III. COMMENTS ON PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSAL A. Pesticide Safety Training and Information Information and education are essential components of a successful risk-reduction program. Programs designed to inform workers of the risks in their occupational environment and of ways to reduce those risks have been a standard component of industrial hygiene programs for years. When it amended the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in 1972, Congress recognized the importance of training and education as means of reducing exposures to pesticides. The amended FIFRA gave EPA the authority to restrict the use of certain hazardous pesticides and to establish certification and training standards for pesticide users purchasing those pesticides. In 1985, EPA formed a task force composed of representatives of EPA, the United States Department of Agriculture, State Cooperative Extension Services, and State Lead Agencies (for pesticide regulation and enforcement) to review the pesticide applicator training and certification programs. The August 1985 report of the EPA/SFIREG Certification and Training Task Force (Ref. A29) concluded: The pesticide applicator training and certification programs have resulted in improved human health and environmental protection . . . The program has created a heightened awareness among growers, Extension personnel, state governments responsible for enforcement of pesticides, commercial pesticide applicators, and the public of the principles and importance of safe pesticide use, pesticide regulations and environmental concerns, including the potential hazards associated with the use or misuse of pesticides. . . Other evidence of the effectiveness of communication indicates highly significant reduction in exposures following worker training and education. The Teamsters Union reported a 30-percent reduction in injuries and illnesses following a worker training program on the precautions for chemical exposures. Ethyl Corporation found a 40- percent reduction in the amount of lead in workers' urine and a 24- percent reduction in the amount of lead in workers' blood after an education and training program. After the University of Massachusetts instituted procedures to improve safety in an industrial setting, including a training program, an average reduction of 60 percent in the frequency of hazardous conditions was recorded across production departments. The 3M Corporation established an education and training program and reduced the injury and illness incidence rate by 25 percent over a 4-year period (Ref. A31). Although these studies evaluated educational programs in manufacturing settings, it may be reasonable to expect that such programs also would be effective in agricultural settings. These studies seem to indicate that improved hazard communication can reduce illnesses and injuries by at least 25 percent. In the NPRM, EPA proposed several requirements related to providing pesticide-safety training to handlers and information to workers: (1) general pesticide safety information for workers through a poster to be displayed in the work place; (2) pesticide safety training would be provided orally or audio visually to all handlers and early-entry workers; (3) handlers were to be provided with labeling-specific information upon request; and (4) workers were to be provided with labeling-specific information (limited to the brand name, common name, and the EPA registration number) upon request. The strategy the Agency proposed was two- fold: (1) to assure that all handlers and workers had an awareness of the risks associated with occupational exposure to pesticides and knowledge of the procedures used to mitigate those risks, and (2) to assure that all handlers and workers had access to information about any specific pesticides to which they were being exposed occupationally. 1. General pesticide safety information -- (a) Poster. The Agency proposed to require general pesticide-safety information to be displayed on a poster in a prominent location at each farm, forest, nursery, and greenhouse during the growing season. The poster would contain statements concerning pesticide hazards and recommended safety practices, the location of emergency medical care facilities, a facsimile of the warning sign used for posting treated areas, and statements concerning the rights and duties of employers, supervisors, and workers. The Agency requested comment on whether information about the signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning should be a required component of the poster. All information would appear in English; if some workers read only another language, the poster would contain a statement in that language recommending that the workers have someone explain the information to them. Workers would be informed of the location of the information and would be allowed reasonable access to it. The Agency considered whether other methods of communicating this information to workers, such as oral instructions or a training program given either by employers or by other providers, would be more effective than a poster, and asked for comment on this issue. Most comments addressing the proposal to post basic pesticide safety information supported such a requirement. For example, the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (Ref. C255) commented that a picture poster is immediately and universally understandable and would provide vital information inexpensively. The Pennsylvania Farmers' Association (Ref. C331) expressed support for the requirement and stated: "We believe that this is a realistic and practical approach to the problem of communicating this information to non-English speaking workers." Among the few negative comments were those from the California Grape and Tree Fruit League (Ref. C230) stating that it viewed this requirement as unnecessary since the items included on the poster would be discussed during pesticide safety training. Specific criticisms focused on the proposed content of the poster and how it was expressed. The Occupational Health and Safety Legal Rights Foundation (Ref. C156) criticized the "linguistic complexity" of the proposed language in the poster--especially the use of words and phrases such as "accumulate," "associated with the system," "dispersed," and "symptoms"- -and recommended using "bullet" points, underlining, capitalizing, and easily understood words. Several comments recommended that the language could be made more emphatic and prohibitive by removing words such as "should" or " should not" and using the imperative i.e. change "you should wash thoroughly" to " wash thoroughly," and use "do not" instead of "should not." A number of reviewers, including grower organizations and the USDA, thought that the statement, "Some pesticides can cause death, injury, or disease" was too forceful. The Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association (Ref. C81) stated that although the statement was true, "this sentence reinforces the media-driven concept that CPC's [crop protection chemicals] are hazardous no matter what." It felt that the sentence, at the least, should include "if used improperly" or "if used not according to the label directions." The Northwest Horticultural Council (Ref. C89) also was concerned about this wording and would like this sentence to be reworded. Some comments requested that statements about worker rights and anti-retaliation be required on the poster. One comment said the poster should have definitions of the signal words used on labeling. The Agency agrees that the language of the poster should be simplified and be made more emphatic. It has decided that the exact wording and format do not belong in part 170 because changes may be needed as EPA and others gain new information about pesticide safety. In lieu of requiring the employer to display specified items of information, EPA is requiring that general topics be covered in a simple, emphatic language. EPA intends to produce a poster designed to address many of the concerns raised in the comments and intended to meet the part 170 requirement. Employers may use the EPA designed poster or a poster of similar content that meets the requirements of part 170. The Agency will make such a poster available through numerous distribution sources and will encourage other organizations to reproduce posters. (b) Location of poster. There were several comments concerning the location of the poster. One comment stated that if the Agency were sincere about providing safety information to workers, it would require pesticide users to distribute information sheets to their workers. One comment stated there is no assurance that all workers will ever see the poster since the proposal requires that only one be displayed per farm and recommended that the poster be displayed in numerous places around the workplace, including at all common access points to fields. Some comments pointed to the difficulty of posting information at some forest worksites because of the lack of a convenient "prominent location" in such situations, and requested flexibility to post at the crew headquarters or assignment area. The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (Ref. C315) suggested that a safety bulletin board should be designated at the work headquarters, duty station or where assignments are given. One respondent wanted it made clear that only one poster need be displayed per worksite. Another comment stated that it was unnecessary for workers engaged in harvesting and other late season activities to have access to a poster when pesticides only had been used very early in the "growing season." The final rule contains a requirement for agricultural employers and handler employers (other than employers on commercial pesticide handling establishments) to display pesticide safety information in a poster format at a central location when workers or noncommercial handlers are on the agricultural establishment and, within the last 30 days, a pesticide covered by this rule has been applied on the establishment or a restricted-entry interval has been in effect. Although the final rule also requires that workers and handlers receive oral or audiovisual training in pesticide safety, the Agency believes that, at least for workers and handlers who are literate, a pesticide safety poster will serve as an important reinforcement and reminder of the information learned in the training program. A poster also will provide a convenient place in the workplace to make note of specific emergency medical information, i.e., telephone numbers and addresses. The final rule permits employers of forestry workers or forestry handlers to display the poster at a place other than the actual forest worksite, as long as it is reasonably convenient for workers or handlers and they are informed of the location. EPA does not believe that it is necessary for employers to distribute this information to workers or handlers in written form. EPA believes that the requirement as worded makes it clear that only one poster need be displayed per agricultural establishment, even if there are several worksites, e.g., more than one greenhouse or field. EPA has made no changes to the employer's duties to maintain the poster in legible condition and update the emergency medical care information as necessary. (c) Signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning. Numerous comments were received in response to the Agency's question on whether the signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning should be included among the items of safety information in the poster. A few comments were opposed to providing signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning to workers because such information may cause more fears of being sprayed and result in every headache, flu, etc. being reported and feared to be pesticide poisoning. The Pennsylvania Farmers' Association (Ref. C331) could not support expanding the poster to include the signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning because it felt these symptoms could be easily confused with symptoms of other problems or illnesses. The National Agricultural Chemicals Association (Ref. C311) supported the concept of providing information on the signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning to all workers. The Cooperative Extension Service at the University of Kentucky (Ref. C45) thought it would be appropriate and advisable to have pesticide poisoning signs and symptoms posted with the general pesticide safety information. The California Department of Food and Agriculture (Ref. C248) wrote that since poisoning signs are general, they could easily be included. The National Cotton Council of America (Ref. C317) commented that posting signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning would be appropriate but not practical because the effectiveness of the safety poster may be lessened it includes so much information that a worker won't take the time to read it carefully and completely. One objection to including signs and symptoms of chemical poisoning was the premise that the signs and symptoms differ between pesticide families and that generalization would not be particularly