Friday, August 21, 1992 Part III Environmental Protection Agency Worker Protection Standard, Hazard Information, Hand Labor Tasks on Cut Flowers and Ferns Exception; Final Rule, and Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Worker Protection Standard AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is issuing final revisions to its regulations governing the protection of workers from agricultural pesticides. These revised regulations expand the scope of the standard to include not only workers performing hand labor operations in fields treated with pesticides, but employees in forests, nurseries, and greenhouses, and employees who handle (mix, load, apply, etc.) pesticides for use in these locations. The regulations expand requirements for warnings about applications, use of personal protective equipment, and restrictions on entry to treated areas, and add new provisions for decontamination, emergency assistance, contact with handlers of highly toxic pesticides, and pesticide safety training. Pesticide registrants are required to add appropriate labeling statements referencing these regulations and specifying application restrictions, restricted-entry intervals (REIs), personal protective equipment (PPE), and notification to workers of pesticide applications. EPA has determined that its present regulations are inadequate to protect agricultural workers and pesticide handlers who are occupationally exposed to pesticides. The revised regulations are intended to reduce the risk of pesticide poisonings and injuries among agricultural workers and pesticide handlers through implementation of appropriate exposure reduction measures. EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become effective October 20, 1992. ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted in triplicate and addressed to the Document Control Officer (H7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. All comments should bear the document control number OPP-300164A and will be available for public inspection from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Office of Pesticides Program's Document Control Office, Rm. 1132, Crystal Mall 1B2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: James J. Boland, Acting Chief, Occupational Safety Branch (H7506C), Field Operations Division, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and room number: Rm. 1114, CM 1B2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, (703) 305-7666. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Federal Register notice discusses the background and events leading to this final rule revising the Worker Protection Standard; summarizes the public's comments on the provisions of the proposed rule (53 FR 25970, July 8, 1988); provides EPA's response to comments and final determination with respect to provisions of the revised standard; discusses implementation of the revised standard by registrants, the Agency, the States, and pesticide users; and provides information on the applicable statutory and regulatory review requirements. More detailed discussion of the public comments and the Agency's response are found in the Response to Public Comments in the docket. The Agency is interested in receiving additional comments, data, and other evidence concerning both the general prohibition of routine hand labor tasks during a restricted-entry interval and the mechanism for granting exceptions to that prohibition. Written comments, data, or other evidence concerning these topics should be submitted on or before October 20, 1992. Upon review of these comments, EPA may modify this final rule's restrictions upon entering an area that remains under a restricted-entry interval or the process by which the exception requests are considered. As an aid to the reader, the following is an outline of the contents of this document: I. Background A. Legal Authority B. History of the Worker Protection Standard II. Organization and Summary of the Final Rule A. Organization of the Final Rule B. Summary of the Worker Protection Standard C. Summary of Risk-Benefit Analysis D. Minor Crop Statement E. Compliance Dates III. Provisions of the Final Rule A. Restrictions Associated with Applications B. Entry Restrictions C. Notice of Applications D. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) E. Decontamination F. Emergency Assistance G. Pesticide Safety Training and Information H. Knowledge of Labeling Information I. Other IV. Labeling Statements A. Background of Proposal B. Reference Statement C. Other Statements V. Statutory Review A. U.S. Department of Agriculture B. Congressional Committees C. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel VI. Implementation A. Agency Implementation Strategy B. Registrant Compliance C. EPA Communication and Training Efforts D. National Compliance Monitoring Strategy VII. Public Docket VIII. Regulatory Requirements A. Executive Order 12291 B. Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Paperwork Reduction Act I. Background A. Legal Authority The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 135) was enacted in 1947. Since then, pesticide products have been subject to Federal regulation under FIFRA. Today, they are required to be registered with EPA. In 1972, FIFRA was amended by the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act (7 U.S.C. 136). The amendments broadened Federal pesticide regulatory authority by making it ``unlawful for any person to use any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling'' (7 U.S.C. section 136j(a)(2)(G)), and they provided civil and criminal penalties for violations of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136l). The amendments also authorized EPA to provide regulations to carry out FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136w(a)). These new or revised provisions augmented EPA's authority to protect humans and the environment from unreasonable adverse effects of pesticides. During the congressional consideration of FIFRA amendments in 1972, it was emphasized that FIFRA was to be implemented by EPA to protect employees who might be exposed to pesticides or their residues. The legislative history of the 1972 amendments indicates an express intent of Congress that farmers, farmworkers, and others be afforded such protection under FIFRA. The Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry rejected the need to include a specific provision in FIFRA to protect farmworkers. However, the Committee found ``protection of man and the environment'' to be a broad term encompassing farmers, farmworkers, and others who come into contact with pesticides, and stated that: The Committee believes there can be no question. . .but. . .that the bill [The Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972 [38103] (FEPCA)] requires the Administrator to require that the labeling and classification of pesticides be such as to protect farmers, farm workers, and others coming in contact with pesticides or pesticide residues. (S. Rep. No. 92-883, (Part II), 92nd Congress, 2nd Session at 43-46 (1972) (Agriculture and Forestry), U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News 1972, p. 4063). B. History of the Worker Protection Standard In 1974, EPA promulgated the regulations found at 40 CFR part 170 pursuant to its authority under FIFRA (39 FR 16888; May 10, 1974). That part, entitled ``Worker Protection Standards for Agricultural Pesticides,'' dealt only with the pesticide-related occupational safety and health of ``farm workers performing hand labor operations in fields after ground (other than those incorporated into the soil), aerial, or other type of application of pesticides'' (40 CFR 170.1). Part 170 consisted of four basic requirements: (1) A prohibition against spraying workers and other persons; (2) a general reentry interval for all agricultural pesticides prohibiting reentry into treated fields until the sprays had dried or dusts had settled and longer reentry intervals for 12 specific pesticides; (3) a requirement for protective clothing for any worker who had to reenter treated fields before the specific reentry period had expired; and (4) a requirement for ``appropriate and timely'' warnings. Soil-incorporated pesticides, mosquito abatement treatments and related public pest control programs, greenhouse treatments, livestock and other animal treatments, and treatments of golf courses and similar nonagricultural areas were exempted from coverage. EPA's authority to promulgate such requirements, including reentry interval standards designed to limit workers' occupational exposure to pesticides and pesticide residues (such as those in part 170) is established, not only in the legislative history but in the courts. See, e.g., Organized Migrants in Community Action v. Brennan (OMICA) 520 F.2d 1161 (D.C. Cir. 1975) and Public Citizen Health Research Group, et al. v. Auchter 702 F.2d 1150 (D.C. Cir. 1983). In OMICA the Court of Appeals stated: Our own analysis of the statute [FIFRA] and its legislative history confirms EPA's ample statutory authority to issue field reentry standards to protect farm workers. (520 F.2d at 1165) . . . Even before FEPCA's enactment, EPA and predecessor agencies construed the labeling provisions of FIFRA to require field reentry limitations for many pesticides. See 39 Fed. Reg. 16888 (1974). However, these were merely informational until FEPCA made them enforceable. See id. at 16889. It is clear from an examination of the explanatory statement accompanying EPA's proposed and final rules that these standards (part 170) were promulgated and implemented under the labeling authority given EPA by FEPCA. (520 F.2d at 1168). In June 1980, EPA announced a Label Improvement Program (LIP) under which labels of pesticide products are upgraded, improved, or revised to meet current labeling standards. On March 29, 1983, EPA issued a Farm Worker Safety LIP (PR Notice 83-2) calling for certain information to be placed on labels of ``all outdoor agricultural use products which are applied to crops whose culture requires hand labor.'' In effect, PR 83-2 implemented 40 CFR part 170, promulgated 9 years before. PR 83-2 did not include mixing, loading, flagging, or equipment operation because part 170 was limited to farmworkers engaged in hand labor. Greenhouse treatments and forestry uses were excluded for the same reason. PR 83-2 defined the term ``hand labor tasks'' to mean crop production activities such as harvesting, detasseling, thinning, weeding, topping, planting, sucker removal, summer pruning, moving irrigation equipment, and other tasks performed in the field by farmworkers who could have substantial contact with pesticide-treated surfaces such as plants and plant parts. An Agency review of 40 CFR part 170, conducted in 1983, concluded that the regulations were inadequate to protect agricultural workers. The review revealed concerns about enforceability and coverage and cited continuing reports of worker poisonings. In 1984, EPA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that announced its decision to revise part 170 and solicited public comment (49 FR 32605; August 15, 1984). Most comments favored revising part 170, but they expressed wide differences in opinion about the revisions needed. EPA subsequently initiated a process of public participation known as regulatory negotiation. An Advisory Committee consisting of 25 representatives of farmworker unions, health care providers, agricultural trade associations, commercial pesticide