Worker Protection Standard; Hazard Information AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------- SUMMARY: This proposed rule is a companion to a final rule, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, which revises regulations governing worker protection from agricultural pesticides and their residues. As a result of comments received during this rulemaking, EPA is proposing an additional modification to its Worker Protection Standard to provide information to covered workers that is substantially equivalent to that required under the Hazard Communication Standard promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). This proposal would add a requirement that specific hazard information be made available to agricultural workers and pesticide handlers concerning the pesticides to which they are exposed. This information would be in the form of fact sheets or Material Safety Data Sheets. EPA believes this modification would provide information to agricultural workers equivalent to that provided to other workers and would do much to avoid confusion among pesticide users as to their obligation for communicating pesticide hazard information to workers. DATES: Written comments, data, and other evidence concerning the proposal should be submitted on or before 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-300164C, and will be available for public inspection from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding legal holidays, at the OPP Document Control Office, Rm. 1132, CM 1B2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: James J. Boland, Acting Chief, Occupational Safety Branch (H7506C), Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and phone number: Rm. 1114, CM 1B2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, (703)-305-7666. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1974, EPA promulgated the regulations found at 40 CFR part 170, which dealt with pesticide-related occupational safety and health of workers performing hand labor operations in fields during or after application of pesticides. As the result of changing conditions and an awareness of the shortcomings of part 170, EPA proposed to revise its worker protection regulations in 1988 (53 FR 25970; July 8, 1988) (``the NPRM''). A substantial number of comments were received as the result of this proposal, and the Agency is issuing the final rule elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. These revisions expand the scope of part 170 beyond coverage of workers performing hand labor operations in fields treated with pesticides to include a wider range of occupational exposures to agricultural pesticides. The regulations cover workers in or on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses, as well as workers who handle (mix, load, and apply) pesticides at these locations. The revisions expand requirements for safety and health warnings about applications, use of personal protective equipment, and observation of entry restrictions, and add new provisions for training, decontamination, and emergency medical assistance. As a result of the rulemaking revising part 170, EPA received many comments expressing concern about possible overlap or conflict between part 170 requirements and any requirements that might also be placed upon the regulated community by OSHA. Some comments expressed the opinion that part 170 should provide agricultural employees information about the chemicals to which they are exposed equivalent to the requirements of the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard. The Agency has reviewed the record underlying this rulemaking and believes that the revised part 170 provides protection at least the equivalent of the Hazard Communication Standard, with one exception. OSHA requires that hazard-specific information be made available to workers in the form of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs). Based on the comments in the record, EPA agrees with the need for providing hazard specific information to workers exposed to those hazards. EPA proposes to require that employees be given access to pesticide-specific information in the form of fact sheets approved by EPA or State agencies concerning specific pesticides; alternatively, this requirement would be met if employees were given access to MSDSs for the pesticides to which they are exposed. I. Relationship Between EPA's Worker Protection Standard and OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200) requires employers to train employees in the nature, detection, and avoidance of chemical hazards in the workplace; maintain MSDSs for all hazardous chemicals and provide them on request; and label chemical containers. The HCS was promulgated in 1983 to cover manufacturing workers; in 1987, it was extended to cover all workers, including agricultural workers (52 FR 31852; August 24, 1987) (29 CFR 1928.21). Although the NPRM for EPA's Worker Protection Standard (WPS) discussed the relationship between the proposed decontamination requirements and OSHA's Field Sanitation Standard (29 CFR 1928.110), it did not address the relationship between part 170 and the HCS. Nevertheless, the Agency received a considerable number of public comments on this issue in response to the NPRM. Comments came primarily from grower groups, the Cooperative Extension Service, worker representatives, and State lead agencies. Comments noted that the HCS recently had become applicable to agricultural employers and contained requirements, such as training and notification, that appeared to be similar to measures in EPA's proposal. Comments claimed either that the two regulations were duplicative or they were inconsistent. One comment pointed to inconsistencies between some MSDSs and the corresponding pesticide labels in the hazard information they provide. Many growers believed that there could be confusion in dealing with more than one ``oversight agency,'' unnecessary compliance costs, and extra paperwork burdens. One comment stated that, by including agriculture in its HCS, OSHA was ``interfering'' with EPA's pesticide program. The comments proposed varying solutions to the perceived inconsistencies. The majority stated that EPA and OSHA should hold discussions to clarify the ``regulatory boundaries'' between the two agencies, noting that confusion among the public, enforcement difficulties, and litigation are likely if the relationship is not clarified. One comment suggested a Memorandum of Understanding between EPA and OSHA. Two comments requested that EPA delay implementation of part 170 until an agreement with OSHA was reached. Many comments stated that OSHA should ``stay out,'' and that only EPA should regulate hazard communication in agriculture. In support of this view, comments stated that the Cooperative Extension Service ``traditionally works well'' with EPA; that EPA has a history of putting resources and priority in its pesticide program; that the revised part 170 would include adequate hazard communication for agricultural workers; that the HCS is primarily a standard for manufacturing