helpful to workers. The United States Department of Agriculture (Ref. C189) stated: How would EPA approach this task? The signs and symptoms of poisoning would vary according to the pesticide. Only a limited number of pesticides are used at any location so any general information could be very misleading. The Agency believes that there is a need to convey to workers the general signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning. But the Agency agrees with those who said that a safety poster may not be the best way to transmit this information. The Agency has been persuaded that such information is transmitted more appropriately through training, which will be discussed in the following section. (d) Oral training for workers. The request for comment on the most appropriate method for conveying basic pesticide safety information to workers stimulated a large number of responses. The Agency had expressed the opinion that oral communication of basic pesticide safety information to workers might be less reliable and less convenient than the use of a poster. The comments strongly support some combination of oral, audiovisual, and written training in pesticide safety for all agricultural workers who may be exposed to pesticides or pesticide residues. Comments favoring training for all workers came not only from worker advocates such as unions and legal and health service providers, but also from universities, chemical companies, State lead agencies and other State agencies, growers and grower organizations. The Louisiana Farm Bureau (Ref. C244) stated: [We] support the provisions on training for handlers and early re- entry workers. We also support a one time instruction given for employees (i.e., at harvest or at time of employment). The Pennsylvania Apple Marketing Program (Ref. C140) commented: Given the comprehensiveness of the proposed regulations, it is important that the training component for employees be included. However, just as important will be the commitment of resources to the task of training farm operators and management in progressive training techniques as well as the specific provisions of the standards. . . This training is especially important since voluntary compliance, in the absence of inspections, will have to be the backbone of the implementation of these proposed regulations. A strong commitment from the start to information and progressive training is probably the most significant step the Agency can take to ensure that these standards actually result in increased worker protection. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (Ref. C274) wrote: Effective education of the agricultural worker concerning safe pesticide use is an important aspect of worker protection. It is through the understanding of requirements for safe pesticide use and worker responsibility in handling products safely that risks associated with pesticide exposure can be minimized. The Michigan Department of Social Services (Ref. C223) stated: "Oral and audiovisual pesticide safety training needs to be extended to pesticide nonhandlers." Migrant Legal Services (Ref. C151) stated that a large number of their farmworker-clients cannot read and employers need to convey information to all workers orally and in written form to be effective. The Society of American Florists (Ref. C100) commented: "Oral training sessions are better for the workers than merely handing out pamphlets since many workers can or will not read the material." Dow Chemical Company (Ref. C167) commented: Even though difficult to document, oral instructions and/or training are the most effective means to communicate information. Since all farm situations may not be identical, the method used for conveying this information should allow for flexibility and discretion by the farm owner or administrator. . . . Training for handlers will be different than that for field workers. The Occupational Safety and Health Law Center (Ref. C185) commented that the failure to provide pesticide safety training for nonhandlers of pesticides is inconsistent with the realities of pesticide exposure. It said that the requirement that a poster be displayed is insufficient, training must be mandated. Several comments stated that the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard already requires agricultural workers to be trained in pesticide safety. Some of these comments requested that EPA not require oral training for workers, because it would be duplicative; others requested that EPA and OSHA work out one requirement between them. There were a few comments in opposition to oral or audiovisual training for workers. They pointed to logistical problems for growers in determining which workers needed to be trained and in assuring that they had received training, because of the migratory and seasonal nature of much of the work force. The California Department of Food and Agriculture (Ref. C248) responded: "So far we have not developed a practical method to train fieldworkers, so we rely on training their supervisors and on posting in the most hazardous situations." The United States Department of Agriculture USDA (Ref. C189) commented: "The use of appropriate pesticide labeling and quality posters are probably the easiest way to convey basic information [to workers]." The National Farmers Union (Ref. C290) stated that only pesticide handlers and early-entry workers need to have detailed training on pesticide usage. And the National Association of Wheat Growers (Ref. C330) commented that displaying the poster at a reasonably accessible location should fulfill the employer's obligations to provide general pesticide safety information to workers. In their comments on the draft final rule, under FIFRA section 25(a), the United States Department of Agriculture stated a concern about requiring training for agricultural workers before their first work period. They state: The effect of the training provision will be that an employer must provide training at the startup of the season, and then, each time an additional worker or replacement worker is hired, the training program must be again provided . . . Given the extremely high variability and turnover within labor intensive agricultural work complements (1,000 percent is not uncommon), this procedure . . . would frequently result in virtually continuous training of small groups of new hires by each employer. The State of Texas (Ref. C247) and others pointed to that State's worker training program as a model. A number of growers expressed the opinion that training workers to avoid pesticide hazards is preferable to regulatory requirements in achieving the goal of reducing pesticide exposure. From the comments, EPA has concluded that an oral or audiovisual training program would be more effective than a poster in communicating pesticide safety information to workers and therefore such a requirement is an essential and an appropriate component of worker protection standards. The Agency believes that providing information about ways to avoid or to mitigate occupational exposure to pesticides will reduce significantly pesticide-related illnesses and injuries among agricultural workers, but it has been convinced by the public comments that displaying a poster will not convey this information adequately. Although a poster effectively conveys a simple message, it is less effective conveying a large amount of information. Reliance on a poster also presents problems relating to language, literacy, and accessibility. Many agricultural workers go directly to the work site, rather than to a central location; these workers would have neither the opportunity nor the incentive to examine a poster. For workers not literate either in English or their native language, adding a paragraph to the poster in any language advising them to have the poster explained to them would do little good for such workers. Although training each worker involves more employer effort than displaying a poster, the Agency has determined that the burden will not be significant. In their comments, many employers noted that they train their workers in pesticide safety, either because they feel it is important, or because they believe they are subject to the OSHA Hazard Communication regulations. EPA has developed video tape and slide-tape training programs in English and in Spanish. The Agency intends to review these materials to make sure that they correspond with the final rule requirements. These revised materials may be used by employers, the Cooperative Extension Service, State agencies, health care providers, and others; employers may obtain and use the training materials themselves or make arrangements to have workers trained by others. The final rule has been modified to include a training requirement for workers, including early entry workers. The Agency considered the Texas training program as a model, but concluded that it goes beyond what is necessary to convey general pesticide safety information to workers. The Texas program has many innovative aspects the Agency encourages other States to consider. The final rule has been modified to include a training requirement for workers. The modified rule requires agricultural employers to assure that before the 6th day that any worker enters any areas on the agricultural establishment where, within the last 30 days, a pesticide has been applied or an REI has been in effect, the worker receives pesticide safety training. For the first five years after the effective date of the rule, however, the rule allows employers up to the 16th day that any worker enters any areas on the agricultural establishment where, within the last 30 days, a pesticide has been applied or an REI has been in effect, to assure that the worker receives pesticide safety training. The Agency's intent is that workers receive training as soon as is practicable in each work situation, but not necessarily before their first exposure. In most instances, the Agency believes that whenever permanent employees and crews of employees are hired, the training could take place before the new-hires' first exposure period. The 6th (or 16th, as applicable) day of entry is not limited to a growing season or calendar year. It is 6 (or 16) days of exposure beginning when a worker enters areas on the agricultural establishment within 30 days of a treatment with a pesticide to which the Worker Protection Standard applies or within 30 days of the REI for that pesticide. To avoid keeping track of such workers' days of exposure, two options are available to the agricultural employers. First, they can make sure that all workers are trained before their first exposure in such areas. Second, they can hire only those workers who have already received training and who possess a WPS training certificate that they have no reason to believe is invalid. The Agency is also attempting to mitigate repetitive training by establishing a relatively lengthy (about 20 months) lead time before the training provisions of the final rule are enforceable. This lead time will allow a substantial number of workers to be trained in the interim. Once a large percentage of workers have been trained, the concern about repetitive training diminishes, because many new hires already will have received training. The risks from pesticide residues decrease as the time increases between application and entry into treated areas. The Agency recognizes that in some circumstances or under some conditions residues might remain as long as 30 days after the end of a restricted-entry interval. Workers who enter the areas after that time have little to gain from the use of exposure-mitigation techniques. As a result, a grower who applies a preplant herbicide in March and uses no other pesticide treatments during the growing season would not be obliged to train workers who are hired to harvest the crop in October. Therefore, the Agency has chosen to require training for workers who enter an area where, within the last 30 days, a pesticide has been applied or a restricted-entry interval has been in effect. (See discussion under "Decontamination.") All early entry workers must be trained before they are allowed to enter an area before the restricted-entry interval has expired. Workers must receive training before they are allowed to enter treated areas before the expiration of a restricted-entry interval to perform tasks permitted under Para 170.112 and that involve contact with anything that has been treated with the pesticide to which the restricted-entry interval applies, including soil, water, air, or surfaces of plants, because EPA believes that their risk of exposure is higher than that for workers entering after the expiration of the restricted-entry interval. Workers and early-entry workers must be given the specified training in pesticide safety, unless they: (1) satisfy the training requirement for pesticide handlers under this regulation, (2) satisfy the training requirement under part 171 of this chapter, or (3) are currently certified private or commercial pesticide applicators. The training program must be presented in a manner the worker can understand using nontechnical terms. Technical terms are unnecessary in this context and would hinder understanding for