[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2830-2842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-585]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 170
[OPP-250098; FRL-4917-7]
Exceptions to Worker Protection Standard Early Entry
Restrictions; Irrigation Activities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed exceptions to rule; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is considering exceptions to the Worker Protection
Standard for Agricultural Pesticides (WPS), published at 57 FR 38102
(August 21, 1992), that would allow, under specified conditions,
workers to perform early entry irrigation tasks for more than 1 hour
per day during a restricted entry interval (REI). Early entry is entry
to a pesticide-treated area before expiration of the REI.
DATES: Comments, data, or evidence should be submitted on or before
February 27, 1995. EPA does not intend to extend this comment period.
ADDRESSES: Comments identified by the document control OPP-250098
should be submitted in triplicate by mail to: Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environment Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. All written comments filed pursuant to this
notice will be available for public inspection in Room 1132, Crystal
Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, (703) 305-5805,
from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday thru Friday except legal holidays.
Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by any of
three different mechanisms: by sending electronic mail (e-mail) to:
[email protected]; by sending a ``Subscribe'' message to
[email protected] and once subscribed, send your
comments to RIN-2070-AC69; or through the EPA Electronic Bulletin Board
by dialing 202-488-3671, enter selection ``DMAIL,'' user name ``BB--
USER'' or 919-541-4642, enter selection ``MAIL,'' user name ``BB--
USER.'' Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding
the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Comments and
data will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1 file format
or ASCII file format. All comments and data in electronic form must be
identified by the docket number OPP-250098 since all five documents in
this separate part provide the same electronic address. No CBI should
be submitted through e-mail. Electronic comments on this proposed rule,
but not the record, may be viewed or new comments filed online at many
Federal Depository Libraries. Additional information on electronic
submissions can be found in unit VI. of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeanne Heying, Certification, Training
and Occupational Safety Branch (7506C), Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, (703) 305-7666, or your
regional or State official as noted in the List of Worker Protection
Contact below.
[[Page 2831]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
This proposed WPS rule amendment is one of a series of Agency
actions in response to concerns raised since publication of the final
rule in August 1992 by those interested in and affected by the rule. In
addition to this proposed amendment, EPA is publishing four other
notices soliciting public comment on concerns raised by various
affected parties. Other actions EPA is considering include: (1)
modification to the worker training requirements; (2) requirements for
crop advisors; (3) reduced restricted entry intervals (REIs) for low
risk pesticides; and (4) reduced early entry restrictions for
activities involving limited contact with treated surfaces. The Agency
is interested in receiving comments on all options and questions
presented.
Section 170.112(e) of the Worker Protection Standard for
Agricultural Pesticides (WPS) (40 CFR part 170), published at 57 FR
38102 (August 21, 1992), provides a mechanism for considering
exceptions to the WPS provision that limits early entry during a
restricted-entry interval (REI) to perform agricultural tasks,
including irrigation tasks. The Agency has received requests for
exceptions to the early entry limitations for performing irrigation
tasks from parties in the States of California and Hawaii. The
California parties also requested an indefinite entry period for frost-
prevention tasks; this request has been returned to the requesters for
additional supporting information and may be considered later. The
Agency is proposing for consideration a national exception to the WPS
early entry restrictions for performing irrigation tasks. The purpose
of this notice is to solicit further information and comment on the
proposal to assist the Agency in determining whether the conditions of
entry under any of the proposed exceptions would pose unreasonable
risks to workers performing the permitted irrigation tasks during a
restricted-entry interval.
In addition, EPA solicits further information about the economic impact
of granting or not granting the proposed exceptions. For further
information please contact the person list under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT above, or your regional or State official as noted
in the following List:
List of Worker Protection Contacts
EPA Regional Contacts
Ms. Pam Ringhoff
U.S. EPA, Region I
Pesticides Section (APP)
John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg.