while part 170 is ``specifically designed'' for the agricultural setting; that OSHA enforcement is limited to larger farms because of a current appropriations rider; that Congress intended FIFRA to regulate pesticide-hazardous materials; that OSHA has no Indian reservation enforcement policy; and that labels are a ``better source of information'' than the MSDS. One comment stated that only one agency should regulate, without stating which one. Another suggested that OSHA adopt EPA's proposed regulations as hazard communication requirements for the agricultural sector. One comment stated that EPA should ``yield'' to the HCS and ``fill in elsewhere'' as necessary, while another felt that OSHA should cover all aspects of worker safety. Several comments proposed a specific division of regulatory authority between the agencies, under which the EPA would cover workers at agricultural pesticide use sites, including both handlers and workers who are exposed to residues, while OSHA would cover ``downstream'' nonagricultural workers, those exposures to residues other than at agricultural use sites. While pesticide users anticipated confusion over which rules they should follow, some State agencies were concerned about the division of responsibility for programs and enforcement at the State government level. The situation would be complicated because a given State could be participating in an EPA State Plan, an OSHA State Plan, both, or neither. One State agency asked for either a formal jurisdictional division at the Federal level which each State would be required to implement, or an alternative ``flexible approach'' allowing cooperation among pesticide lead agencies and occupational safety and health agencies in each State. One comment stated that regardless of which agency issued regulations, enforcement would be ``complaint-driven'' rather than based on inspections, and was concerned that EPA did not have an OSHA-type complainant protection system. Comments from the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA), the lead agency in that State for pesticides, identified the difficulty that a given situation may present. In 1988, the State passed an Agricultural Worker Hazard Communication Act pursuant to which TDA developed training programs and promulgated implementing regulations, actions consistent with the Federal-State relationship set forth by FIFRA section 24. Because Texas does not have an approved OSHA State Plan, under the OSHAct the Federal HCS is applicable in that State, and any similar State regulations are preempted. Because of the similarity between the new Texas law and the Federal HCS, some persons in that State have suggested that the Texas law and regulations may be preempted by the HCS. TDA has urged both OSHA and EPA to clarify their jurisdictional relationship in a manner that would permit TDA to implement its programs and enforce its regulations without the present ambiguity. During the public comment period on EPA's NPRM for the Worker Protection Standard, OSHA held a public hearing and requested public comment on several issues associated with the HCS (53 FR 29822; August 8, 1988), including the question of possible preemption of the HCS by EPA's pesticide regulations. EPA has reviewed the relevant comments in OSHA's HCS rulemaking docket and was represented at the hearing. Substantially the same concerns were raised in comments on the two rulemakings, and similar solutions were proposed. A number of organizations submitted written comments to both agencies. EPA submitted its written comments to the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard docket. The Agency acknowledged that both agencies had attempted to regulate occupational pesticide exposure under their respective statutes, and pointed out that significant public concern existed over the recent actions of both agencies in this area. EPA identified problems with the view of jurisdictional issues expressed by OSHA in its Federal Register notice, as related to some aspects of EPA's pesticide program, the implications of the proposed revisions to part 170, the question of preemption, and possible alternative approaches. EPA concluded that ``[g]iven the shared regulatory purpose, the similarity of the proposed requirements, and the justifiable public concern over regulatory duplication, EPA believes that the time is ripe for the two agencies to address, in as concrete a fashion as possible, the issues raised by their mutual jurisdiction'' (OPP Docket 300164-C373). In late 1988, the two agencies formed a working group to address these issues. The United States Department of Agriculture requested and was granted permission to participate because of its close involvement in matters related to the use of agricultural pesticides. The working group met several times. After reviewing drafts of the final Worker Protection Standard and this NPRM, OSHA's view is that EPA's final rule, when promulgated and enforced, will address essentially the same information transmittal issues covered by the HCS. OSHA also concluded that when this NPRM is promulgated, EPA will have approximately the same requirements as the HCS. In view of this similarity, OSHA will defer to EPA and will not enforce the HCS with regard to employees exposed to pesticides who are covered by the Worker Protection Standard. However, OSHA will continue to enforce the HCS for other hazardous chemicals to which employees are exposed in agriculture. EPA fully supports OSHA's efforts to assure that persons exposed to chemical hazards are provided with information about those hazards; EPA pursues similar goals in its pesticide program. At the same time, EPA acknowledges the various public concerns expressed by growers, workers, States and others regarding the relationship between the revised part 170 and OSHA's HCS. EPA does not intend to require actions on the part of the regulated public that either duplicate or conflict with another agency's requirements intended to accomplish essentially the same purpose. FIFRA encourages cooperation between EPA and other Federal agencies and flexibility between Federal and State levels in the implementation of pesticide programs, as long as the overall goal of protection is met. EPA also supports such flexibility and cooperation among various agencies in a given State. In light of the differences among State pesticide and occupational health and safety programs, a single approach at the Federal level may not fit particular cases at the State level. EPA has elected to proceed with the final Worker Protection Standard published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, believing it is unreasonable to delay issuance of all part 170 protective measures, including those unrelated to hazard communication. The Agency is proposing in this document to amend part 170, as soon as practicable following public notice and comment, to provide pesticide hazard communication for agricultural workers and pesticide handlers on agricultural sites that is at least the equivalent of OSHA's hazard communication provisions. EPA believes that its