applicators, pesticide registrants, State health and agriculture agencies, EPA, and other Federal agencies was constituted under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463). Negotiations began in November 1985. In early 1986, after several meetings, the representatives of the farmworker unions ended their participation. As a result, regulatory negotiation consensus was not possible. EPA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the July 8, 1988, Federal Register. The proposed revisions expanded the scope of part 170 to include all employees performing tasks related to the production of agricultural plants on farms, in forests, nurseries, and greenhouses, and handlers of pesticides intended for use on agricultural plants in these locations. The NPRM also expanded requirements for notification to workers about applications, use of personal protective equipment (PPE), and restrictions on entry to treated areas, and proposed to add new provisions for decontamination, emergency medical assistance, maintaining contact with handlers of highly toxic pesticides, cholinesterase monitoring, and training. EPA also proposed to promulgate labeling regulations to require statements pertaining to general worker protection, entry intervals, personal protective equipment, and posting of treated areas. The proposed revisions were based on five major concerns. First, the Agency believed that data developed after 1974 on pesticide poisonings of workers revealed the inadequacies and shortcomings in the scope and requirements of part 170. Many of these data were placed into the record by EPA and other parties to this rulemaking. Second, the Agency stated that the enforcement experiences of EPA and the States over the years had led the Agency to conclude that a clearer exposition of liability and responsibility provisions would lead to improved worker protection. Third, the Agency had determined that since the reregistration program would not be completed for some pesticides for several years, measures were necessary to protect workers in the interim. Fourth, because EPA believed that protection should be provided to other workers, it proposed expanding coverage to workers not covered by the present part 170. Finally, the Agency noted the increased use of organophosphate and carbamate pesticides since 1974. These pesticides tend to be more acutely toxic to humans than pesticides commonly used in agriculture in the past. During July and August of 1988, EPA held more than 15 public meetings, mostly in agricultural areas of the country, to explain the proposed rules and to answer questions (see 53 FR 25970; July 8, 1988). The major meetings were held in: Washington, DC; Casa Grande, AZ; Fresno, CA; Greeley, CO; Orlando, FL; Forest Park, GA; Caldwell, ID; Des Moines, IA; Augusta, ME; Hagerstown, MD; Salisbury, MD; Holyoke, MA; New Paltz, NY; Maumee, OH; McAllen, TX; and Yakima, WA. [38104] In response to the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Agency received 380 comments totaling more than 2,000 pages. After a careful review and analysis of the comments and data in the record, the Agency is promulgating this final rule revising 40 CFR part 170 (Worker Protection Standard) and adding part 156, subpart K (Labeling Requirements for Pesticides and Devices). II. Organization and Summary of the Final Rule A. Organization of the Final Rule Many comments stressed that the proposal was confusing. EPA believes that some of the confusion stemmed from the format of the proposed revisions. The proposed revisions included requirements for workers at four different use sites and addressed many differing activities including hand-labor activities, non-hand-labor activities, early-entry activities, and handling activities. EPA has changed the format of the final rule. The revisions to part 170 are now in the form of two separate, more self-contained standards--one for pesticide handlers and one for workers on all covered sites: Farms, forests, greenhouses, and nurseries. This organization will reduce confusion and will make it easier for employers and their employees to understand the requirements, to comply with the provisions, and to propose amendments if data so warrant in the future. B. Summary of the Worker Protection Standard The provisions in the revised Worker Protection Standard are directed toward the working conditions of two types of employees: those who handle agricultural pesticides (mix, load, apply, clean or repair equipment, act as flaggers, etc.) and those who perform tasks related to the cultivation and harvesting of plants on farms or in greenhouses, nurseries, or forests. There are three types of provisions intended to: (1) Eliminate or reduce exposure to pesticides; (2) mitigate exposures that occur; and (3) inform employees about the hazards of pesticides. A summary of these provisions is given here. Discussions of these provisions and summaries of the public's comments on these provisions are contained in Unit III of this preamble. More detailed discussion of the public's comments can be found in a document entitled ``Summary of the Public Comments and the Agency's Response, Worker Protection Standard'' in the docket. 