many workers. The general pesticide information must be presented orally using written materials or audiovisually. EPA has provided more flexibility than for handler training with regard to the qualifications of the person giving the worker training. The person conducting the training must (1) satisfy the training requirements for pesticide handlers under this part, (2) satisfy the training requirements under part 171 of this chapter, (3) currently be a certified applicator, (4) be designated officially as a trainer of handlers or of certified applicators, or (5) have completed a train-the-trainer course. The Agency believes such a requirement will provide a minimum level of competency among persons giving the training, while providing employers with options in arranging for their workers to be trained. It also will allow private organizations such as migrant heath clinics and labor unions to cooperate with employers in conducting training programs. State agencies may conduct their own agricultural worker training programs, if the programs meet or exceed the requirements of this part. With regard to content, training programs for workers must include the same basic information as those for handlers, except for topics that are relevant only to handlers. For example, worker training need not include information related to the format and meaning of pesticide labeling or to transportation, storage, and disposal of pesticides. Worker training must include information about the worker protection requirements of part 170 such as application and entry restrictions, the posting of warning signs and the design of the warning sign, oral warnings, the availability of specific information on applications, and protection against retaliatory acts. This will ensure that workers know what protection they should be receiving so they can encourage compliance with part 170. EPA did not propose recordkeeping requirements in the proposed rule because of concerns that such recordkeeping might be inconsistent with section 11 of FIFRA. The Agency has concluded that section 11 does not prohibit the agency from requiring trainers, including trainers who happen to be private applicators, from keeping records verifying any training they give under part 170. Because the Agency did not propose a recordkeeping requirement for trainers in the NPRM, EPA is not adopting any such requirements in the final rule. If experience under the final rule indicates that recordkeeping would be warranted, EPA will revisit the issue. The final rule requires that workers be retrained at 5-year intervals, measured from the end of the month in which the training is completed. The Agency believes that such renewal of WPS worker training will be adequate to convey the basic pesticide safety precepts to workers and to provide timely updates and reinforcement, without undue burden. The presence of the required pesticide safety poster in the workplace will serve as a reminder of pesticide safety practices for workers whose training may have occurred some time in the past. In their comments on the draft final rule under FIFRA section 25(a), USDA expressed concern about the absence of a formal mechanism to avoid repetitive training of each new hire on each agricultural establishment and welcomed the opportunity to work with EPA to develop such a verification program. A change to the rule was made. The rule now states that if the agricultural employer determines that a worker possesses an EPA-approved Worker Protection Standard training certificate and has no reason to believe it invalid, that determination shall meet the requirements of assuring that the worker has been trained. The revised final rule requires trainers to assure that appropriate Worker Protection Standard training has been given to a worker before the training certificate is issued. The use of an EPA-approved WPS training certificate is optional. The Agency encourages those trainers who, voluntarily, would like to maintain records or issue cards to workers to do so. EPA and USDA intend to establish a joint task force to develop and implement a mechanism for verification of training. The task force would seek to reduce the amount of duplication in training and to establish a voluntary system of training verification. Once the mechanism for verification of training has been determined, the Agency will issue guidance regarding the specific nature of the verification system. Such guidance is expected to include the following topics: (1) criteria that the Agency will use for determining which persons or agencies will distribute the training certificates to prospective trainers; (2) description, format, and content of the training certificate; (3) mechanism for ascertaining the expiration of the training certificate; (4) content of the certification statement that prospective trainers would have to sign in order to receive the training certificates. 2. Language. In the NPRM, EPA required the information on the pesticide safety poster be in English; to communicate with workers who can read only a language other than English, either all the information would be translated into that other language or a note would be added in that language recommending that the worker have someone explain the information. The NPRM provision for oral/audiovisual training for pesticide handlers did not include a language requirement. A few comments supported the NPRM requirements regarding language, but others urged that training materials be available in all languages necessary to facilitate worker and handler understanding, and that the training be conducted in a language understood by the trainees. Farmworker Legal Services of New York, Inc. (Ref. C250) stated: A large percentage of farmworkers in the United States speak languages other than English. In New York State, our clients speak English, Spanish, and Creole among other languages. In 1986 over 10,000 farmworkers and family members who traveled to New York did not speak English. . . . Therefore FLSNY recommends that all pesticide information be provided in languages other than English to meet the needs of the farmworker population. A 'note' in the appropriate language recommending that 'the worker have someone explain the information,' . . . is far from adequate. Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc. (Ref. C147) also commented that it is essential that all training and information be given to workers in the language that the workers understand. Not only do many farm workers not understand or read English, their crew leaders, who are their immediate supervisors, also may not speak English well or read English. Other comments stated that EPA has an obligation to translate all training materials it produces into all languages spoken by the agricultural work force; the languages mentioned in addition to English included Spanish, French, Creole, Haitian, Laotian, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Thai, Korean, and Portuguese. The New Jersey Farm Bureau (Ref. C273) stated: "The information display requirement [the note on the poster] seems reasonable and it is hoped that EPA could provide the wording required . . . in all the languages that might be needed to fulfill this requirement." The Agency will develop written and audiovisual materials in English and Spanish--the two major languages spoken by agricultural workers and handlers. EPA does not have sufficient resources to commit to translations to other languages but it will encourage and assist other organizations to do such translations as required. B. Training for Handlers The Agency proposed that basic pesticide safety training would be required for all persons who are employed to handle pesticides intended for use on agricultural crops on farms or in forests, nurseries, or greenhouses. This requirement would be waived if the handler were certified as a private or commercial applicator. Each handler was to be instructed by a trainer who met certain minimum qualifications. The training program also had to meet minimum standards. Many comments pointed to EPA's handler training as being similar to the training in chemical hazards required by OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard. They questioned whether both requirements were necessary and stated that the intent of both training and access to labeling information is appropriate. However, due to the apparent duplication of OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard, these commenters felt that the requirement may cause confusion for the growers and both regulatory agencies. A few comments opposed any training requirement for pesticide handlers. The National Cotton Council of America (Ref. C317) thought that the proposal "to require formal training and possible private applicator certification" for all persons who handle agricultural pesticides will be burdensome and impractical in most cases. EPA has no intent to require private applicator certification for all who handle agricultural pesticides but the Agency does believe it is important that all persons who handle agricultural pesticides have training in basic pesticide safety. Weyerhaeuser (Ref. C90) commented: The definition of training and the documentation of training needs further consideration. As a matter of course, woods workers are informally but continuously trained and supervised by their foreman. Most comments supported the concept of such training as essential to a successful safety program for handlers. Some comments that strongly supported the concept of handler training expressed reservations or criticisms regarding specific provisions of the training requirements. A few comments stated that being certified should not exempt handlers from being trained under part 170. One comment suggested that the proposed handler training requirements exceed the private applicator certification requirements in some states. The Agency acknowledges that there may be variation among the States in the content and effectiveness of certification programs. EPA is revising the certification regulations (40 CFR part 171) to upgrade the national "core" requirements for certification of private and commercial applicators. When the revisions to part 171 are finished, all State certification programs for pesticide applicators will be required to contain the components of the upgraded national "core" requirements. The Agency is confident that all State certification programs then will meet or will exceed the minimum requirements for training of pesticide handlers contained in part 170. Several respondents requested that supervisors of handlers receive more training than handlers, and that handlers be trained only for the specific job being performed or product being used. A farmer from South Carolina (Ref. C353) stated: [Handler training] seems to require training of workers even if the pesticide used is not dangerous or toxic. . . . One way to protect workers is to discourage the use of dangerous pesticides and encourage the use of safe ones. Training, like labeling, should fit the toxicity of the substance. EPA is not persuaded that job- or product-specific instruction by supervisors is an effective substitute for basic pesticide safety training. The Agency is convinced that pesticide handlers will be more willing to observe job-specific safety instructions and to cooperate in hazard-reduction provisions, such as using personal protective equipment, if they are informed of the reasons for such provisions. Therefore, the final rule retains the requirement for basic pesticide safety training for all handlers. 