newly revised Worker Protection Standard, with modifications, would provide an appropriate vehicle for ensuring the communication of pesticide hazard information in the agricultural workplace, for a number of reasons. First, EPA's final rule already includes a number of provisions that appear to accomplish a similar purpose as some of OSHA's hazard communication requirements. These include pesticide safety training for handlers and workers (170.130 and 170.230); display of a pesticide safety poster (170.135); notification of the presence of pesticides in the workplace, including posted or oral warnings and the pesticide name and location of treated areas displayed at a central location (170.120, 170.122, 170.222); and access to and knowledge of pesticide labeling information by handlers (170.232). The principal difference between OSHA's hazard communication program and EPA's current worker protection program is the right to written information about the specific hazards of pesticides present in the workplace, in the form of MSDSs. Second, EPA's hazard communication requirements would be tailored to fit the context of agricultural-pesticide use, rather than being generic standards for all occupational sectors as is the case with OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard. Third, incorporation of a full agricultural hazard communication program into part 170 would do much to alleviate confusion and concern in the regulated community over possible conflicts and duplication between the agencies. Fourth, direct EPA involvement in agricultural pesticide hazard communication could assist States such as Texas that desire to implement their own State-specific hazard communication program in agriculture. Under FIFRA, more stringent State regulations are permissible. Under the OSHAct, however, more stringent State regulations may be permitted, but in States without approved OSHA State plans, State regulations are preempted. EPA does not propose to incorporate OSHA's hazard communication program word for word, primarily because the Agency believes that its part 170 requirements are more suited to the agricultural workplace. Therefore, EPA proposes to modify part 170 in only one respect to meet the objectives of OSHA's HCS. Specifically, EPA proposes to include a requirement to make available written pesticide-specific hazard information on request to pesticide handlers and to workers potentially exposed to pesticide residues. The Agency proposes to add new 170.133 and 170.233, entitled ``Hazard Information,'' to subpart B, Standard for Agricultural Workers, and subpart C, Standard for Pesticide Handlers, respectively. The proposed pesticide-specific hazard information requirement has been adapted from OSHA's MSDS requirement (29 CFR 1910.1200(g)) and specifies the type and form of written information (MSDS or fact sheet) and the obligation to obtain, to maintain, and to make available the information to handlers and workers. Some commenters stated that the typical MSDS is not written with the agricultural workplace in mind and contains information that is either difficult to understand or irrelevant to agricultural workers. In response, the Agency has proposed that an alternative form of hazard information also be acceptable, i.e., a fact sheet that contains specific types of relevant information. These fact sheets would be either prepared by or approved by a Federal or State agency. One advantage of fact sheets is that they might be designed to communicate product-specific risk and hazard-reduction information to agricultural workers and pesticide handlers through the use of nontechnical and often comparative terms. The proposed fact sheets allow the development of one fact sheet for a pesticide, i.e., malathion or 2,4-D. The Agency welcomes comments as to whether the fact sheets should be narrower in focus, such as requiring different fact sheets for different formulations of the same active ingredient. The Agency is considering a range of options concerning the format and content of the fact sheets. One option is to require all the information currently required in an MSDS. Another option is to require that the fact sheet contain only the MSDS information that would be most useful to agricultural workers and pesticide handlers, allowing them to obtain other information from an MSDS, which also would be made accessible. Still another option is to refer users to the pesticide product labeling for certain information, such as personal protective equipment requirements and restricted-entry intervals and to require that both the labeling and the fact sheet be made accessible to agricultural workers and pesticide handlers. The Agency seeks comment as to the appropriate format and content of the fact sheets. The content being proposed for the fact sheets would encourage the use of nontechnical language and eliminate the requirement for some highly technical data that might be of little use to agricultural workers and pesticide handlers. The Agency is inclined to minimize the technical specificity of the information in favor of language more easily interpreted by agricultural workers and pesticide handlers. Specifically, the Agency is considering requiring that technical information be expressed through the use of comparative terms. The Agency seeks information and assistance from interested parties as to how this might best be accomplished and seeks specific comments as to what range of numeric values for each quantitative property of the pesticide would be appropriate for each comparative term. In the case of vapor pressure, for example, what ranges of vapor pressure values should be characterized as highly volatile, moderately volatile, slightly volatile, or relatively nonvolatile? Other physical characteristics that might be best expressed in comparative terms include flammability, explosivity, solubility, stability (or shelf life), and, in some instances, compatibility. However, this latter characteristic could be specifically described either by listing products the pesticide is known to be compatible with or by listing products the pesticide is known to be incompatible with. At least two possible chart-style presentations might be appropriate for fact sheets. One is the National Fire Protection Association Hazard Rating chart, which could be used to describe the fire hazards. These ratings are keyed to a numeric scale from 0 to 4 as follows: 0 = least, 1 = slight, 2 = moderate, 3 = high, and 4 = severe hazard. Health hazard, fire hazard, and reactivity hazard are rated. Another chart that might be appropriate for adaptation is the SARA Title III Hazard Classification chart, which uses a ``yes/no'' key to indicate whether the chemical presents an immediate (acute) health, delayed (chronic) health, fire, sudden release of pressure, or reactivity hazard. The Agency solicits comment on chart-style presentations in general and on the utility of these two specific examples. The Agency is inclined to require simple, standardized phrases to describe the toxicological characteristics of the chemicals. The usual