Boston, MA 02203
Phone: 617/565-3931
FAX: 617/565-4939
Ms. Theresa Yaegel-Souffront
U.S. EPA, Region II, (MS-240)
Pesticides, & Asbestos Section
2890 Woodridge Avenue, Bldg. 209
Edison, NJ 08837
Phone: 908/906-6897
FAX: 908/321-6771
Ms. Magda Rodriguez
U.S. EPA, Region III
Pesticides Section (3AT-32)
841 Chestnut Bldg.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: 215/597-0442
FAX: 215/597-3156
Ms. Jane Horton
U.S. EPA, Region IV
Pesticides Section (4APT)
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Phone: 404/347-3222
FAX: 404/347-1681
Mr. Don Baumgartner
Mr. John Forwalter
Ms. Irene Miranda
U.S. EPA, Region V
Pesticides Section (SP-14J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Phone: 312/886-7835 (Don)
886-7834 (John)
353-9686 (Irene)
FAX: 312/353-4342
Mr. Jerry Oglesby
U.S. EPA, Region VI
Pesticides Section (6T-PP)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214/665-7563
FAX: 214/665-2164
Ms. Kathleen Fenton
U.S. EPA, Region VII
Pesticides Section (TOPE)
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
Phone: 913/551-7874
FAX: 913/551-7065
Mr. Ed Stearns
U.S. EPA, Region VIII
Pesticides Section (8ART-TS)
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
Phone: 303/293-1745
FAX: 303/293-1647
Ms. Katherine H. Rudolph
U.S. EPA, Region IX
Pesticides Section (A-4-5)
75 Hawthrone Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415/744-1065
FAX: 415/744-1073
Mr. Allan Welch
U.S. EPA, Region X
Pesticides Section (AT-083)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206/553-1980
FAX: 206/553-8338
National Contacts
REGION I
Connecticut
Ms. Debra Cattucio
Pesticides/PCB Management Division
Dept. of Environmental Protection
165 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106-1600
Phone: 203/566-5148
FAX: 203/566-4379
Maine
Ms. Tammy Gould
Board of Pesticide Control
ME Dept. of Agriculture/Food & Rural Resources
Station 28
State Office Building
Augusta, ME 04333-0028
Phone: 207/287-2731
FAX: 207/287-7548
Massachusetts
Ms. Lillian Rivera
Pesticide Bureau/Department of Food & Agriculture
Department of Agriculture
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202-0009
Phone: 617-727-3020
FAX: 617/727/7235
New Hampshire
Mr. Murray L. McKay, Director
Division of Pesticide Control
New Hampshire Dept. of Agriculture
Caller Box 2042
Concord, NH 03302-2042
Phone: 603/271-3550
FAX: 603/271-1109
Rhode Island
Ms. Elizabeth M. Lopes-Duguay
Senior Plant Pathologist
Division of Agriculture
Department of Environmental Management
22 Hayes Street
Providence, RI 02908-5025
Phone: 401/277-2781
FAX: 401/277-6047
Vermont
Mr. John Berino
Division of Plant Industry
Laboratories & Consumer Assurance
Dept. of Agriculture, Food & Markets
116 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05620-2901
Phone: 802/828-2431
FAX: 802/828-2361
[[Page 2832]]
REGION II
New Jersey
Mr. Raymond Ferrarin
Assistant Director
Pesticide Control Program
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
CN 411
Trenton, NJ 08625
Phone: 609/530-4122
FAX: 609/530-8324
New York
Mr. James S. Moran, PE, Supervisor
Bureau of Pesticides Regulation
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-7254
Phone: 518/457-7482
FAX: 518/457-0629
Puerto Rico
Ms. Arline R. de Gonzalez, Director
Agriculture Materials Laboratory
Puerto Rico Dept. of Agriculture
P.O. Box 10163