1. Content of training. Some respondents questioned where to find information required for the training program, especially regarding spill cleanup and chronic health effects. The National Agricultural Aviation Association (Ref. C165) asked: Are adequate spill clean up procedures available on all current pesticide labels? If not, what is the source for this information? The Cooperative Extension Service at Oklahoma State University (Ref. C181) stated: The Agency is also proposing training on chronic hazards of pesticides. This has good intent, but lacks background information for many pesticides and would put the trainer in a bad situation. Is there adequate information on chronic hazards for all pesticides or for most pesticides? The training for spill cleanup is good; however, in Oklahoma we are having a difficult time getting information from EPA and State agencies on what to do with the spilled material. To provide a training program, there must be information to deliver - not do it because it is the law. EPA intends that the training programs for pesticide handlers stress basic principles of safe pesticide handling. Pesticide-specific information from the label is required to be furnished to each handler before each handling task. Information in the training program regarding pesticide spill cleanup would be limited to the generally accepted three-step procedure of containment, removal, and disposal. Information about how to dispose of a specific spilled material is not considered essential to the general training program. Any handler assigned to cleanup a spill would need to be furnished any information on the pesticide labeling regarding spill cleanup procedures, precautions, or requirements specific to that product. If no specific information is listed on the pesticide labeling, the employer has no requirement under the Worker Protection Standard to seek out additional spill-specific information or instructions. The Agency is supportive of those who want to train handlers beyond the minimum requirements in part 170 and encourages such initiatives. EPA is developing a new regulation regarding the appropriate procedures for disposal of pesticides and pesticide containers. When the rule is completed, the information will be incorporated into pesticide labeling and can be conveyed to the handler on a product-specific basis. EPA intended that the information on delayed or chronic health effects should focus not on product-specific effects, but on types of possible delayed or chronic health effects that may be associated with pesticide exposure. The subsection of the final rule relating to this aspect of training program content has been clarified (Para 170.230). The handler also must be informed of any pesticide-specific warnings or information regarding any health effects listed on the pesticide labeling. There was strong support in the comments for including the general signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning, especially those of cholinesterase inhibition, in handler training programs. But several comments questioned how this information could be communicated effectively since many of the symptoms associated with pesticide exposure are the same as symptoms associated with non-pesticide-related illnesses. EPA believes that the signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning for many families of chemicals could be described adequately in a training program. Many EPA and USDA training materials include this information. The Agency is convinced that such information would allow workers to seek medical attention at the onset of pesticide poisoning. A listing of all possible pesticide poisoning signs and symptoms would not be necessary or productive; accurate diagnosis of pesticide poisoning requires the services of a knowledgeable physician. One comment questioned the relevancy of environmental information in worker protection training. The Agency believes such training is relevant to worker protection. Many environmental concerns are applicable not only to the organisms in the environment, but also to workers and other persons who may be in that environment. Ground and surface water warnings, for example, are designed not to protect only aquatic organisms, but to protect workers and other persons who may be using the water for drinking, cooking, bathing, etc. The Agency notes that FIFRA defines "environment" as including "water, air, land, and all plants and man and other animals living therein, and the interrelationships which exist among these." Furthermore, for reciprocity among EPA regulations regarding training, specifically in relation to the proposed revision of 40 CFR part 171, an environmental component of training is necessary. The Maine Audubon Society (Ref. C82) requested that information on inert ingredients be included in the general pesticide safety training. EPA intended pesticide safety training to be general; the possible types of acute and chronic health hazards of some "inert ingredients" are similar in many respects to hazards posed by pesticide active ingredients. However, if specific statements on the hazards of the inert ingredients are listed on the pesticide labeling, they must be furnished to any handler assigned to a task involving that pesticide and thus need not be among the general training topics. A number of comments suggested that handlers should receive instruction concerning the part 170 handler protection requirements so that they can assist in protecting themselves and be aware of noncompliance. The Texas Commissioner of Agriculture (Ref. C247) stated: "In addition to the information already required in the training sessions, the training should cover the anti-retaliation provisions of the regulation and workers' right to file complaints." EPA agrees with these comments and has added such a subsection to the training requirements. In Para 170.230, EPA has made some modifications to the training program content section in addition to those discussed above. The subsections have been reordered, and some have been combined. Several subsections have been rewritten to improve their clarity. A subsection has been added requiring instruction in the recognition and avoidance of heat-related illness associated with the use of personal protective equipment (discussed later in this document.) 2. Qualifications of trainers. The Agency's proposal to require a trainer to be either a certified private or certified commercial applicator or to be designated by a State or Federal agency as a trainer of certified applicators received considerable attention. Some comments objected to permitting certified applicators, especially private applicators, to run training programs either because they were not seen as sufficiently knowledgeable or because they were not seen as sympathetic to worker problems. Other comments also felt that being certified had no bearing on competency to train others in pesticide safety. The United States Department of Agriculture (Ref. C189) expressed concern over the impact such a requirement would have on the existing certification programs. A number of respondents requested that other people be permitted to run training programs for handlers. The California Grape and Tree Fruit League (Ref. C337) commented: The proposed regulations require that the employee be trained on the safe use of pesticides and that the trainer be a certified pest control operator. The League encourages training regarding the safe use of pesticides. However, the trainer should not be required to be a certified pest control operator. There already are many agricultural professionals who are educated in such training, including county personnel, university professors, and ag consultants as well as properly-trained in-house supervisory personnel. Requiring that the trainer be a certified pest control operator would be an excessive burden placed on employers. Other comments supported the proposal to require that the trainer be a certified applicator. The Society of American Florists (Ref. C100), for example, stated it did not object to requiring a certified or designated trainer to be on site as long as that designated trainer can be a private applicator. Several comments stated that a trainer was not necessary at all. The Aroostook Family Farm Core (Ref. C293) commented that workers handling pesticides could be given reading information on pesticides to meet training requirements if the worker is able to read. The Cooperative Extension Service at Kansas State University (Ref. C51) stated: It would seem logical to let the individual States determine how (i.e. the mechanism) the training will be done. For the Agency to have ". . . determined that the presence of a trainer at each training session is a necessity" is delving way too far into States' rights. For example, the Kansas pesticide applicator training program is based on a series of illustrated autotutorial manuals. . . . This system works well and is effective in both teaching and cost. The Agency continues to believe that the physical presence of a person to run the program, such as a slide-tape or videotape with additional written handouts or brochures, and to respond to the questions of participants is critical to the success of the training. EPA will require the presence of a trainer since many of those needing training may have little formal education and may not be able to read and comprehend written materials without help. The Agency is aware that some States have developed successful certified applicator training materials that do not require the presence of a trainer. EPA is willing to allow States to adopt training programs that are more restrictive than the Federal program. Therefore, if any State wishes to establish an autotutorial program accompanied by some measure of understanding, EPA would be willing to review the program to determine whether it is more comprehensive than the program required by this regulation. After considering these comments, the Agency has decided that the most relevant trainer qualification is previous training in pesticide use and safety. Certified applicators, whether private or commercial, would have some knowledge and experience in pesticide handling; with the assistance of written and audiovisual materials they should be able to respond to most questions on this topic. The Agency believes that most agricultural establishments either employ a certified applicator or contract for the services of a certified applicator in the course of business. Therefore, the Agency does not expect that a large number of people will need to obtain certification in order to act as trainers under this part. The Agency also does not envision or promote the idea that agricultural employers will use the certification system as an alternative to this handler-training requirement. Persons training applicators for private or commercial certification would also be qualified as trainers of pesticide handlers under this part. Moreover, EPA is persuaded by those comments that stated that an alternative trainer could be a person who has completed a train-the-trainer course. In the final rule the Agency has modified the trainer qualification requirement to specify that a person who has completed a pesticide safety train-the-trainer course is eligible to be a trainer of handlers under this part. 3. Verification of training. EPA did not propose to require verification of training because it believed that this could be considered a requirement for private certified applicator recordkeeping- -a requirement specifically prohibited by FIFRA section 11. Some comments agreed with the Agency's interpretation. The Occupational Health Legal Rights Foundation (Ref. C156) disagreed with the Agency's interpretation of FIFRA section 11, claiming that a requirement for persons acting as trainers to keep records of trainees would not be the imposition of a recordkeeping requirement on a private applicator who voluntarily chose to act as a trainer. Others, including many worker organizations and advocates, some grower associations, and several State lead agencies, urged some type of training verification with mandatory recordkeeping. Some suggested cards be issued to trained handlers; others suggested that the trainer be required to maintain records of training program participants. Several comments suggested eliminating private applicators as trainers since they cannot be required to keep records. The National Farm Workers Health Group (Ref. C179) suggested using only certified commercial applicators for trainers because they can be required to keep records, and written records are necessary to monitor compliance. EPA believes it is not feasible to require that all handlers be trained by commercial applicators. The Agency believes that although the handler training provision may be difficult to enforce in some cases without written verification, EPA will seek enforcement of the provision and expects that the compliance rate will be high enough that significant risk reduction will be accomplished. In their comments on the draft final rule under FIFRA section 25(a), USDA expressed concern about the absence of a formal mechanism to avoid repetitive training of each new hire on each agricultural establishment and welcomed the opportunity to work with EPA to develop such a verification program. A change to the rule was made. The rule now states that if the handler employer determines that a handler possesses an EPA-approved Worker Protection Standard training certificate and has no reason to believe it invalid, that determination shall meet the requirements of assuring that the handler has been trained. The revised final rule requires trainers to assure that appropriate Worker Protection Standard training has been given to a handler before the training certificate is issued. The use of an EPA-approved WPS training certificate is optional. The Agency encourages those trainers who, voluntarily, would like to maintain records or issue cards to handlers to do so. EPA and USDA intend to establish a joint task force to develop and implement a mechanism for verification of training. The task force would seek to reduce the amount of duplication in training and to establish a voluntary system of training verification. Once the mechanism for verification of training has been determined, the Agency will issue guidance regarding the specific nature of the verification system. Such guidance is expected to include the following topics: (1) criteria that the Agency will use for determining which persons or agencies will distribute the training certificates to prospective trainers; (2) description, format, and content of the training certificate; (3) mechanism for ascertaining the expiration of the training certificate; (4) content of the certification statement that prospective trainers would have to sign in order to receive the training certificates. 