technical terminology, for example: ``Toxicology: Acute Exposure: Skin - Rabbit, 2.0 mg/kg'' may not communicate interpretable information to most people, including most agricultural workers and pesticide handlers. The Agency believes that standard descriptive phrases should be limited to three or four per adverse effect, such as: (1) Skin or eye irritants could be classified as: severe irritant, moderate irritant, slight irritant, or relatively non-irritating; (2) Systemic toxicity through swallowing, through inhaling, or through absorption through the skin could be classified as: highly toxic, moderately toxic, slightly toxic, or relatively nontoxic; (3) Sensitization potential could be classified as: severe sensitizer, moderate sensitizer, slight sensitizer, or relatively nonsensitizing. These simple terms could be easily learned by agricultural workers and pesticide handlers who are occupationally exposed to pesticides. The Agency is also considering whether to associate a ``signal word,'' i.e., danger, warning, caution, with each of these routes of entry in addition to the comparative phrase. For example: ``Warning--moderately toxic if swallowed; Caution--slightly irritating to the eyes,'' etc. The LD50 or LC50 or other quantitative values could also appear on the fact sheet, but standard descriptive terms would be mandatory. The Agency is also inclined to require that fact sheets express delayed-onset toxicity concerns in a comparative manner and to require that the fact sheet simply state whether any government agency or recognized medical organization has listed the pesticide or any of its ingredients as a potential carcinogen, rather than list each agency or organization separately. In any case, EPA is inclined to require that fact sheets incorporate simplified language for these effects, such as: tumor-causing in lieu of oncogenic; birth-defect-causing in lieu of teratogenic; injury to fetus in lieu of embryotoxic or fetotoxic; injury to pregnant females in lieu of maternally toxic; injury to genes or chromosomes in lieu of genotoxic or mutagenic; injury to brain and nervous system in lieu of neurotoxic; immune system injury in lieu of immunosuppression; and heart/lung injury in lieu of cardiopulmonary impairment. Information on the fact sheet that is directed specifically to medical personnel, such as antidotes or appropriate medical amelioration procedures, could retain the precise medical terminology. However, for the sections on symptoms of overexposure, medical conditions aggravated by exposure, and emergency and first aid procedures for each applicable route of exposure, the Agency is inclined to require the use of simplified language. For example, the following terms might be substituted for the more precise medical terminology: tears in lieu of lacrimation; rash or reddening in lieu of erythema; cracking in lieu of fissuring; peeling or scaling in lieu of desquamation; unconsciousness or stupor in lieu of narcosis; swelling in lieu of edema; tissue damage in lieu of necrosis; giddiness, headache, dizziness, and blurred vision in lieu of central nervous system depression; slow heart rate in lieu of bradycardia; rapid heart rate in lieu of tachycardia; high blood pressure in lieu of hypertension; low blood pressure in lieu of hypotension; low body temperature in lieu of hypothermia; cramps, diarrhea, nausea or vomiting in lieu of gastrointestinal irritation; loss of appetite in lieu of anorexia; muscle pains in lieu of myalgia; bluish skin color in lieu of cyanosis; yellowish skin color in lieu of jaundice; lack of coordination in lieu of ataxia; shortness of breath or difficulty breathing in lieu of dyspnea; rapid breathing in lieu of tachypnea; muscle spasms in lieu of tetany or myotonia; pinpoint pupil in lieu of miosis; runny nose in lieu of rhinorrhea; blood in feces in lieu of melena; blood in urine in lieu of hematuria; irritated stomach in lieu of gastritis; drooling or excess saliva in lieu of salivation; abnormality or irregularity in lieu of anomaly; poisoning in lieu of toxification; and plenty or large in lieu of copious. The Agency solicits comments on this approach and suggestions as to possible changes in these proposed substitutes as well as suggestions as to similar terms that might be simplified. The Agency is considering allowing the fact sheets to indicate which exposure-reduction measures have been established for the product, without specifying the details of those measures. The fact sheet would then indicate how the pesticide handlers or agricultural workers should assess whether those exposure-reduction measures have been met. For example, the fact sheet would indicate that a restricted-entry interval has been set for the product and that workers should not enter the area immediately after application and until the supervisor indicates that the restricted-entry period has expired. If another type of exposure limitation has been established for the product, such as an OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL), the fact sheet might state that a standard had been established for exposures to the product through inhalation and direct that enclosed treatment areas should be tested before workers reenter those areas. If ventilation criteria or other criteria have been established for such enclosed treatment areas, these should be listed in the fact sheet. For example, the fact sheet might state: ``Stay out of enclosed treatment areas until they have been mechanically ventilated for at least 2 hours or until a test indicates that the levels of pesticide product in the air are no longer hazardous.'' The Agency is also inclined to require that any environmental effects listed on the fact sheets be expressed in simple, standardized comparative phrases. The existing terminology on some MSDSs, for example: ``48-hr EC50 Daphnia Magna: 22 mg/l,'' may not communicate interpretable information to the audience targeted by the fact sheet. As an alternative, EPA suggests the use of the same language as for systemic toxicity to humans, i.e., highly toxic, moderately toxic, slightly toxic, or relatively nontoxic. The environmental categories could include, as appropriate, an indication of the relative toxicity of the pesticide to fish, other aquatic organisms, birds, mammals, bees, reptiles and amphibians, and invertebrate organisms. If personal protective equipment, engineering controls, and other special workplace practices are actually listed on the fact sheet rather than referenced by the fact sheet to the labeling or MSDS, the Agency is inclined to require standardization of terminology in describing such requirements and practices. This requirement would be designed to reduce confusion that may be caused by fact sheets that appear to be inconsistent with the requirements on pesticide labeling. For example, the following terms might be required: (1) Personal protective equipment in lieu of protective clothing or protective clothing and equipment; (2) coverall in lieu of full body suit or protective clothing; (3) chemical-resistant in lieu of chemical-impervious or