Santurce, PR 00908
Phone: 809/796-1710
FAX: 809/796-4426
Virgin Islands
Mr. Leonard Reed
Assistant Director
Division of Environmental Protection
Virgin Islands Dept. of Planning
& Natural Resources
Nisky Center, Suite 231
Nisky 45 A
St. Thomas, U.S. VI 00802
Phone: 809/774-3320
FAX: 809/774-5416
REGION III
Delaware
Mr. Larry Towle
Delaware Dept. of Agriculture
2320 S. Dupont Highway
Dover, DE 19901
Phone: 302/739-4811
FAX: 302/697-6287
District of Columbia
Mr. Mark Greenleaf (C-T)
DCRA/ERA/ECD
Pesticides Section - Suite 203
2100 Martin Luther King, Jr. Ave. SE
Washington, DC 20020
Phone: 202/645-6080
FAX: 202/645-6622
Maryland
Mr. John Bergquist
Pesticide Regulation Section
Maryland Dept. of Agriculture
50 Harry S. Truman Parkway
Annapolis, MD 21401
Phone: 410/841-5710
FAX: 410/841-2765
Pennsylvania
Mr. Dave Bingamen
Bureau of Plant Industry
PA Department of Agriculture
2301 N. Cameron Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110-9408
Phone: 717/787-4843
FAX: 7l7/783-3275
Virginia
Mr. Don Delorme
Office of Pesticide Management
VA Department of Agriculture
& Consumer Services,
P.O. Box 1163, Rm. 403
1100 Bank Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Phone: 804/371-6558
FAX: 804/371-8598
West Virginia
Mr. Ed Hartman
West Virginia Dept. of Agriculture
P.O. Box 66
Inwood, WV 25428
Phone: 304/229-0981
FAX: 304/229-2510
REGION IV
Alabama
Mr. Pat Morgan
Pesticide Administrator
AL Dept. Agriculture & Industries P.O. Box 3336
Montgomery, AL 36109-0336
Phone: 205/242-2656
FAX: 205/240-3103
Florida
Dr. Marion Fuller
Ms. Mari Dugarte-Stavania
Florida Dept. of Agriculture
3125 Conner Boulevard, MC-2
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650
Phone: 904/488-3314
FAX: 904/922-2134
Georgia
Mr. Mike Evans
Special Projects Coordinator
Georgia Dept. of Agriculture
Entomology & Pesticides
Capitol Square, Suite 550
Atlanta, GA 30334
Phone: 404/651-7861
FAX: 404/656-3644
Kentucky
Mr. Ken Richeson
Worker Protection Coordinator
Kentucky Agriculture
Div. of Pesticides
500 Metro Street
Frankfort, KY 40601
Phone: 502/564-7274
FAX: 502/564-3773
Mississippi
Mr. Tommy McDaniel
Pesticide Coordinator
MDAC, Bureau of Plant Industry
P.O. Box 5207
Miss. State, MS 39762
Phone: 601/325-3390
FAX: 601/325-8397
North Carolina
Ms. Kay Glenn
Pesticide Specialist
N.C. Dept. of Agriculture
P.O. Box 27647
Raleigh, NC 27611
Phone: 919/733-3556
FAX: 919/733-9796
South Carolina
Dr. Neil Ogg
Ms. Tammy Lark
Special Programs Manager
Dept. of Fertilizer & Pesticide
Control
257 Poole Agricultural Center
Clemson University, Box 340394
Clemson, SC 29634-0394
Phone: 803/656-3171
FAX: 803/656-3219
Tennessee
Ms. Karen Roecker
Worker Safety Coordinator
Tenn. Dept. of Agriculture
Div. of Plant Industries
P.O. Box 40627, Melrose Station
Nashville, TN 37204
Phone: 615/360-0795
FAX: 615/360-0757
REGION V
Illinois
Mr. Thomas Walker, Manager
Support Services
Bureau of Environmental Programs
IL Department of Agriculture
State Fairgrounds, P.O. Box 19281
Springfield, IL 62706
Phone: 217/785-2427
FAX: 217/785-4884
Indiana
Mr. Joseph Becovitz
Office of Indiana State Chemist
Purdue University
1154 Biochemistry Building
West Lafayette, IN 47907-1154
Phone: 317/494-1585
FAX: 317/494-4331
Michigan
Ms. Katherine Fedder
[[Page 2833]]
MI Department of Agriculture
Pesticides & Plant Pest Management Division
611 West Ottawa Street