1. Provisions to eliminate or reduce pesticide exposures. Exposure to pesticides can be reduced by excluding workers from areas treated with pesticides, prohibiting handlers from applying a pesticide in a way that will expose workers or other persons, and protecting handlers during handling activities. Hence, the final rule contains several provisions to achieve this purpose such as application restrictions, entry restrictions, use of personal protective equipment, and notification to workers of treated areas so they can avoid inadvertent exposures. a. Application restrictions. Three types of restrictions apply during applications: i. No pesticide may be applied in a manner that will cause it to contact any person except an appropriately trained and equipped handler. ii. No person, except an appropriately trained and equipped handler, may be in an area or, in some cases, near an area being treated with pesticides. iii. The employer must make sure that any handler who is handling a pesticide with a skull and crossbones symbol on the label is monitored visually or by voice at least every 2 hours. Handlers using fumigants in greenhouses must be in continuous visual or voice contact with another handler. b. Use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Additional provisions to minimize exposure are directed toward the use of PPE. The appropriate PPE based on the product's acute toxicity by route of exposure (dermal, ocular, or respiratory) will be specified in the product labeling for the work activity (handling or early entry). i. Persons handling the pesticide must wear the PPE specified for handlers on the labeling of the pesticide being used. ii. Persons entering a treated area before the expiration of a restricted-entry interval (REI) who will contact anything that has been treated must wear PPE specified in the labeling for early entry. iii. When PPE is required by the product labeling for the activity to be performed, the employer must: (1) Provide the PPE to each worker or pesticide handler; (2) clean and maintain the PPE correctly; (3) make sure that each handler or worker wears and uses the PPE correctly; (4) prevent workers or handlers from wearing home or taking home contaminated PPE; and (5) take action to prevent heat stress, if the work and the PPE might cause heat stress. c. Entry restrictions. Access to pesticide-treated areas is limited after an application while the pesticide may still present a hazard. EPA's current practice is to set entry intervals (REIs) based on data collected and evaluated for this purpose, but many older pesticides in agricultural use today may not have been evaluated for entry hazards. The collection and evaluation of such data may take several years. The final rule establishes REIs for all pesticide products which are used in the production of agricultural plants and for which REIs have not been set according to current standards. Previously established entry intervals will be retained if they are based on entry data that meet Agency guidelines. Any other previously established entry interval is considered to be ``interim'' and will be retained only if it is longer than the REI established by part 170. In general, a 48-hour REI is established for any product containing an active ingredient that is in toxicity category I (most acutely toxic category) because of dermal toxicity or skin or eye irritation. The REI is extended to 72 hours in arid areas if any such active ingredient is an organophosphate and the product is applied outdoors. A 24-hour REI is established for any product containing an active ingredient that is in toxicity category II (moderately toxic) because of dermal toxicity or skin or eye irritation. A 12-hour interval is established for all other products. Workers are restricted from entering a pesticide-treated area for the REI specified on the product labeling. With narrow exceptions, the time a worker may be in areas under an REI is limited and other safety measures are required. The activities that may take place in an area under an REI are limited to tasks that do not require contact with treated surfaces, short-term tasks that do not require hand labor and tasks that may be necessary in an emergency to save a crop. In addition, affected persons or organizations may request that the Agency grant case-by-case exceptions to the entry restrictions if they believe their industries, crops, or crop practices would bear an unreasonable economic burden under such restrictions. d. Notification of applications. To help workers avoid inadvertent exposures to pesticide-treated areas, the Agency is requiring employers to inform workers of where pesticides have been applied on the agricultural establishment. This notification may take one or more forms: i. All agricultural employees who may come near a treated area must be notified, either orally or by posting treated areas with warning signs, of pesticide applications and areas under an REI on agricultural establishments. [38105] ii. For selected pesticide products for which inadvertent early entry could be especially hazardous, treated areas must be posted with warning signs, and oral warnings must be given to workers. iii. For outdoor uses, there are no notification requirements if workers will not be within 1/4 mile of the treated area during the application or before the expiration of the REI. iv. Treated areas must be posted for all pesticide applications in greenhouses if workers will be in the greenhouse during the application or before the expiration of the REI. 2. Provisions to mitigate exposure -- a. Decontamination. Employees handling pesticides must be provided an ample supply of water for washing splashed or spilled pesticides off themselves and for washing after the pesticide-handling activity is complete. Workers entering treated areas where, within the last 30 days, a pesticide has been applied or an REI has been in effect, must be provided facilities for washing. b. Emergency assistance. Although the Agency believes the precautions such as observing application restrictions and entry restrictions, using PPE, and notifying workers of applications will decrease the frequency of acute pesticide poisoning or injury incidents, medical emergencies involving agricultural workers and handlers may still arise. In such cases, prompt medical treatment is necessary to mitigate the extent of the injury or poisoning. Hence, the rule contains several duties related to emergency care: i. The name and location of the nearest medical facility must be posted at a central location. ii. If an agricultural worker or handler may have been poisoned or injured by a pesticide, the employer must make available transportation to a medical care facility. iii. The employer must provide to the employee, or to medical personnel treating the employee, information about the pesticide(s) to which the worker or handler may have been exposed. 