4. Frequency of training. Some respondents misinterpreted the proposed rule's silence on the issue of frequency of handler training to indicate that retraining before each handling episode was necessary; others assumed that training was required either annually or upon initial employment each year. The Association of American Pesticide Control Officials, Inc. (Ref. C319) would like to see questions such as when and how often addressed. The Georgia Farm Bureau (Ref. C234) supported the proposal for the training for handlers and early-entry workers but it believed that there should be some clarification on the frequency of training. The American Soybean Association (Ref. C105) suggested it should be a one-time instruction conducted at the beginning of the growing season or at the time of employment. The National Farm Workers Health Group (Ref. C179) would like to see a new subsection added to require training at least annually. The Texas Commissioner of Agriculture (Ref. C247) recommended that there be at least two training sessions per year for all workers. The Agency did not specify in the NPRM how often pesticide safety training must be conducted. However, the final rule requires training for handlers to be renewed at least once every 5 years, measured from the end of the month in which the training was completed. The Agency believes that such renewal of WPS handler training will be adequate to convey the basic pesticide safety precepts to handlers and to provide timely updates and reinforcement, without undue burden. Mandatory annual retraining of the same employees presenting general information that typically does not change over the course of a year would be a burden on employers. 5. State training requirements. A number of comments objected to language in the proposal that permitted States to impose handler training requirements consistent with the Federal requirements and required States to petition EPA to impose requirements inconsistent with the Federal requirements. These comments claimed that under FIFRA section 24, "more stringent" State regulations are always permitted and "less stringent" regulations always prohibited, and that EPA may not constrain the States by requiring them to seek EPA approval for their regulations based on "consistency" with part 170. EPA agrees with these comments and has deleted this section from the final rule. With regard to State training regulations, States may seek the Agency's interpretation of whether the State regulations are more or less stringent than part 170. 6. Development of training materials. Many comments urged EPA to develop training materials to aid in the implementation of the final rule. The training materials requested included those for pesticide safety training for handlers, pesticide safety training for workers, training to inform agricultural employers and commercial handler employers of their responsibilities under part 170, and training programs for health care providers in recognition and management of pesticide-related illnesses. Several comments urged that any training materials, other than those developed by EPA, be reviewed and approved by EPA. EPA intends to develop model training programs that will facilitate compliance with part 170. The Agency's plans in this respect are discussed in more detail later in the document. Although the Agency expects that most pesticide safety training will be conducted using materials developed by EPA, as is currently the case, it does not believe it must be the only source of training materials. On the other hand, some assurance of the adequacy of privately developed materials is desirable. The final rule specifies the minimum content of such training materials. Individuals or groups who design such programs may submit them to EPA for review and comment on how well they comply with the requirements of this part. C. Training for Early-Entry Workers Many comments did not address the issue of training for early-entry workers because they opposed all early-entry activities. Those who commented on the issue agreed that handler-type training was appropriate for early-entry workers, with the exception of training in handler- specific tasks such as mixing, loading, disposal, etc. Some comments urged that instructions in labeling requirements be given to workers each time early entry occurs. In the final rule, early-entry activities are permitted only on a short-term or emergency basis or under limited special exceptions that may be granted by EPA and basic pesticide-safety training is required for all such workers. The Agency believes that the pesticide-safety training for workers will be adequate for most topics for early-entry workers and agrees that training about handling activities such as mixing, loading, and application is not relevant to workers in such situations. For those topics for which the worker training may be inadequate, the Agency is requiring additional instruction be given to the early-entry workers at the time of the early entry. Workers in early-entry situations risk exposures to pesticides unless all labeling precautions are followed. EPA agrees that workers who enter treated areas before the restricted-entry interval (REI) has elapsed should be aware of all the specific labeling requirements and precautions pertinent to the activity being performed, such as personal protective equipment requirements, human hazard precautionary statements, signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning, and first aid procedures. In the final rule, EPA has eliminated the requirement that early- entry workers receive handler training. Instead, basic pesticide training is required for all workers (including early-entry workers). In addition, however, before undertaking any early-entry activity, workers must: (1) be instructed how to put on, use, and remove the personal protective equipment and be informed about the importance of washing thoroughly after removing personal protective equipment, (2) be instructed in the prevention, recognition, and first aid treatment of heat-related illness, and (3) either have read the product labeling or have been informed of any labeling requirements related to safe use in a manner that they can understand. The Agency believes that the training and instructions required by these provisions will assure that workers who enter treated areas before the expiration of an REI understand why protections such as personal protective equipment are necessary and will help persuade them to use available protections such as decontamination sites. D. Knowledge of Labeling Information 1. Labeling information for handlers. The Agency proposed that, upon request, a handler would be provided with all labeling information for the product being handled. This requirement was intended to provide handlers with product-specific pesticide safety information that will increase their ability to protect themselves and others. Many comments suggested that both oral instructions and product- specific information should be given to the handler such as the brand and common name, required personal protective equipment, and any precautionary statements. The National Farm Workers Health Group (Ref. C179) stated: It is all too common to encounter applicators who do not even know the identity of the pesticide being applied, let alone its specific hazards, symptoms, and safety procedures. In these situations, the crew member has simply been told to apply the pesticide ('medicina' or 'veneno'). Many comments objected to the provision on the grounds that merely providing access to labeling on request would not be adequate, and that labeling should be provided routinely. The Oregon Department of Human Resources (Ref. C172) stated: "If reading the label is a requirement, then its provision should be required as an absolute for handlers, not just upon request." Comments from worker advocates and from medical personnel who serve agricultural workers argued that chemical-specific information is important but that workers may be too intimidated to request the information from the supervisor or employers. The Mount Sinai Medical Center (Ref. C193) commented: We feel strongly that handlers must be automatically provided the labelling of products being handled without requiring a specific request. This is necessary both for their own protection without fear of retribution, and for them to be in compliance with the letter and spirit of these standards. How is a handler to be sure that he is mixing, applying, or disposing of a substance properly if the identity of the substance is unknown and the label requirements unseen? Without automatic access to product labels, no amount of training can protect handlers. Other comments suggested that Material Safety Data Sheets be provided by employers. Texas Citrus and Vegetable Association (Ref. C187) suggested that access to labeling information was not needed because of OSHA's Hazard Communication Standards being expanded to include agricultural workers. Roses, Inc. (Ref. C100) wrote: Growers are now required to have Material Safety Data Sheets on each hazardous chemical on site available for employee inspection. This rule requires a label also be held on file which expands the grower's information file requirement. We recommend that rules be changed to allow growers to retain one or the other (pesticide label or MSDS), not both. The Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service (Ref. C181) commented: This will require extensive procurement of labels and labeling and cost for filing and providing access. It will also increase the cost of the program to pesticide companies. . . . The Agency should [also] consider the situations of remote forest applications and the applications of pesticide off the 'home' base of the commercial applicator. Will labeling be required to be available at these locations? Often commercial applicators work away from their 'home' base for a few days or a week. The Agency believes that almost all respondents supported its intended goal, which was to assure that all handlers are aware of the product-specific instructions for the pesticide being handled. If handlers are not aware of labeling requirements, it is likely the product will not be used in accordance with labeling, a violation of FIFRA. In this regard, a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) is not an adequate substitute for product labeling. Although an MSDS may contain useful information about the safe handling, transportation and storage of the material and the risks associated with exposure to the material, it will not address all the enforceable use requirements on the pesticide labeling. The Agency considers that giving instructions in the relevant labeling requirements would assure this awareness, and that reading the labeling also would be adequate. EPA agrees that handlers may be intimidated from making a request for the labeling, and that even if a request is made, it would not assure that the labeling would be read or understood. EPA agrees that job- and product-specific instructions are necessary. In the final rule, EPA has modified this section (Para 170.232) to require the employer to assure that, before handling, handlers either read the labeling or be informed, in a manner that they can understand, of all requirements related to safe use of the product being handled. This information would include the brand and common name, the type of pesticide, the formulation, the signal word, the personal protective equipment they must wear, the precautionary statements, the signs and symptoms of poisoning, any first aid or antidote information contained in the labeling, and any other statements pertaining to safety and the activity they will perform. The handler also must have access to the labeling at all times during the handling activity, in case a question arises about the use requirements. This does not mean that multiple copies must be made and carried with each handler, but that the product container or a copy of the labeling must be available in a place where it may be consulted if necessary. Handlers also must be instructed in the safe and appropriate use of any equipment needed for the specific handling tasks they are assigned. 