P.O. Box 30017
Lansing, MI 48909
Phone: 517/373-1087
FAX: 517/373-4540
Minnesota
Mr. Steve Poncin, Supervisor
Pesticide Enforcement Unit
MN Department of Agriculture
90 West Plato Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55107
Phone: 612/296-5136
FAX:
Ohio
Mr. Robert DeVeny
Pesticide Division Inspector
OH Department of Agriculture
65 South Front Street
Columbus, OH 43068
Phone: 216/297-6452
FAX: 614/759-1467
Wisconsin
Mr. Eric Nelson
WI Department of Agriculture
Trade & Consumer Protection
801 West Badger Road
Madison, WI 53708
Phone: 608/266-9429
FAX: 608/266-5307
REGION VI
Arkansas
Mr. Don Alexander/
Mr. Charles Armstrong
Arkansas State Plant Board
P.O. Box 1069
Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone: 501/225-3590
FAX: 501/225-3590
Louisiana
Mr. Peter Grandi
LA Department of Agriculture
& Forestry
P.O. Box 3596
Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3596
Phone: 504/925-3760
FAX: 504/925-3760
New Mexico
Ms. Sherry Sanderson
New Mexico Department
P.O. Box 30005, Dept. 3AQ
Las Cruces, NM 88003-0005
Phone: 505/646-4837
FAX: 505/646-5977
Oklahoma
Mr. Jerry Sullivan
Plant Industry & Consumer Services
OK State Department of Agriculture
2800 North Lincoln Blvd.
Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4298
Phone: 405/521-3864
FAX: 405/521-4912
Texas
TX Department of Agriculture
Stephen F. Austin Bldg.
P.O. Box 12847
Austin, TX 78711
Phone: 512/463-7717
FAX: 512/475-1618
REGION VII
Iowa
Mr. Jim Ellerhoff
Program Coordinator
IO Department of Agriculture
& Land Stewardship
Henry A. Wallace Building
900 East Grand
Des Moines, IO 50319
Phone: 515/281-8506
FAX: 515/281-6800
Mr. Charles Eckerman
IO Department of Agriculture
& Land Stewardship
Henry A. Wallace Building
900 East Grand
Des Moines, IO 50319
Phone: 515/281-8590
FAX: 515/281-6800
Kansas
Mr. Gary Boutz,
Pesticide Law Administrator
Ms. Glenda Mah,
Programs Coordinator
Kansas State Board of Agriculture
901 S. Kansas, 7th Floor
Topeka, KS 66612-1281
Phone: 913/296-5395 (G. Boutz)
913/296-0672 (G. Mah)
FAX: 913/296-0673
Missouri
Mr. Jim Lea, Supervisor
Plant Health Division
MO Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 630
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Phone: 314/751-5508
FAX: 314/751-0005
Mr. Paul Andre
Programs Coordinator
MO Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 630
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Phone: 314/751-9198
FAX: 314/751-0005
Nebraska
Mr. Richard Reiman, Chief
Bureau of Plant Industries
NE Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 94756, State House Station
Lincoln, NE 68509
Phone: 402/471-2394
FAX: 402/471-3252
Mr. Grier Friscoe, Manager
Mr. Jamie Green, Prog. Coord.
Pesticide/Noxious Weed Prog.
Post Office Box 94756
State House Station
Lincoln, NE 68509
Phone: 402/471-6853 (G. Friscoe)
402/471-6882 (J. Green)
FAX:
REGION VIII
Montana
Mr. Steve Baril
Environmental Management Office
Department of Agriculture
Agriculture Livestock Bldg.
Capitol Station
Helen, MT 59620
Phone: 406/444-2944
FAX: 406/444-5409
North Dakota
Mr. Jack Peterson, Director
ND Department of Agriculture
State Capitol Building
600 East Blvd. 6th Floor
Bismark, ND 58505-0020
Phone: 701/224-2231
FAX: 701/224-4567
South Dakota
Mr. Brad Berven, Administrator
SD Department of Agriculture
Division of Regulatory Services
Anderson Bldg.