impermeable; (4) specifying one or more protective types of chemical-resistant materials, such as neoprene, natural rubber, butyl rubber, PVC, nitrile, plastic laminate, etc; (5) specifying ``waterproof'' only when any plastic or rubber is resistant to the chemical; (6) protective eyewear, such as goggles, face shield or safety glasses in lieu of other eyewear terms; (6) protective footwear, such as boots, shoe covers or shoes in lieu of other footwear terms; (8) dust/mist respirator in lieu of dust respirator or mask; and (9) specifying a type of respirator--either dust/mist, vapor-removing, or supplied air--in lieu of respirator, organic-vapor respirator, air-purifying respirator, or pesticide respirator. In addition, the Agency is inclined to require a standardized format for the presentation of such requirements and practices, such as: (1) Body: [specify: ``coverall'' or ``chemical-resistant protective suit'' or ``long-sleeved shirt and long pants'' and/or ``chemical-resistant apron'' as applicable]; (2) Hands: [specify type of glove material or use ``waterproof'' to indicate any plastic or rubber will suffice]; (3) Feet: [specify type of footwear material or use ``waterproof'' to indicate that any plastic or rubber material will suffice]; (4) Eyes: [specify ``protective eyewear'' or a particular type of eyewear, such as goggles]; (5) Lungs: [specify ``dust/mist respirator'' or ``vapor-removing respirator approved for pesticides or organic vapors'' or ``air-supplied respirator'']. The Agency seeks comment as to appropriate standardized language for describing various engineering controls, such as closed systems, enclosed cabs, and enclosed cockpits and for describing various workplace practice recommendations or requirements, such as cleaning and maintenance of personal protective equipment, washing hands and face frequently, etc. The Agency solicits comment as to the appropriate means of conveying information about spill cleanup procedures and about disposal methods for excess pesticide and for pesticide containers. Such technical, product-specific information might be more appropriate for pesticide labeling or MSDSs than for fact sheets. On the other hand, unless pesticide labeling or MSDSs were also accessible to pesticide handlers and agricultural workers, at least some of this information would seem appropriate for fact sheets to avoid unacceptable risk of exposure in an emergency. The Agency also solicits comment as to whether providing the pesticide product labeling should be an acceptable alternative or supplement to providing an MSDS or fact sheet. The Agency has several concerns about such an option. The pesticide product labeling may be unavailable to most agricultural workers. The labeling is often affixed to the product container and thus located in a pesticide storage area. The labeling may be contaminated or rendered partially unreadable during use of the container under normal field conditions. Furthermore, the Agency is concerned about information that is routinely included in MSDSs but that is not on the pesticide product labeling, such as information about delayed-onset adverse health effects and spill or leak cleanup procedures. However, the pesticide product labeling is a logical source of hazard information about the product and could be produced separately from the container, which would make it more accessible. Another option is to require that both the labeling or MSDS and a fact sheet be made available. The Agency seeks comment as to whether pesticide labeling should be an acceptable alternative to MSDSs or fact sheets in the agricultural workplace or whether a fact sheet plus the pesticide labeling or MSDS should be required. The Agency is also considering requiring or allowing the use of pictogram symbols on fact sheets to graphically convey crucial health and safety information to workers occupationally exposed to pesticides. The use of pictograms is a widely accepted and efficient means of conveying information to people. Workers/handlers exposed occupationally to agricultural pesticides have a wide range of language skills. Many workers/handlers speak and read a language other than English; others speak English, but cannot read it; still others speak and read English, but are unable to interpret the technical data being presented to them in the fact sheets. While some workers/handlers may have little difficulty deciphering highly technical terms, the Agency believes they constitute a small fraction of the workforce currently encompassed by the Worker Protection Standard. Considerable study has been given to the use of easily understood international symbols for traffic control. While less study has been undertaken to develop such symbols for hazard communication such an approach could prove beneficial. For example, a pictogram could depict a drop of chemical on the skin of a hand or forearm with the words (or an additional symbol) in the upper corner of the pictogram indicating whether the chemical is slightly toxic, moderately toxic, or highly toxic by the dermal route. Some of these pictograms have already been developed or proposed; others would have to be created. The Agency solicits comments on the option of requiring or allowing pictograms on fact sheets and solicits examples of pictograms that might be appropriate. The Agency is concerned that State or Federal agencies choosing to produce or to approve fact sheets should develop and employ specific standards for content and completeness under the general criteria in the rule. The Agency invites comment on the option of requiring that authority to approve fact sheets be contingent upon EPA approval and periodic reapproval of a plan by the organization proposing to operate such a process. Such a plan would describe the criteria for approval, including topics to be covered, method of presentation, acceptable sources of information, and requirements for updating of fact sheets as new information becomes available. The Agency believes that the economic impact of this proposal on agricultural entities will be negligible. Agricultural employers already are subject to OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard and must provide MSDSs on request. The fact sheet alternative may reduce this existing burden by creating a regulatory option that may be easier for employers to meet and that may benefit handlers and workers by providing hazard information in a more understandable form. Agricultural employers also will derive benefits from the consolidation of certain Federal hazard communication requirements under one agency, which will facilitate understanding and compliance. The Agency believes that its proposal, when implemented, would address the public's concern about the relationship between OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard and EPA's Worker Protection Standard in a way that could be anticipated to reduce confusion among agricultural employers and ensure adequate communication of pesticide hazards to agricultural handlers and workers. EPA solicits comment on any aspect of the matters discussed in this