3. Provisions to inform employees about pesticide hazards. Since training and information are essential components of a successful occupational risk-reduction strategy, the final rule contains several requirements relating to providing pesticide safety training and information to employees. These are requirements for: (1) Pesticide safety training for all workers and handlers, (2) use of a pesticide safety poster, (3) access to labeling information, and (4) access to information about what pesticides have been used on the establishment. a. Training. All agricultural workers must have basic pesticide safety training. All handlers must have basic pesticide safety training, training on the handling of pesticides, and training on the use of PPE. A poster summarizing the elements of basic pesticide safety must be posted at a central location on the agricultural establishment to reinforce the safety training. b. Access to product-specific information. Pesticide handlers must have knowledge of and access to the information on the labeling of the product they are using; early-entry workers must have knowledge of the information on the labeling. Employees must have access for 30 days after the application and any REI to a centrally located listing of information about any product used on any area on the establishment. C. Summary of Risk-Benefit Analysis EPA estimates that at least tens of thousands of acute illnesses and injuries and a less certain number of delayed onset illnesses occur annually to agricultural employees as the result of occupational exposures to pesticides used in the production of agricultural plants. These injuries and illnesses continue to occur despite the protections offered by the existing part 170 and by product-specific regulation of pesticides. Therefore, the Agency has determined that occupational exposures of agricultural employees to pesticides and pesticide residues continue to cause adverse effects in a broad range of agricultural sectors and that it needs to provide additional regulatory protection for such workers. EPA could, as an alternative to issuing the pesticide product-specific aspects of this regulation, delay action until the development of additional product-specific data and analyses permit a product-specific solution. These data and analyses, in large part, will be generated through the ongoing reregistration process, but, under the present conditions, will not be completed until the year 2002 at the earliest. EPA has chosen to issue a rule at this time, because EPA cannot, through a product-by-product review, quickly or adequately reduce the incidence of pesticide-related injuries and illnesses. The Agency's workload precludes rapid reevaluation of large numbers of products, even if the needed data were available now. Moreover, many of the protections of this rule are not product-specific. Instead, they establish general protections, such as training, notification, and decontamination, that are also vital in protecting agricultural employees from risks associated with pesticide use. The Agency believes that this rule will reduce substantially the current illness and injury incidents at modest cost to agricultural employers, pesticide handler employers, and registrants. The rule requires: (1) Restrictions on entry by agricultural employees into pesticide-treated areas for, depending on pesticide toxicity, 12 to 48 hours (72 hours in certain limited circumstances) after application, (2) the use of PPE for persons handling agricultural pesticides and for persons who must enter pesticide-treated areas before the expiration of the REI, (3) training for agricultural employees about hazards from exposures to pesticides, (4) that information be provided to pesticide handlers and early-entry workers, and be available to other agricultural employees, about the specific pesticides to which they will be exposed, (5) that water, soap, and towels be made available to agricultural employees to enable them to wash off pesticides and pesticide residues routinely and after emergency exposures, (6) that emergency assistance be made available to agricultural employees if a pesticide-related illness or injury occurs or is suspected, (7) that agricultural employees, other than pesticide handlers, be prohibited in areas being treated with pesticides, and (8) that agricultural employees be notified of areas that are being treated or that remain under an REI through oral warnings or through warning signs posted at the treated area, or, in the case of some particularly hazardous pesticides, through both oral and posted warnings. EPA, drawing on its expertise in regulating pesticides, has determined that these simple measures are likely to reduce substantially the number of pesticide-related illnesses and injuries to agricultural employees. Both the frequency of illness and injury incidents under existing conditions and the expected reduction in the number and severity of these incidents due to promulgation of this rule are difficult to quantify. However, the Agency believes that the reductions will be significant. In its Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), EPA has calculated an incremental