Pierre, SD 57501
Phone: 605/773-4012
Mr. Joshua Logg, Jr.
Pesticide Enforcement Program
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
P.O. Box 590
Eagle Butte, SD 57625
Phone : 605/964-6551
FAX: 605/964-4151
Mr. Irv Provost, Coordinator
Pesticide Enforcement Program
Natural Resources Agency
Oglal Sioux Tribe
P.O. Box 468
Pine Ridge, SD 57770
Utah
Mr. Gary L. King
Department of Agriculture
350 North Redwood Road
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Phone: 801/538-7188
FAX: 801/538-7126
REGION IX
Arizona
Mr. Dan Danielson
[[Page 2834]]
Environmental Services Division
Department of Agriculture
1688 N. 7th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85006
Phone: 602/407-2910
FAX: 602/407-2909
Navajo Nation
Mr. Jefferson Biakkedy
Pesticide Regulatory Program
Navajo Environmental Protection
Administration
Navajo Nation
P.O. Box 308
Fort Defiance, AZ 86504
Phone: 602/729-4155
FAX: 602/729-5246
Intertribal Council of Arizona
Ms. Elaine Wilson
Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
4205 North 7th Avenue, Suite 200
Phoenix, AZ 85013
Phone: 602/248-0071
FAX: 602/248-0080
California
Ms. Virginia Rosales
Pesticides Enforcement Branch
Department of Pesticide Regulation
CA Environmental Protection Agency
1220 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916/445-3874
FAX:
Hawaii
Mr. Gerald Kinro
Pesticides Branch
Division of Plant Industry
HI Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 22159
Honolulu, HI 96822-0159
Phone: 808/973-9401
FAX: 808/973-9418
Nevada
Mr. Chuck Moses
Division of Plant Industry
NV Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 11100
Reno, NV 89510-1100
Phone: 702/688-1180
FAX: 702/688-1178
REGION X
Alaska
Mr. Karl Kalb
Dept. of Environmental Conservation
500 South Alaska, Suite A
Palmer, AK 99645
Phone: 907/745-3236
FAX: 907/745-8125
Idaho
Mr. John Helsol
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
P.O. Box 306
Fort Hall, ID 83203
Phone: 208/238-3860
FAX: 208/237-9736
Mr. Robert Hays
ID Dept. of Agriculture
P.O. Box 790
Boise, ID 83701
Phone: 208/334-3550
FAX: 208/334-228
Oregon
Mr. Chris Kirby
OR Department of Agriculture
635 Capitol Street, N.E.
Salem, OR 97310-0110
Phone: 503/378-3776
FAX: 503/378-5529
Ms. Marylin Schuster
Oregon OSHA
21 Labor & Industries Bldg.
Salem, OR 97310
Phone: 503/378-3272
FAX: 503/378-5729
Washington
Mr. Don Locke
WA Department of Labor & Industries
P.O. Box 44610
Olympia, WA 98504-4610
Phone: 206/956-5426
FAX: 206-956-5438
Ms. Ann Wick
WA State Dept. of Agriculture
Pesticide Management Division
P.O. Box 42589
Olympia, WA 98504-2589
Phone: 206/902-2050
FAX: 206/902-2093
A. Worker Protection Standard
The revisions to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) promulgated
at 57 FR 38102, August 21, 1992, were intended to reduce the risk of
pesticide poisonings and injuries among agricultural workers, including
pesticide handlers. The WPS includes three types of provisions to:
(1) Eliminate or reduce exposure to pesticides.
(2) Mitigate exposures that occur.
(3) Inform employees about the hazards of pesticides.
Exposure reduction provisions include application restrictions, use of
personal protective equipment (PPE), and entry restrictions.
B. Restricted Entry Intervals (REI)
Agricultural workers, in general, are prohibited from entering a
pesticide-treated area during the restricted entry interval (REI)
specified on the product labeling if they might contact anything
treated with a pesticide.