proposal. II. Statutory Review A. U.S. Department of Agriculture As required by FIFRA section 25(a), a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the final rule (40 CFR Part 170) were provided to the Secretary of Agriculture on June 7, 1991. On March 27, 1992, the Secretary provided written comments. The Secretary had comments concerning hazard communication in connection with provisions in the Worker Protection Standard; however, none of those comments applied specifically to this NPRM. B. Congressional Committees As required by FIFRA section 25(a), a copy of the final rule was provided to the committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the U.S. Senate and the Committee on Agriculture of the U.S. House of Representatives. Comments were provided by Senator Patrick Leahy and Representative Charlie Rose. Following is a summary of each comment by Senator Leahy and Representative Rose, together with the Agency's response. Comment 1B1: Farmworkers, like all other workers, should have access to MSDSs as well as the product label. Response: EPA agrees that workers should have access to MSDSs or fact sheets containing similar information about the hazards of specific pesticides. The Agency also notes that the Worker Protection Standard requires employers to provide information from pesticide labels to workers assigned to perform early entry activities and to persons assigned to handle pesticides. In addition, label-specific information must be provided to workers and handlers in the event of an occupationally caused pesticide-related illness or injury. Comment 1B2: EPA should also require growers to provide their workers with crop sheets. Response: The Agency agrees that workers should have access to information about the hazards of the specific pesticides they may be exposed to during their work activities. The purpose of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is to establish a mechanism for effectively and efficiently conveying information about pesticide hazards to workers and handlers. The Agency anticipates diverse suggestions and views during the comment period as to the best means of conveying product-specific information to agricultural employees. C. Scientific Advisory Panel Pursuant to FIFRA section 25(d), a copy of this proposed rule was provided to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP). A waiver of review was requested; the waiver was granted. III. Regulatory Assessment Requirements A. Executive Order 12291 Under Executive Order 12291, EPA is required to judge whether a rule should be classified as major or non-major for purposes of review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). According to E.O. 12291, major rules are rules that are likely to result in: (1) An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; or (2) A major increase in the costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State or local governmental agencies, or geographic regions; or, (3) Significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or in the ability of U.S. based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or export markets. This proposed rule would not be a major rule because it does not meet any of the above criteria. This proposed rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review as required by E.O. 12291. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act This proposed rule has been reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354; 94 Stat. 1164; 5 U.S.C. 601-612) for its impact on small businesses. The Agency has determined that the burden on small agricultural businesses does not outweigh the risk to handlers and workers employed in those businesses, and an exemption from the requirements in this rule amendment for small businesses would not be warranted. The burden to employers is that of holding for 30 days and making available to their employees upon request informational documents that are available to the employers at no charge. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The Agency has determined that there are no information collection burdens under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., associated with the requirements of this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 170 Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests, Intergovernmental relations, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: August 13, 1992. William K. Reilly, Administrator. Therefore, it is proposed that part 170 as revised elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, be amended as follows: Part 170--[AMENDED] l. The authority citation for part 170 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136w. 2. By amending 170.3 by adding and alphabetically inserting the following definition to read as follows: 170.3 Definitions. * * * * * Material Safety Data Sheet means an information document as defined by 29 CFR 1910.1200(g). * * * * * 3. By adding new 170.133 to subpart B, to read as follows: 170.133 Hazard information. (a) Requirement. The agricultural employer shall make available hazard information concerning a pesticide, in accordance with this section, to any worker who enters a pesticide treated area on an agricultural establishment where, within the last 30 days a pesticide has been applied or a restricted-entry interval has been in effect, or to any worker who may be exposed to the pesticide during its normal conditions of use or in a foreseeable emergency. (b) Format of information. Hazard information shall be in one of the following forms: (1) A Material Safety Data Sheet for the product, or for each active and inert ingredient listed on the label of the product. (2) A fact sheet that has been prepared or approved by a State or Federal agency for the pesticide. If the chemical ingredients of two or more pesticides are substantially similar, but the specific composition varies and the products present similar hazards, one fact sheet may suffice for these similar products. (c) Content of fact sheets. Each fact sheet shall contain information, expressed in nontechnical terms, except for items specifically targeted towards medical personnel, such as antidotes or emergency treatment. The information shall include: (1) Typical brand name(s) of the pesticide, and the chemical name and common name of the pesticide. (2) Information on the physical characteristics of the pesticide, such as: (i) Color, state (solid, liquid, or gas), odor, and comparative volatility. (ii) Comparative flammability and explosivity. (iii) Comparative shelf-life stability, comparative or actual compatibility or incompatibility to possible tank-mix products, and comparative likelihood of decomposing into hazardous components. (3) Information on the comparative toxicity of the pesticide: (i) The comparative acute toxicity for the pesticide when swallowed, inhaled, or absorbed through the skin, expressed in terms of the relative category (highly toxic, moderately toxic, slightly toxic or relatively nontoxic) and corresponding signal word, basing the category and signal word on the criteria