first year compliance cost of $94.3 million for this rule and an annual incremental compliance cost of $49.4 million in subsequent years. The continuing annual incremental cost of this rule represents only one tenth of one percent [38106] of the total 1987 value of production for all agricultural sectors subject to this final rule. Assuming that the majority of the current acute illness and injury incidents in agricultural employees caused by occupational exposures to pesticides are prevented through compliance with this new rule, there will be significant benefits to agricultural workers and pesticide handlers at a modest cost. Furthermore, the Agency is convinced that a substantial number of additional incidents caused by delayed-onset illnesses can be prevented through compliance with this new rule. Such expected avoidance of delayed-onset illnesses in workers and handlers would also reduce the costs attributable to acute incidents avoided. The Agency believes that, due to this new agricultural worker protection rule, the benefits in decreasing the number and severity of pesticide-related illnesses and injuries to agricultural employees exceed the costs of the rule to agricultural employers, pesticide handler employers, and registrants. Therefore, EPA hereby promulgates this rule in the conviction that this mechanism is the best means of reducing the unreasonable adverse effects from pesticide-related illnesses and injuries to agricultural employees in the near term. Some persons who commented on the proposed worker protection rule questioned the necessity for the rule in specific sectors of agriculture and requested exemptions for those sectors. However, EPA believes that the record of illness and injury incidents resulting from occupational exposures of agricultural employees to pesticides used in the production of agricultural plants and the undisputed inherent acute and delayed-onset toxicity of those agricultural pesticides supports the Agency's conclusion that such agricultural employees are subject to unreasonable adverse effects from pesticide use across the broad range of agricultural sectors covered by this final rule. Furthermore, no persuasive evidence has been brought to the Agency's attention which demonstrates that any individual sector of agriculture is not subject to unreasonable risks of employee illness and injury. EPA is not persuaded to delay promulgation of this rule until data and analyses specific to each agricultural sector and to each pesticide are generated. Under FIFRA, EPA is authorized to promulgate regulations to mitigate unreasonable adverse effects that may result from exposures to pesticides. The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) is similar in that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is granted authority to promulgate regulations to mitigate ``a significant risk.'' A recent court decision that upheld the issuance of OSHA's hazard communication rule ( 29 CFR 1910.1200) was based solely on a finding of generalized risk; the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit stated: This rulemaking proceeding produced a performance-oriented information disclosure standard covering thousands of chemical substances used in numerous industries. For such a standard the significant risk requirement must of necessity be satisfied by a general finding concerning all potentially covered industries. A requirement that the Secretary assess risk to workers and need for disclosure with respect to each substance in each industry would effectively cripple OSHA's performance of the duty imposed on it . . . to protect all employees to the maximum extent feasible . . . [Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. v. Brock, 862 F.2d 63 at 68 (3d Cir. 1988)]. For the same reasons, EPA is convinced that it is not required to make a detailed risk finding with regard to every pesticide product or to every sector of agriculture before taking action to protect all agricultural employees. D. Minor Crop Statement According to the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology's June 1982 report, PESTICIDES, Minor Uses/Major Issues: Vegetables, fruits, nuts, herbs, ornamentals, trees, and turfgrass are often referred to as minor crops because the acreage and volume of production of any one of the many crops in these groups are much below that of corn, soybean, wheat, or any of the other major field crops. Minor crops, as well as major crops, must be protected from insects, weeds, and diseases so as to be economically produced. Specialized pest control needs also exist for major crops in certain situations. Pesticides developed for use on minor crops and to meet the specialized needs for major crops are referred to as minor use pesticides. The minor use crops are the ones this Worker Protection Standard will impact the most. Much of agricultural labor is used on minor crops, and it is in the production of these crops where the greatest chance of pesticide exposure to agricultural workers occurs. E. Compliance Dates To ensure that pesticide product labeling bearing requirements of the new standard does not find its way to users before information on compliance can be disseminated, the new labeling may not be used until April 21, 1993. At that time, specified selected provisions of the regulation will become enforceable to support new instructions to users on the labeling. After April 21, 1994, all agricultural pesticide products sold or distributed by registrants must bear the new labeling. After April 15, 1994, all provisions of the regulations are enforceable when pesticides with the revised labeling are used. After October 23, 1995, all agricultural pesticide products sold or distributed by anyone must bear the new labeling.