Regulations at 40 CFR part 156, subpart K specify that WPS labeling
retains all of the pesticide-specific permanent REIs set by EPA on the
basis of adequate data, and retains all established interim REIs longer
than those established in part 156. The WPS preamble notes: ``These
longer REIs have been based, in general, on either delayed [chronic]
effects or other exposure hazards such as persistence, post-application
chemical transformations, or potential for severe skin sensitization.''
In the absence of pesticide-specific REIs, the WPS establishes a range
of REIs, from 12 to 72 hours, depending upon the toxicity of the active
ingredient(s) and other factors.
During an REI, tasks that result in contact with treated surfaces
(including soil, water, air, and plant surfaces in the treated area)
are limited to the following:
(1) Short-term tasks (1 hour per day) that do not require hand
labor.
(2) Tasks, including hand labor tasks, performed in a situation
meeting the definition of an agricultural emergency.
(3) Tasks that may be permitted by EPA through case-by-case
exceptions. Exceptions may be granted pursuant to 40 CFR 170.112(e)(2),
if affected persons or organizations persuade EPA that the benefits of
the exception outweigh the risks associated with the exception and the
workers can perform the early entry tasks without unreasonable adverse
risk.
C. Current WPS Irrigation Provisions During REI
Irrigation activities expressly are excluded from the definition of
``Hand labor'' at 40 CFR 170.3: ``Hand labor does not include
operating, moving, or repairing irrigation or watering equipment....''
EPA realizes that moving, adjusting, or repairing irrigation equipment
may result in contact with treated surfaces, yet these tasks may be
necessary while an area remains under a REI. The Agency thus has
allowed entry during an REI to perform irrigation-related tasks, but
has placed strict limitations on that entry.
These limitations, set out at 40 CFR 170.112(c), include:
(1) There is no entry for the first 4 hours after application and
thereafter until any exposure level listed on the labeling has been
reached or any ventilation criteria established at 40 CFR 170.110(c)(3)
or in the labeling has been met.
(2) No hand labor tasks are performed.
(3) The time for any worker in treated areas under an REI does not
exceed 1 hour in any 24-hour period.
(4) The required PPE is provided, cleaned, and maintained for the
worker.
[[Page 2835]]
(5) Agricultural employers ensure that workers wear required PPE,
and other PPE-related protections are provided.
(6) Measures are taken to avoid heat stress (see, A Guide to Heat
Stress in Agriculture, EPA HW77 March 1994).
(7) Required decontamination supplies and decontamination areas are
provided.
(8) Required PPE-related, heat-stress-related, and labeling-
specific safety information have been furnished.
Pursuant to The Pesticide Compliance Dates Extension Act, Pub. L.
103-231, April 6, 1994, implementation of some WPS provisions,
including some entry restrictions, has been delayed until January 1,
1995. Until then, if irrigation workers contact with pesticide-treated
surfaces is limited only to feet, lower legs, hands, and forearms, then
coveralls plus chemical-resistant gloves and chemical-resistant
footwear may be substituted for the early-entry PPE specified on the
label. Also, until January 1, 1995, workers performing non-hand-labor
tasks may work for an unlimited time in an area remaining under an REI.
Starting January 1, 1995, routine early entry to perform non-hand labor
tasks, including operating irrigation equipment, will be limited to 1
hour per worker each day if the entry would result in contact with
pesticide-treated surfaces. In addition, irrigation workers must wear
PPE specified on the pesticide label for early entry.
D. Irrigation Tasks Allowed by the WPS After January 1, 1995
EPA has issued the following guidance in the publication Worker
Protection Questions & Answers, clarifying circumstances in which
irrigation tasks can take place during a restricted-entry interval
pursuant to the restrictions at 40 CFR 170.112:
WPS was designed to reduce the opportunities for workers to be
exposed to pesticide residues in treated areas during REIs. For
example, with the exceptions noted below, irrigation pipe may not be
moved during REIs when that task would bring workers into contact
with treated surfaces. As a result, agricultural employers should
schedule pesticide applications and irrigation so that the need for
irrigation involving workers during REIs will be minimized. If,
however, irrigation in a treated area under a REI is essential, it
is permitted under WPS under the following conditions:
1. Without entry to treated Area. Some irrigation tasks take
place at the edges of fields, which may not be within the treated
area (area to which the pesticide has been directed.) An example may
be the installation or removal of pipe for furrow irrigation. As
long as such activities do not cause workers to enter the treated
area, they may take place without time limit or use of PPE during
the REI.