2. Labeling information for early-entry workers. The Agency proposed that early-entry workers would receive the same training as handlers, but did not require such workers to have access to labeling information. However, some comments noted that early-entry workers would need to have product-specific information in order to have knowledge of the specific hazards associated with their early-entry assignment. The Oregon Department of Human Resources (Ref. C172), and the National Agricultural Chemicals Association (Ref. C311) thought that it would be appropriate for "early reentry" workers to have access to the labeling. EPA agrees that it is essential for handlers and workers who enter the treated area and contact treated surfaces before the expiration of an REI to have job- and product-specific instructions. Therefore, the Agency has added language under the entry restrictions for agricultural workers. This language provides that before being allowed to enter a treated area during the REI, the workers either must read the product labeling or must be informed in a manner that they can understand of all labeling requirements related to human hazards or precautions, first aid, symptoms of poisoning, personal protective equipment specified for early entry, and any other labeling requirements related to safe use. 3. Product specific information for workers. The Agency proposed to require that product-specific information be provided to workers, on request, for all treated areas subject to notification, beginning on the day the pesticide is to be applied and continuing at least until the expiration of the REI. The required information included: (1) the specific location and description of the area treated or to be treated, (2) the brand name, active ingredients, and EPA registration number of the pesticide used, and (3) the REI. In the NPRM, the Agency stated that it considered requiring this information to be displayed at a central location, such as a notice board, or to be written on warning signs. A few comments supported the requirement that workers request pesticide-specific information. A few other comments objected to providing workers with the information, even on request. Most comments on this issue were critical of the requirement as written and recommended posting of the information. The International Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture (Ref. C161) stated: "Workers should be given access to specific information about pesticide applications through posting at a central location." The Texas Commissioner of Agriculture (Ref. C247) recommended that EPA go beyond oral warnings and develop written information such as the crop sheets that Texas Department of Agriculture has developed. Written information would obviate the problems created by requiring a worker to ask his/her employer for more information about pesticides and face possible employer retaliation. The New Jersey Department of Health (Ref. C128) stated that information about the application of any pesticide to one area of a farm or forest should be available to every worker by being posted at a central location; there should be no need for a worker to request this information. Numerous other comments were opposed to any requirement that compels workers to request information, because workers are too intimidated to request information from the employer. Some comments opposed the requirement, at least in part, because providing such information on request may be inconvenient or difficult. Evergreen Legal Services (Ref. C98) stated: The sheer number of different pesticide applications that occur on some of our State's largest crops also makes request difficult. According to national data, apple orchards receive an average of 32 pesticide applications per year, while pear and peach orchards receive 30 and 26 respectively. Farms often include several different kinds of fruit trees on one ranch. It is ludicrous to require workers to request information each time one of these applications is made. Rutgers University (Ref. C128) commented: "The worker request may come at an inconvenient time for the employer, or the member of the employer's staff responsible for providing the information may not be available at the time of the request." Many comments cited the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard's requirement for making material safety data sheets (MSDS) available to workers. Some grower organizations requested that the EPA requirement be eliminated because it is redundant. Other respondents suggested that MSDS be posted or available to workers. The National Agricultural Chemicals Association (Ref. C311) stated that Material Safety Data Sheets are readily available from distributors and suggested that the Agency could consider the requirement to make MSDS available from the operator in an alternative form for workers on farms, forests, greenhouses, and nurseries. Rutgers University (Ref. C128) commented that the requirement by OSHA that Material Safety Data Sheets be made available on products in industrial work places does not appear to have placed an undue burden on employers; there is little or no cost involved in placing information in a binder or clipboard for general access in a location frequented by workers. The Agency is convinced that workers must have unhampered access to product-specific information about the pesticides to which they are exposed occupationally. The Agency was persuaded by the comments that some agricultural workers may be intimidated and that oral communication of this information may prove to be complex and inconvenient. The Agency, after careful consideration, has amended this section to require employers to list the product-specific information in a central place on the agricultural establishment and to allow workers unimpeded access to this information. The information, at a minimum, must include: (1) the location and description of the treated area, (2) the product name, (3) the EPA registration number, (4) the active ingredient(s) of the pesticide, (5) the time and date the pesticide was applied, and (6) the REI for the pesticide. While the Agency acknowledges the similarity between this requirement and requirements of OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard, EPA will not require that a MSDS or similar fact sheet be made available, because such a requirement was not proposed in the NPRM. EPA and OSHA are committed to cooperating, within the constraints of their respective statutes, to minimize confusion and to avoid duplication between the requirements of the two agencies. EPA has prepared a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to amend the Worker Protection Standards that requests comments on the feasibility and utility of requiring that MSDS's or similar fact sheets be made available to agricultural workers. This NPRM is being published at the same time as the final rule. E. Notice of Applications One aspect of a comprehensive risk-reduction program is a procedure for notifying workers of the time and places(s) where they may be at risk. Such notification is a necessary supplement to general training and information. Existing part 170 requires warnings to be given when workers are expected to be working in a field that has been treated or that is scheduled to be treated with a pesticide; it does not specify how and when these warnings shall be given or what information should be conveyed. The Agency proposed to revise these notification requirements to ensure that workers are notified clearly and adequately of areas on the agricultural establishment where pesticide applications are taking place and where REI's are in effect. This notification would be done by posting signs at the entrances to treated areas or by orally notifying workers of when and where pesticides had been applied. 1. Notification exception. The Agency proposed that all workers on an agricultural establishment be notified of all pesticide applications and areas remaining under an REI except that information was not required to be provided to a worker if, from the start of application until the end of the REI, the worker would not enter, work in, remain in, or pass through, on foot or in an open vehicle, the pesticide- treated area or any neighboring areas, including growing areas and labor camps that are contiguous or separated only by a roadway from the treated area. This exception was designed to limit the notification requirement to those occasions where the most potential for accidental worker exposure exists and where notification would prove most useful. Notification would not be required when pesticides are applied or an REI is in effect at times when workers are not employed by the establishment or when pesticides are applied to distant areas of the establishment where no work activities are occurring. Some comments supported this "exception". The National Farm Workers Health Group (Ref. C179) commented that workers should be provided information about pesticides used in areas contiguous to the area where they will be working, including areas separated only by a roadway from the treated area. Other comments requested a definition of the word "neighboring." The National Agricultural Aviation Association (Ref. C165) commented: "[N]eighboring areas" should be defined as property controlled and/or owned by the employer." Some comments requested that the exception be dropped and that workers be notified of any pesticide-treated area on the property. The Texas Commissioner of Agriculture (Ref. C247) recommended that the exception to posting be deleted because crews may enter fields by mistake. In contrast, other comments urged that the notification requirements only apply to crops that require the presence of crews of workers. An owner of a commercial pesticide application establishment (Ref. C182) wrote: In regard to posting requirements, the entire concept of posting fields for reentry is under the false pretense that all farmers in the United States hire hand laborers to do their field work, when in fact, only a very small percentage of them require hand weeding or harvesting. It seems impractical to require a North Dakota wheat farmer, for example, to post his fields when he is the only one who would enter the field and of course would already be aware of the applications that had been made to the field since he had requested the treatment be done or he had done them himself. In addition, this type of cropping would require little, if any, reason for the farmer to go into the field anytime between planting and harvest. Such a posting regulation should apply only to crops which require hand laborers. After all the potential for exposure is the greatest in a field which requires manual maintenance. After careful consideration, the Agency has decided to retain the exception to notification and to reword the exception. The term "neighboring area" has been deleted; in its place, the final rule requires notification if workers may be within 1/4 mile of the perimeter of a treated area. This distance was chosen for several reasons. First, data from studies (Refs. A3,A32) show that residue drift from a treated area is negligible in areas more than 1/4 mile away. Second, the Agency believes that 1/4 mile is the farthest distance that workers would be likely to digress from their path or worksite for rest or meal breaks. Finally, specification of a specific distance will increase the enforceability of this component of the rule. Although the Agency believes that a prudent owner/operator of an agricultural establishment will inform adjacent property owners/operators of pesticide applications at their mutual borders, EPA has determined that such a requirement is beyond the scope of this rule. The Agency has added an additional notification exception that applies to all agricultural establishments. Notice (oral or treated area posting) need not be given to a worker if the worker (1) applied or supervised the application of the pesticide for which the notice would be given and (2) the worker is already aware of the information that would be otherwise conveyed in an oral warning. This exception exempts establishments from having to orally warn or post warning signs at treated areas for an already-informed applicator of the pesticide. This exception would be especially important if the pesticide applicator were the only worker on the establishment for whom notification would otherwise be required. 