of 156.10(h) of this chapter. (ii) The comparative skin irritation potential and eye irritation potential for the pesticide expressed in terms of the relative category (severely, moderately, or slightly irritating or relatively nonirritating to skin and/or eyes) and corresponding signal word, basing the category and signal word on the criteria of 156.10(h) of this chapter. (iii) The comparative sensitization category for the pesticide expressed in terms of the relative category (highly, moderately, or slightly likely or relatively unlikely to cause allergic or sensitivity reactions in some individuals). (iv) Symptoms of overexposure. (v) Any chronic or delayed health effects, including tumors, malignancy or cancer, changes in the genes or chromosomes, birth defects, illness or death (miscarriage or stillbirth) to a fetus, infertility or sterility in men or women, blood disorders, nerve or brain disorders, skin disorders, liver and kidney disorders, and/or lung and respiratory disorders. (vi) Whether the pesticide has been found to be a potential cancer-causing agent by a government agency or recognized medical organization. The sources that must be considered include the latest editions of the National Toxicology Program Annual Report on Carcinogens (NTP), the International Agency for Research on Cancer Monographs (IARC), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and EPA. (vii) Medical conditions that may be aggravated by exposure to the product. (viii) Emergency and first aid procedures for each applicable route of exposure, i.e., oral, dermal, inhalation, and eye. (ix) Information for physicians on the antidote, if any, and other applicable information for medical treatment. (x) The types of exposure limits that have been established for the pesticide. The exposure limits that must be investigated include the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) and the EPA restricted-entry interval (REI). Any other known and applicable exposure limit used or recommended by the manufacturer, formulator, importer or a governmental agency must also be noted. All listed limits must be accompanied by a reference source to permit more detailed information to be obtained. (4) Information on any special protection needed in handling the product such as use of personal protective equipment, engineering controls, and workplace practices for the pesticide: (i) Situations where personal protective equipment or engineering controls should be used. (ii) Body protection, including the type of clothing to be worn during exposures, such as mixing/loading, cleaning of equipment, and other handling situations. (iii) Hand and foot protection needed, including specific material, if known, that is chemical-resistant to the pesticide or typical carrier solvent. (iv) Eye protection. (v) Respiratory protection, including, if known, the specific respirator type (dust/mist filtering, vapor/gas-removing, or air-supplied) and the Mine Safety and Health Administration/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (MSHA/NIOSH) approval number prefix assigned to equipment that is protective for the pesticide for exposures outdoors and in enclosed areas. (vi) Recommendations for ventilating enclosed areas, if appropriate. (vii) Any other personal protective equipment that would be appropriate for specific exposure situations. (viii) Recommended engineering controls, such as closed systems, enclosed cockpits, or enclosed cabs. (ix) Other special protection information or special workplace practices. (5) Information on spill or leak cleanup procedures and disposal methods for excess chemical and for containers. (6) The date the fact sheet was prepared or revised to its present form. (7) The telephone number of the National Pesticide Telecommunications Network and the name, address, and telephone number of the manufacturer, formulator, importer, or responsible party, if known, who could provide additional information about the formulated product or the active/inert ingredient and about appropriate emergency procedures. (8) If relevant information for any given category on the fact sheet is not obtainable, the category shall be marked to so indicate. (d) Accuracy of information on the fact sheet and updates. (1) The entity preparing the fact sheet shall ensure that the information recorded accurately reflects the scientific evidence used in making the hazard determination or shall ensure that the information recorded accurately reflects the information published on the manufacturer's Material Safety Data Sheet or the pesticide registrant's product labeling. (2) If the entity preparing the fact sheet becomes aware of any significant information regarding its hazards or those of its formulations or the inert ingredients, one of the following actions is required: (i) The new information shall be added to the fact sheet within 3 months. (ii) If the pesticide is not being produced or imported currently, the information shall be added to the fact sheet before the formulated product is introduced or reintroduced into the workplace. (e) Obtaining information. If a fact sheet or Material Safety Data Sheet for the formulated product or for each label-listed active and inert ingredient in the formulated product is not available at the time the product is purchased, the agricultural employer shall take appropriate and timely steps to obtain the Material Safety Data Sheet or fact sheet from the distributor, the manufacturer, a State or Federal agency, or another distribution source. (f) Maintaining information. The agricultural employer shall maintain the information specified in paragraph (a) of this section at an appropriate central location, accessible to workers during working hours and readily obtainable in an emergency. (g) Providing information. The agricultural employer shall provide a written copy of the information specified in paragraph (b) of this section, within a reasonable amount of time, on the request of the worker, a representative of the worker, or medical personnel treating the worker. 