WORKER PROTECTION STANDARDS A SUMMARY OF THE PUBLIC'S COMMENTS AND THE AGENCY'S RESPONSE EPA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the July 8, 1988, FEDERAL REGISTER to revise 40 CFR part 170, Worker Protection Standards for Agricultural Pesticides. The proposed revisions would expand the scope of part 170 to include all workers performing tasks related to the production of agricultural plants on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses, and handlers of pesticides used on agricultural plants in these locations. The NPRM also proposed to expand requirements for notification to workers about applications, use of personal protective equipment, and restrictions on entry to treated areas, and to add new provisions for decontamination, emergency medical assistance, maintaining contact with handlers of highly toxic pesticides, cholinesterase monitoring, and safety training. In addition, EPA proposed to promulgate labeling regulations to require statements pertaining to general worker protection, reentry intervals, personal protective equipment, and posting of treated areas. The proposed revisions were based on five major concerns. First, the Agency believed that data developed subsequent to 1974 (the promulgation date of the existing part 170) concerning pesticide poisoning of workers demonstrated inadequacies and shortcomings in the scope and requirements of part 170. Many of these data were placed into the record by EPA and other parties to this rulemaking. Second, the enforcement experiences of EPA and the States over the years had led the Agency to conclude that a clearer exposition of liability and responsibility provisions would lead to improved worker protection. Third, the Agency had determined that since the reregistration program would not be completed for some pesticides for several years, measures were necessary to protect workers in the interim. Fourth, EPA believed that protection should be provided to workers not covered by the present part 170. Finally, the Agency noted the increased use of organophosphate and carbamate pesticides since 1974. These pesticides tend to be more acutely toxic to humans than pesticides commonly used in agriculture in the past. During July and August of 1988, EPA held more than 15 public meetings, mostly in agricultural areas of the country, to explain the proposed rules and to answer questions (see 53 FR 25970, July 8, 1988). The major meetings were held in: Washington, DC; Casa Grande, AZ; Fresno, CA; Greeley, CO; Orlando, FL; Forest Park, GA; Caldwell, ID; Des Moines, IA; Augusta, ME; Hagerstown, MD; Salisbury, MD; Holyoke, MA; New Paltz, NY; Maumee, OH; McAllen, TX; and Yakima, WA. In response to the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Agency received 381 pieces of correspondence, totaling more than 2100 pages. References to the rulemaking record are made in the text of this document. The Worker Protection Standard docket (OPP-300164A) contains the NPRM, references cited in the NPRM, public comments on the NPRM, references submitted with the public comments, materials the Agency has added to reply to the public comments, and the Regulatory Impact Analyses for the NPRM and the final rule. After a careful review and analysis of the comments and data in the record, the Agency is revising 40 CFR part 170 (Worker Protection Standard) and adding part 156, subpart K (Labeling Requirements for Pesticides and Devices). This document summarizes the public's comments on each provision of the proposed rule and presents the Agency's final determination. As an aid to the reader, the following is an outline of the contents of this document: I. Comments on the Organization of the Final Rule II. Comments on the Need and Scope A. Need for Revisions to Present Standards B. The Scope C. Exceptions D. Definitions E. Duties F. Enforcement III. Comments on Provisions of the Proposal A. Pesticide Safety Training and Information B. Training for Handlers C. Training for Early-Entry Workers D. Knowledge of Labeling Information E. Notice of Applications F. Restrictions Associated with Applications G. Entry Restrictions H. Personal Protective Equipment I. Decontamination J. Cholinesterase Monitoring K. Emergency Assistance L. Other Comments IV. Labeling Statements A. Background of Proposal B. Reference Statement C. General Statements D. Restricted-Entry Statements E. Posting Statements F. Personal Protective Equipment Statements G. Other Comments V. Relationship to State Regulations A. National Minimum Standards Approach B. Effect on Existing State Regulations C. State Regulations and Federal Labeling VI. Appendix I. COMMENTS ON THE ORGANIZATION OF THE FINAL RULE Some comments stated that the proposal was confusing. EPA believes that some of the confusion stemmed from the format of the proposed revisions. The proposed revisions included requirements for workers at four different use sites and addressed many differing activities including hand labor activities, nonhand labor activities, early-entry activities and handling activities. A comment from a forester stated that the proposed standards were difficult to understand because the parts that applied to forestry were scattered through several subjects. It admonished the Agency to remember that real people, including foresters, applicators and landowners, will be reading these standards; if the standards are not clear they will do little for worker protection (Ref. C6). The State of Maryland's Occupational and Safety Health Program (MOSH) (Ref. C80) stated that there is a tendency for people to take shortcuts in complying with regulations that are perceived to be cumbersome. Employers may read only the sections they feel apply to them. MOSH also noted that the proposal included requirements for farms, nurseries, greenhouses, and forests in more than one subpart and suggested cross-references. Waste Management, Inc. (Ref. C327) proposed that EPA develop a separate set of regulations tailored to the needs of handlers distinct from those for workers. Because of the confusion, EPA has changed the format of the final rule. The revisions to part 170 now have two nearly self contained standards -- one standard dealing with workers on farms, nurseries, greenhouses, and forests and one dealing with handlers that handle pesticides for use at these locations. EPA believes that the organization of the final rule will reduce the confusion and will help employers and employees to understand the requirements better.