2. Mandatory oral notification. The Agency proposed that workers be given daily oral warnings about pesticide-treated areas on farms and in forests, except as noted above. The warnings would consist of (1) the location and description of the treated area, (2) the time during which entry is restricted, and (3) instructions not to enter the treated area until the REI has expired. The warnings would be required to be in a language the worker can understand. If the worker does not understand spoken English and the person responsible for notification is not bilingual, the person responsible would need to find someone who can communicate warnings in the language of the worker. Several comments supported the requirement for mandatory oral warnings on farms and forests. The Migrant Legal Action Program (Ref. C126) stated: "Oral warnings are particularly necessary because a significant number of farmworkers are illiterate in English and would not be able to read printed material." The Texas Commissioner of Agriculture supported the requirement that employers or supervisors give daily oral warnings to workers about pesticide-treated areas. Some respondents felt that oral warnings should be required only on the first day of work for any worker or when there is a change in the spraying schedules, and that repetitive daily warnings would be counter- productive. The Hop Growers of Washington (Ref. C225) remarked: "Daily notice may be unnecessary, if the same crew is working. Redundant notices may cause a loss of effectiveness, as workers begin to ignore the repetitive message." Some comments stated that oral warnings would be unworkable in certain agricultural operations, since workers do not arrive and meet at central locations and there is not always daily contact between crews and supervisors. The Pesticide Association of New Jersey (Ref. C269) stated that many of these employees report to work from different locations at different times of the day, i.e. on-farm camps, local housing or bussed in from cities or other farms. This makes the oral warning system impractical. Other comments objected to a requirement for mandatory oral warnings and requested that employers be given a choice of using oral warnings or posted warning signs. One respondent suggested issuing cards containing information about spraying to workers in lieu of oral warnings. Some respondents requested that the oral warnings include more information than the Agency proposed to require such as the name of the pesticide and the signs and symptoms of poisoning. Most comments that addressed the issue of language for the oral warning supported a requirement that oral warnings be communicated in a language the worker can understand. However, a few comments stated that it would be difficult for growers to find persons who could provide translations into all the languages that might be needed. After review of the comments, the Agency is persuaded by those comments that requested that farms, nurseries and forestry establishments have the choice of notifying workers orally or posting signs at the treated area. EPA is convinced that for an establishment where numerous crops would be grown close to one another or for large agricultural establishments or forestry operations where large numbers of workers are employed spread out over a large area, oral warnings may be impractical. However, the Agency believes that most farm and forestry employers will opt to warn employees orally. Signs that employers post instead of oral notification must meet the same criteria as the signs for the mandatory posting (see Unit III. E. 3.) The Agency also has been persuaded to eliminate the requirement that oral notification must be given daily. Instead, employers are required to notify workers before the workers's first opportunity for exposure to any treated area. Regardless of whether the employer uses oral notification or posting, the Agency is requiring application-and restricted entry-specific information be posted at a central location accessible to all workers. This notice board will remind workers of areas where pesticide applications are being done or where an REI is in effect. EPA is convinced that additional information about the pesticide application can be conveyed more effectively through these centrally located notice areas than through oral notification. Providing spraying information on printed cards is deemed not to be a practical alternative to oral notification because of language problems and the cost of duplicating the information. Oral notification must be given in a manner the workers can understand. 3. Posting pesticide treated areas on farms and forests--(a) Options. The Agency proposed to require that, in addition to oral warnings, warning signs be posted for areas on farms and forests treated with pesticides having REI's greater than 48 hours, except when no workers would be in the area as discussed above. Other options considered were (1) to require posting instead of oral notification for pesticides with REI's of 24 hours or greater or (2) to require posting for pesticides with REI's of 24 hours or greater and oral notification for all pesticide applications. The Agency solicited comment on all options considered. Some comments supported the requirements as proposed, because any additional posting would be a burden. The National Agricultural Chemicals Association (Ref. C311) concurred with the proposed posting requirements, however, it wanted to see posting supplemented with oral notification, particularly on large agricultural establishments where posting may be strategically difficult. Many comments advocated daily oral notification supplemented with mandatory posting for all pesticide applications. The National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (Ref. C194) stated: Our organization believes as a matter of course that any area that has been treated with any pesticide should be posted so that anyone working or moving through the area is knowledgeable about the chemical treatment, and has the option to avoid contact as a matter of choice. Here again, EPA seems to purposely ignore the possibility of non-fatal or non-life-threatening illness resulting from exposure when the Agency restricts the requirement to post signs on farms or in forests to those situations in which reentry times are longer . . . Others suggested that all fields treated with pesticides having a 24-hour or longer reentry should be posted. The advocates of more posting suggested that posting is a low-cost, easily enforceable, unequivocal way of communicating to workers not to enter a treated field. Some comments advocated posting for pesticides with an REI of greater than 24 hours. The National Farm Workers Health Group (Ref. C179) commented that the Agency's proposal exempted nearly all pesticide applications from posting. The California Department of Food and Agriculture (Ref. C248) did not support any of the options in the NPRM. It commented that the proposals were too general and did not reflect the needed balance between the benefit provided by warning signs and the impact on industry from the expense of posting. Other comments opposed any mandatory field posting requirement. The Pesticide Association of New Jersey (Ref. C269) stated that posting is an imposition on the farmer; farmworkers could be notified by checking a centrally located information board. The Agency has reviewed the comments on mandatory field posting on farms, nurseries and forests and has decided to modify those requirements. EPA believes that there is a need for a balance between worker protection and the cost of field posting. Therefore, the Agency has determined that posting based only on the length of the REI is not appropriate. Instead, the Agency has defined at least two objectives for posting of treated areas: (1) posting of areas treated with pesticides that are so toxic that incidental exposure, i.e., contact from brushing against the treated surfaces, could cause an acute illness or injury and (2) posting of areas treated with pesticides for which a short exposure could have the potential to cause a delayed effect, such as developmental toxicity. Posting will be required for all pesticides that contain active ingredients that are classified as toxicity category I because of acute dermal toxicity or skin irritation potential and for pesticides that the Agency deems may produce adverse health effects from a short term exposure. The Agency will require oral notification also be given workers when posting is required so that a second tier of warning is provided for these pesticides. Pesticides meeting these criteria will have a statement on their labeling that treated areas must be posted and workers must be notified orally. The Agency proposed that "When several contiguous areas are to be treated with pesticides on a rotating or sequential basis, the entire area may be posted." This would allow posting of a larger area than the treated area when a continuous spraying operation treats alternative rows or areas, rather than the entire area, on a sequential basis. Since posting of individual rows in this case would be difficult and expensive, the Agency would allow the entire area to be posted. However, no part of this entire area may be entered while signs are posted, except under the conditions specified in the regulation for early entry. The Agency has retained this provision in the final rule. (b) Location of warning signs. The Agency proposed that the signs shall be visible from all usual points of worker entry to the pesticide- treated areas, including each access road, each border with any labor camp adjacent to the pesticide-treated area, and each foot path and other walking route that enters the pesticide-treated area. When there are no usual points of worker entry, signs shall be posted in the corners of the pesticide-treated area or in any other location affording maximum visibility. Several comments requested that posting be used to protect other persons in addition to workers. Texas Rural Aid, Inc. (Ref. C147) stated: The signs should be visible not only to workers, but also to persons living in houses or labor camps adjacent to the fields and to community members who may be passing by fields. Serious injuries requiring hospitalization have been reported to us by local physicians treating community residents who walked near a treated field. Rutgers University (Ref. C128) commented: The use of oral notification to workers as the sole means of designating unsafe areas assumes that only workers might enter treated fields. In farming regions where residences are adjacent to fields it seems probable that children and other members of the local community might enter treated areas and contact treated soil or foliage. Posting of treated areas would reduce the possibility of such inadvertent contact. Other comments were concerned about the public's perception of notification signs. The Pennsylvania Farmers Association (Ref. C331) expressed concern over the negative impact these signs could have on consumers. The Pennsylvania Growers Association (Ref. C151) stated: The posting of fields during the re-entry interval . . . presents a poor public relations situation. Many Pennsylvania farms are along heavily traveled roadways. Moreover many Pennsylvania vegetable farms maintain retail farm markets on the farm. Certain crops would be posted a large percentage of the time, causing the public to unnecessarily question the safety of the product, even though the grower has properly applied the pesticide and observed the days-to-harvest interval. Some comments advocated posting at specified distances along the perimeter of treated areas in addition to the usual points of access. Some comments from the forestry industry noted the difficulty in posting all entries to a forested area. The Oklahoma Department of Agriculture (Ref. C12) stated: "Posting signs `at usual points of entry to the treated area' may be difficult in a forested situation." The Agency believes that "at the usual points of entry" is the most reasonable requirement for placement of the signs. Posting at specified intervals along the perimeter is unnecessary and burdensome. If a labor camp borders the treated area, signs must be posted along that border to notify residents of the camp of the application when posting is required for the treated area. Posting a warning sign at a central location is judged to be an inadequate replacement for the posting of treated areas. The Agency understands the concerns of growers who operate roadside produce stands but treated areas adjacent to produce stands must be posted when required by this regulation. Although posting may be more difficult for forestry operations than for farms, the Agency believes it is feasible to post at locations that may be considered usual points of access, such as at the place where logging roads enter a treated area. The Agency believes the same is true for large agricultural establishments. The Agency also recognizes the concerns of those who wrote about posting signs to warn persons other than workers. While the intent of the rule is to protect agricultural workers, the requirement for posting treated areas will provide warning to other people who might enter the treated area inadvertently. (c) Putting up and taking down warning signs. The Agency proposed that the signs be posted no sooner than 24 hours before the scheduled application of the pesticide; remain posted during application and throughout the REI; and be removed within 3 days after the expiration of the REI and before worker entry is permitted. A commercial pesticide applicator (Ref. C182) commented: Also quite perplexing are the restrictions being imposed in regard to the time the field is to remain posted. I fail to see a reason why the sign cannot remain up between repeat applications, since before entering a field a worker must have verification that the reentry interval is not in effect. The proposed posting restrictions already allow for a 6 day time span during which the sign can remain in place for a 48 hour reentry interval. Rutgers University (Ref. C128) stated: Despite the Agency's requirement that posting be removed when reentry intervals have expired, if growers fail to remove posting at the end of reentry, it will be unclear to workers which posting are truly applicable. The simple addition of the expiration date of the reentry interval in relatively small, hand-written lettering would obviate this problem. While this procedure may require the use of particular materials for signs, it appears that the economic impact and inconvenience on employers would be minimal. The Agency believes that field posting will be effective only if signs are removed soon after the REI has expired; otherwise workers will disregard them. Therefore, even during situations where repeat applications are necessary, signs must be removed within 3 days of the expiration of the REI. Because the Agency believes that generic treated-area signs are the most practical, economical, and reasonable choice, it will not require application-specific information to be listed on those signs. 