2. With Entry to Treated Area.
a. By Pesticide Handlers. During chemigation or when pesticide
labeling requires the pesticide to be watered-in, this task may be
performed by trained handlers wearing the handler PPE specified on
the product labeling. [See the Question and Answer on watering-in,
found in the Handler Activities section of Worker Protection
Questions & Answers, for additional details.]
b. By Workers With No Contact. WPS provides an exception for
entry to treated areas, after any inhalation exposure level or
ventilation criteria have been met, without PPE or other time
limitation, when there will be no contact with the pesticide or its
residues (40 CFR 170.112(b)]. Note, however, that PPE cannot be used
to prevent the contact under this exception. This exception may
apply to a variety of typical irrigation situations, e.g.:
\ Workers moving irrigation equipment or performing other tasks
in the treated area after the pesticide was correctly soil-
incorporated or injected, provided the workers do not contact the
soil subsurface by digging or other activities.
\ Workers walking or performing other tasks in furrows after the
pesticides are applied to the soil surface in a narrow band on beds
and there is no contact with those treated surfaces.
c. Short Term -- Workers may enter treated areas during REIs to
perform short-term tasks [40 CFR 170.112(c)] provided that:
(1) Such entry does not take place during the first 4 hours
after application and until any inhalation exposure limits or
ventilation criteria are met;
(2) The entry does not involve more than 1 hour per day per
worker;
(3) The worker does not perform tasks defined in WPS to be hand
labor (operating irrigation equipment is not hand labor under WPS);
(4) The worker wears the early-entry PPE specified on the
pesticide labeling;
(5) Is correctly informed as required for early-entry workers in
the WPS; and
(6) all other applicable requirements of 40 CFR 170.112 are met.
(d) Agricultural Emergencies. The WPS permits early entry by
workers to perform tasks including irrigation while wearing early-
entry PPE, and without time limits, in response to an agricultural
emergency, as defined in the regulation at 40 CFR 170.112(d).
e. EPA-Approved Exceptions. Section 170.112(e) of WPS permits
exceptions to the general prohibition on work in treated areas
during REIs when EPA has approved a special exception. Exceptions
may be requested of EPA as described in that section of the
regulation.
The EPA publication Worker Protection Questions & Answers is
available through the docket at EPA Headquarters.
II. Evidence Necessary to Support Exception
The Worker Protection Standard establishes at 40 CFR 170.112(e)(2),
a process to allow the Agency to initiate an exception to WPS entry
restrictions, or to grant exceptions upon request from interested
persons, if the benefits associated with otherwise-prohibited early
entry activities exceed the risks associated with those early entry
activities.
As specified in existing WPS, at 40 CFR 170.112(e)(2), data
supporting an exception request should include:
(1) Crop(s) and specific production task(s) for which the exception
is requested, including an explanation of the necessity to apply
pesticides of types and at frequencies such that the REI would
interfere with necessary and time-sensitive tasks for the requested
exception period.
(2) Geographic area, including unique exposures or economic impacts
resulting from REI prohibitions.
(3) Evaluation, for each crop-task combination, of technical and
financial viability of alternative practices, and projection of
practices most likely to be adopted by growers if no exception is
granted, including rescheduling pesticide application or irrigation
tasks, non-chemical pest control, machine irrigation, or use of
shorter-REI pesticides.
(4) Per-acre changes in yield, market grade or quality, and changes
in revenue and production cost attributable to REI prohibitions for
crop and geographic area, specifying data before and after WPS
implementation. Also, include factors which cause changes in revenue,
market grade or quality; product performance and efficacy studies; and
source of data submitted and the basis for any projections.
