 and Retraining Interval=20 =20 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).=20 =20 ACTION: Proposed rule. = =20 =20 -----------------------------------------------------------= ---- = =20 SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revise the Worker Protection= =20 Standard (WPS) for agricultural pesticides by providing th= ree=20 options for a training grace period (number of days of= =20 employment before workers must be trained) and a phase-in = period=20 associated with the grace period. EPA is also proposing o= ptions=20 for the retraining interval (number of years before worker= s or=20 handlers must be retrained). The objective of the propose= d=20 changes to the Standard is to help meet the goal of provid= ing a=20 trained workforce capable of better protecting itself agai= nst=20 pesticide illness and injury without imposing unreasonable= costs=20 on agricultural employers.=20 =20 DATES: Written comments, identified by the document contro= l=20 number OPP-250097, must be received on or before [insert d= ate 30=20 days after date of publication in the Federal Register.] E= PA=20 does not intend to extend this comment period. (Publicatio= n date=20 in the Federal Register is January 11, 1995.) =20 ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments to: Public Res= ponse =20 Section, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesti= cide =20 Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., = =20 Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring comments to: Rm. 1= 132, CM=20 1B2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. Informati= on=20 submitted as comment concerning this document may be claime= d=20 confidential by marking any part or all of that information= as=20 "Confidential Business Information'' (CBI). Information so= marked=20 will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures= set=20 forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the comment that does n= ot=20 contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public = record. =20 Information not marked confidential may be disclosed publi= cly by=20 EPA without prior notice. All written comments will be av= ailable=20 for public inspection in Rm. 1132 at the Virginia address = given=20 above, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, exclu= ding=20 legal holidays. = =20 =20 Comments and data may also be submitted electronically= by any=20 of three different mechanisms: by sending electronic mail = (e-mail)=20 to: Docket-OPPTS@epamail.epa.gov; by sending a ``Subscribe'= '=20 message to listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov and once subs= cribed,=20 send your comments to RIN-2070-AC69; or through the EPA El= ectronic=20 =0C=00 Bulletin Board by dialing 202-488-3671, enter selection ``= DMAIL,''=20 user name ``BB_USER'' or 919-541-4642, enter selection ``M= AIL,''=20 user name ``BB_USER.'' Electronic comments must be submitte= d as an=20 ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any f= orm of=20 encryption. Comments and data will also be accepted on disk= s in=20 WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII file format. All c= omments=20 and data in electronic form must be identified by the docke= t number=20 OPP-250097 since all five documents in this separate part p= rovide=20 the same electronic address. No CBI should be submitted thr= ough e- mail. Electronic comments on this proposed rule, but not t= he=20 record, may be viewed or new comments filed online at many = Federal=20 Depository Libraries. Additional information on electronic= =20 submissions can be found in unit VII. of this document. = =20 =20 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeanne Heying, Certificat= ion and =20 Training, and Occupational Safety Branch (7506C), Office of= =20 Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M = St., =20 SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and telephone n= umber: =20 Rm. 1109D, CM 1B2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington= VA, =20 Telephone: 703-305-7371.=20 =20 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: =20 I. Statutory Authority =20 =20 This proposal is issued under the authority of section= 25(a)=20 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act = =20 (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136w(a). =20 =20 II. Background=20 =20 This proposed WPS rule amendment is one of a series of= Agency =20 actions in response to concerns raised since publication of= the =20 final rule in August 1992 by those interested in and affect= ed by =20 the rule. In addition to this proposed amendment, EPA is= =20 publishing four other notices soliciting public comment on = concerns =20 raised by various affected parties. Other actions EPA is= =20 considering include: (1) Modifications to the requirements= for =20 those performing crop advisor tasks, (2) An exception to ea= rly =20 entry restrictions for irrigation activities; (3) Reduced= =20 restricted entry intervals (REIs) for low risk pesticides; = and (4) =20 Reduced early entry restrictions for activities involving l= imited =20 contact with treated surfaces. =20 =20 FIFRA authorizes the EPA to regulate the sale, distrib= ution,=20 and use of pesticides in the United States. The Act requir= es=20 generally that EPA license by registration each pesticide p= roduct=20 sold or distributed in the United States, if use of the pes= ticide=20 products will not cause ``unreasonable adverse effects on t= he=20 environment,'' a determination that takes into account the = =20 economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of t= he use =20 of any pesticide. =20 =20 In 1992 EPA revised the Worker Protection Standard (40= CFR =20 =0C=00 part 170) (57 FR 38102, August 21, 1992) which is intended = to =20 protect agricultural workers and handlers from risks associ= ated =20 with agricultural pesticides. The 1992 WPS superseded the = original =20 WPS promulgated in 1974. The 1992 WPS expanded the scope o= f the =20 original WPS to include not only workers performing hand la= bor =20 operations in fields treated with pesticides, but also work= ers in =20 or on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses, as well a= s =20 handlers who mix, load, apply, or otherwise handle pesticid= es for =20 use at these locations in the production of agricultural= =20 commodities. The WPS contains requirements for training,= =20 notification of pesticide applications, use of personal pro= tective =20 equipment, restricted entry intervals, decontamination, and= =20 emergency medical assistance. =20 =20 In =A7170.130(c)(4), the WPS sets out required trainin= g =20 elements for workers, including information on pesticide ha= zards =20 and exposures, signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning, h= ow to =20 obtain emergency medical care, decontamination measures in = case of =20 exposure and other pesticide hazards that may arise in the = course =20 of their work. =20 =20 Section 170.230(c)(4) of the WPS establishes the requi= red =20 training elements for handlers. These include generally th= e same =20 information as for workers. However, handlers are provided= =20 additional information related to their handling activities= : the =20 meaning and format of pesticide labels; information on pers= onal =20 protective equipment; signs, symptoms and treatment for hea= t- related illness; handling pesticides and pesticide containe= rs; =20 environmental contamination and hazards to non-target speci= es; and =20 other information on their responsibilities as handlers. T= raining =20 for handlers is more detailed than for workers, and is targ= eted =20 specifically toward handling needs and responsibilities. = =20 =20 Training for workers or handlers may be conducted by c= ertified =20 applicators or other trainers who meet State, Federal, or T= ribal =20 requirements. The agricultural employer, however, is respo= nsible =20 for assuring that workers receive required training and the= handler =20 employer is responsible for assuring that handlers receive = the =20 required training. =20 =20 To assist agricultural employers in fulfilling their= =20 responsibilities to ensure training and to provide a unifor= m =20 national standard for the conduct of worker training, EPA a= nd the =20 U.S. Department of Agriculture have established a joint tra= ining =20 verification program. Under this program, which would be= =20 administered on a voluntary basis by States through agreeme= nts with =20 EPA, workers who have been trained may be issued a training= =20 verification card. The card could be shown to each agricul= tural =20 employer who hires the worker. Under =A7170.130(d) possess= ion of a=20 valid card serves as proof of training, thus relieving the = =20 employer of having to provide training or to determine whet= her and =20 when training is required. =20 =20 The training verification program is beneficial to the= =20 =0C=00 agricultural employer and workers alike in that it provides= a =20 common basis for agreement that training provided to the wo= rker =20 meets the requirements of the WPS. EPA expects the trainin= g =20 verification card program to benefit agricultural employers= because =20 it obviates the need to train a worker, thus minimizing the= costs =20 of the WPS training requirement. Without such a card syste= m, the =20 employer might have to provide training more frequently and= to more =20 workers to assure that all had received training.=20 =20 For workers, possession of a card assures that they wi= ll be =20 able to work immediately without unnecessary delay for trai= ning. =20 =20 III. Current WPS Training Provisions at Issue=20