4. Notice of applications in greenhouses and nurseries. In greenhouses and nurseries, the Agency proposed mandatory posting of all restricted-entry areas instead of oral notification, unless there would be no workers in the area. Some comments supported the requirement as proposed. The Society of American Florists (Ref. C100) stated: The requirement to post all areas which have been treated with any pesticide seems fair in lieu of oral warnings. SAF feels that the posting requirement is only practical as long as the sign is a simple generic warning and no additional information need be penned in -- such as the name of the pesticide, etc. The National Agricultural Chemicals Association (Ref. C311) agreed that greenhouse and nursery operations provide a well defined situation that makes posting a practical way to communicate information on pesticide applications. Some comments objected to the requirement as applied to nurseries. The Pesticide Association of New Jersey (Ref. C269) stated it could not see any reason for nurseries to be singled out for more restrictive posting requirements, i.e., all pesticide applications. Other comments favored both posting and oral notification for nurseries and greenhouses. The Farmworker Justice Fund, Inc. (Ref. C363) stated: "Oral warnings must be given to workers in addition to posting signs. Not all workers are literate in English, and sole reliance on signs posted in English . . . is completely insufficient." The Agency has reflected on the various comments and has decided to retain the mandatory posting requirement for pesticide applications in greenhouses, but to change the requirement for nurseries. Although some nurseries are much like greenhouses with numerous crops grown in relatively small areas, others more closely resemble farms. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded that nursery employers should be permitted to choose between oral notification and posting of treated areas for the applications of pesticides other than those for which mandatory posting and oral notification are required by the label. EPA presumes that nurseries that resemble greenhouses will choose to warn employees by posting; it would be difficult to inform all employees about the numerous crops and application/restricted entry schedules orally on such establishments. 5. Warning sign. Many extensive comments were received on the design of the warning sign. The sign proposed by the Agency received some support but many comments requested modifications to the symbol or the wording. (a) Restricted entry symbol. The Agency proposed that the treated-area warning sign contain an upheld hand and a stern-looking face. A few comments supported the proposed symbol. The North Carolina Farm Bureau (Ref. C180) stated that the proposed generic sign was sufficient to convey the necessary message without alarming workers or the general public with a skull and crossbones. Texas Citrus Mutual (Ref. C260) commented that the proposed sign conveyed a clearer message than the sign used in their state. Other comments were opposed to the proposed symbol and considered the skull and crossbones the appropriate symbol. For example, one comment (Ref. C247) stated that the symbol for the posting sign is extremely important since it is used to prevent people from entering a dangerous area and EPA's choice of an upheld hand and a stern face does not convey this level of danger. It recommended the use of the skull and crossbones; it did not agree with EPA's statement that workers will confuse this symbol with toxicity category designations because workers who do not mix, load, or apply pesticides rarely see pesticide labels. The Association of American Pesticide Control Officials (Ref. C319) specifically opposed the use of the skull and crossbones symbol and requested that no consideration be given to the use of the skull and crossbones symbol. Some comments expressed concern over any mandatory symbol. An owner of a commercial pesticide application establishment (Ref. C182) commented: I question the necessity of the use of international symbols, since English is our official language. If there would happen to be a language barrier/discrepancy for any one field, then that farmer could develop his own posting signs in a language suitable for his farming operation. Other comments expressed support for the development of a national sign without supporting any particular symbol. The National Agricultural Chemicals Association (Ref. C311) said: The symbols used in the warning sign will be most effective if they are consistent throughout the country. A consistent symbolism will facilitate training and education about the significance of reentry posting. Some comments from California, Wisconsin, and Texas expressed concern over a nationally-mandated restricted entry symbol that is different from the one mandated by their State. A few commenters suggested alternative symbols to either the "stern face and upraised hand" or the skull and crossbones. A consulting economist from Colorado stated: Since workers come from several different countries and language is only one means of communication, the sign to be used for posting fields should comply with existing international agreements on signs. . . . You will not find the scowling face or the outstretched hand to be standard symbols and it is recommend that they be dropped. The diagonal line is the generally accepted symbol for negation and there is no good reason not to use it (Ref. C261). Roses Inc. commented: "We recommend . . . the use of the international "DO NOT ENTER" symbol of a walking figure in a circle with a line through it" (Ref. C97). The Society of American Florists stated: . . . the industry has been posting pesticide areas with signs for some time now without any requirement from EPA. The industry has been using industry-wide standardized signs and SAF requests that EPA allow the floral industry to continue using these signs. (Ref. C100). Several commenters supported EPA's suggestion that the warning signs be field tested. After consideration of the comments, EPA remains opposed to the use of the skull and crossbones symbol for the reasons stated in the NPRM and because posting may be required not only for the most toxic pesticides but also for some pesticides in other toxicity categories. Acute toxicity is only one factor in determining what areas should be posted; posting will be required on a case-by-case basis for pesticides presenting other types of risks. Furthermore, farm, forest, and nursery establishments may choose to post all pesticide applications, and greenhouse establishments must post all pesticide applications. The Agency has not been persuaded that the design of the sign should be changed. The Agency is convinced that mandatory worker training will promote worker recognition of the sign. The Agency has decided to require that a standardized warning symbol be used nationwide. EPA is convinced that a nationally standardized symbol is essential to the training efforts aimed at worker recognition, understanding, and acceptance of the symbol. EPA cannot require States that have specified State-mandated restricted entry sign symbols to discontinue the use of those symbols. A State may require posting of a warning sign of its own design in addition to the Agency sign. EPA is optimistic, however, that most States will choose to convert to the nationally-mandated symbol. The concept of field testing the symbol is also one which the Agency carefully considered. In fact, the Agency actually initiated a preliminary study that involved developing several pictograms and ascertaining workers reactions to them. However, at the time of the NPRM and this preliminary study, the Agency had not yet decided to require training for agricultural workers. In the context of the EPA decision in this final rule to establish such a training requirement, the study became less relevant. EPA no longer had to rely on workers' ability to recognize and correctly interpret the restricted-entry symbol based on their previous knowledge or experiences. Instead, the Agency has decided to capitalize on the opportunity created by such a worker- training requirement to introduce an entirely new restricted-entry symbol. The Agency is convinced that worker training, along with the mandatory pesticide safety poster as backup, will effectively convey to workers an awareness of the new symbol and an understanding of its meaning. The Agency believes that, because of the diversity of languages and educational backgrounds among the target audience, it would be a mistake to rely on an existing symbol that is intrinsically ambiguous and subject to misinterpretation. Therefore, instead of field testing a variety of symbols, the Agency will make every effort to educate workers about the meaning of the one that has been selected and will promote its widespread acceptance among agricultural workers and employers. (b) Wording on sign. The Agency proposed that the treated-area warning sign contain the words "DANGER - PESTICIDES - KEEP OUT." The Agency considered whether to require the name of the pesticide and the dates of the REI to be on the posted sign for use in an emergency. Some comments requested that the words "Pesticides" and/or "Danger" be removed from the sign because they make the sign too negative and may tend to increase the negative public reaction to pesticides. The United States Department of Agriculture (Ref. C189) stated: Care must be taken to ensure that words are not misused. An example is the word "DANGER." This word is presently used to distinguish a certain class of pesticides. To use this word outside of this context would only confuse the worker and diminish its intended meaning. Roses, Inc. (Ref. C97) recommended that pesticide signal words such as "danger" or "caution" be reserved for use only with specific materials that carry these classifications. It also believes that to use the word "danger" or the skull and crossbones symbol on posting signs would be misleading and take away from the meaning of these signal words where Tox III or IV materials might be involved. It recommended that the posting sign carry only the words "Pesticides - Keep Out." One comment suggested that a different sign should be used for each toxicity category pesticide. Many comments requested that the wording on the signs be bilingual (Spanish and English) or in as many languages as necessary depending on the makeup of the work crew. Some comments requested that additional pesticide-specific information be required on the warning signs such as the name of the chemical, the date and time applied and where toxicity information may be obtained. The Agency is persuaded to change the wording of the treated area warning sign. The words "DANGER/PELIGRO," "PESTICIDES/PESTICIDAS " and "KEEP OUT/NO ENTRE" will be required. The Agency realizes that Spanish/English signs cannot be read by all workers, but requiring printing in all the possible languages of the workers is impractical. The Agency believes that removal of the words "Pesticides" and "Danger" from the signs would defeat the purpose of the signs and that changing the wording to reflect the signal word for the pesticide used is unnecessarily burdensome. Because the Agency believes that generic treated-area signs are the most practical, economical, and reasonable choice, it will not require application-specific information to be listed on those signs. Such information may be added to the sign by the employer if the information does not interfere with the other components of the sign. Application- specific information will be required at the centrally-located notification area. States, at their discretion, may add additional pesticide-specific information to the warning sign. (c) Size of sign and of lettering. The Agency did not propose a size requirement for warning signs; however, the proposed requirement for farms and forests stated that the letters on the signs must be at least 2 inches high -- a height that would be visible at 25 feet by a person with normal vision and that the signs must be visible from the usual points of entry to the treated area. No letter size was specified for signs used in nurseries and greenhouses, because the Agency recognized that smaller signs would be more appropriate in situations where individual plants might have to be posted. Some reviewers were concerned that specifying sign size could be a problem in some situations. Some comments requested that the sign size be stated or that the letter size be larger. Several reviewers stated that the size of the warning signs should be specified for nurseries and greenhouses and that the signs should be the same size as those specified for the other sites. The Agency has decided that specifying the sign size will promote the use of generic signs and eliminate any ambiguity as to what is "clearly legible." EPA will require the treated-area sign to be at least 14 inches by 16 inches, except where that size would be impractical. That size might be impractical where numerous crops are grown in relatively small areas, on benches, or in closely spaced small plots.