4. By adding new 170.233 to subpart C, to read as follows: 170.233 Hazard information. (a) Requirement. The handler employer shall provide hazard information concerning a pesticide, in accordance with this section, to any handler of a pesticide that is being handled or that has been handled within the past 30 days or to any handler who may be exposed to the pesticide during its normal conditions of use or in a foreseeable emergency. (b) Format of information. Hazard information shall be in either one of the following forms: (1) A Material Safety Data Sheet for the product, or for each active and inert ingredient listed on the label of the product. (2) A fact sheet that has been prepared or approved by a State or Federal agency for the pesticide. If the chemical ingredients of two or more pesticides are substantially similar, but the specific composition varies and the products present similar hazards, one fact sheet may suffice for these similar products. (c) Content of fact sheets. Each fact sheet shall contain information, expressed in nontechnical terms, except for items specifically targeted towards medical personnel, such as antidotes or emergency treatment. The information shall include: (1) Typical brand name(s) of the pesticide, and the chemical name and common name of the pesticide. (2) Information on the physical characteristics of the pesticide, such as: (i) Color, state (solid, liquid, or gas), odor, and comparative volatility. (ii) Comparative flammability and explosivity. (iii) Comparative shelf-life stability, comparative or actual compatibility or incompatibility to possible tank-mix products, and comparative likelihood of decomposing into hazardous components. (3) Information on the comparative toxicity of the pesticide: (i) The comparative acute toxicity for the pesticide when swallowed, inhaled, or absorbed through the skin, expressed in terms of the relative category (highly toxic, moderately toxic, slightly toxic, or relatively nontoxic) and corresponding signal word, basing the category and signal word on the criteria of 156.10(h) of this chapter. (ii) The comparative skin irritation potential and eye irritation potential for the pesticide expressed in terms of the relative category (severely, moderately, or slightly irritating or relatively nonirritating to skin and/or eyes) and corresponding signal word, basing the category and signal word on the criteria of 156.10(h) of this chapter. (iii) The comparative sensitization category for the pesticide expressed in terms of the relative category (highly, moderately, or slightly likely or relatively unlikely to cause allergic or sensitivity reactions in some individuals). (iv) Symptoms of overexposure. (v) Any chronic or delayed health effects, including tumors, malignancy, or cancer, changes in the genes or chromosomes, birth defects, illness or death (miscarriage or stillbirth) to a fetus, infertility or sterility in men or women, blood disorders, nerve or brain disorders, skin disorders, liver and kidney disorders, and/or lung and respiratory disorders. (vi) Whether the pesticide has been found to be a potential cancer causing agent by a government agency or recognized medical organization. The sources that must be considered include the latest editions of the National Toxicology Program Annual Report on Carcinogens (NTP), the International Agency for Research on Cancer Monographs (IARC), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and EPA. (vii) Medical conditions that may be aggravated by exposure to the product. (viii) Emergency and first aid procedures for each applicable route of exposure, i.e., oral, dermal, inhalation, and eye. (ix) Information for physicians on the antidote, if any, and other applicable information for medical treatment. (x) The types of exposure limits that have been established for the pesticide. The exposure limits that must be investigated include the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) and the EPA restricted-entry interval (REI). Any other known and applicable exposure limit used or recommended by the manufacturer, formulator, importer or a governmental agency must also be noted. All listed limits must be accompanied by a reference source to permit more detailed information to be obtained. (4) Information on any special protection needed in handling the product such as use of personal protective equipment, engineering controls, and workplace practices for the pesticide: (i) Situations where personal protective equipment or engineering controls should be used. (ii) Body protection, including the type of clothing to be worn during exposures, such as mixing/loading, cleaning of equipment, and other handling situations. (iii) Hand and foot protection needed, including specific material, if known, that is chemical-resistant to the pesticide or typical carrier solvent. (iv) Eye protection. (v) Respiratory protection, including, if known, the specific respirator type (dust/mist filtering, vapor/gas-removing, or air-supplied) and the Mine Safety and Health Administration/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (MSHA/NIOSH) approval number prefix assigned to equipment that is protective for the pesticide for exposures outdoors and in enclosed areas. (vi) Recommendations for ventilating enclosed areas, if appropriate. (vii) Any other personal protective equipment that would be appropriate for specific exposure situations. (viii) Recommended engineering controls, such as closed systems, enclosed cockpits, or enclosed cabs. (ix) Other special protection information or special workplace practices. (5) Information on spill or leak cleanup procedures and disposal methods for excess chemical and for containers. (6) The date the fact sheet was prepared or revised to its present form. (7) The telephone number of the National Pesticide Telecommunications Network and the name, address, and telephone number of the manufacturer, formulator, importer, or responsible party, if known, who could provide additional information about the formulated product or the active/inert ingredient and about appropriate emergency procedures. (8) If relevant information for any given category on the fact sheet is not obtainable, the category shall be marked to so indicate. (d) Accuracy of information on the fact sheet and updates. (1) The entity preparing the fact sheet shall ensure that the information recorded accurately reflects the scientific evidence used in making the hazard determination or shall ensure that the information recorded accurately reflects the information published on the manufacturer's Material Safety Data Sheet or the pesticide registrant's product labeling. (2) If the entity preparing the fact sheet becomes aware of any significant information regarding its hazards or those of its formulations or the inert ingredients, one of the following actions is required: (i) The new information shall be added to the fact sheet within 3 months. (ii) If the pesticide is not being produced or imported currently, the information shall be added to the fact sheet before the formulated product is introduced or reintroduced into the workplace. (e) Obtaining information. If a fact sheet or Material Safety Data Sheet for the formulated product or for each label-listed active and inert ingredient in the formulated product is not available at the time the product is purchased, the handler employer shall take appropriate and timely steps to obtain the Material Safety Data Sheet or fact sheet from the distributor, the manufacturer, a State or Federal agency, or another distribution source. (f) Maintaining information. The handler employer shall maintain the information specified in paragraph (a) of this section at an appropriate central location, accessible to handlers during working hours and readily obtainable in an emergency. (g) Providing information. The handler employer shall provide a written copy of the information specified in paragraph (b) of this section, within a reasonable amount of time, on the request of the handler, a representative of the handler, or medical personnel treating the handler. [FR Doc. 92-20006 Filed 8-19-92; 10:31 am]