(5) The safety and feasibility of the requested exception,
including feasibility of performing irrigation activity wearing early-
entry PPE required for pesticides used; means of mitigating heat-
related illness; time required daily per worker to perform irrigation
activity; and methods of reducing worker exposure. Mitigating factors
discussed should include availability of water for routine and
emergency decontamination, and mechanical devices to reduce worker
contact with treated surfaces. Discussion of the costs of early entry
should include decontamination facilities, worker training, heat stress
avoidance procedures, and provision, inspection, cleaning and
maintenance of PPE.
(6) Why alternative practices would not be technically or
financially feasible.
[[Page 2836]]
III. Requests for Exception and Supporting Evidence
Parties from the States of California and Hawaii each have
requested exceptions to the WPS REI requirements for workers performing
tasks related to irrigation. The full exception requests are available
through the docket at EPA Headquarters, the Regions and the States.
A. California Growers Request for Exception
California growers have requested that workers be permitted entry
into treated areas under an REI for an indefinite time to perform
irrigation tasks when workers are (1) properly trained, (2) use the
label-specified PPE, (3) are provided decontamination facilities, and
(4) are not allowed entry to the treated area for at least 4 hours
following pesticide application.
California cited a broad range of soil types, climates and crops
requiring irrigation tasks such as moving pipe, turning on valves,
checking sprinkler and drip irrigation nozzles, and removing debris or
obstructions impeding water flow. Requesters indicate that these tasks
``do not involve substantial contact with treated plants.'' The
California requesters cite conditions specific to their state to
support an REI exception.
1. Alternate practices. The California requesters assert that
alternative practices are not technically practical because the
availability of irrigation water is often at the discretion of the
irrigation district. They note that often a grower does not know until
the last few hours when water will arrive from the irrigation
contractor.
The California requesters also state that the failure to properly
irrigate plants in a timely manner induces plant stress, disrupts
integrated pest management (IPM) practices, increases plant
susceptibility to pests, and may ultimately increase pesticide use,
resulting in greater exposure to workers.
Finally, the requesters state that the 1-hour limitation on early
entry activity per worker per day unnecessarily restricts agricultural
activities vital to crop production.
2. California regulations. The requesters cite California
Regulations (Article 3, Field Worker Safety, section 6770), which
permit workers to perform irrigation activities in treated areas during
a restricted-entry interval, provided:
(1) Sprays have dried and dusts have settled.
(2) The workers are informed of the identity of the pesticide
applied, the existence of the REI, and the protective work procedures
they are required to follow.
(3) Workers are wearing the personal protective equipment required
by the pesticide label for early entry.
(4) The workers are instructed to thoroughly shower with warm water
and soap as soon as possible after the end of the work shift.
For certain pesticides, including all pesticides with the signal word
DANGER and certain other pesticides with a history of illness or injury
incidents involving workers exposed to post-application residues, the
California regulations prohibit entry during a restricted-entry
interval to perform hand labor tasks, such as picking, other hand
harvesting, tying, pruning, tree-limb propping, disbudding, and other
nonharvest cultural practices that may involve worker contact with
plants. Irrigation tasks specifically are not included in this list of
prohibited tasks. For all other pesticides, entry during a restricted-
entry interval to perform tasks, including hand labor tasks, is
permitted after sprays have dried and dusts have settled, provided the
protections listed above are provided to the worker.
The California requesters state that heat-related illness will be
mitigated by training workers and field-crew supervisors on heat stress
symptoms and first-aid procedures. They note that drinking and handwash
water and toilet facilities currently are required for all field
workers under California regulations; and that the location of the
nearest emergency medical care facility is listed on crop sheets that
must be at each work site. They state also that WPS PPE maintenance
provisions and early-entry restrictions will be required under
California regulations as soon as they are revised to incorporate
Federal standards.
3. Economic impact. The California requesters estimate a sizeable
economic impact if the requested exception is denied, based upon an
estimated crew of two to four workers who require 6 to 8 hours to set
up a sprinkler irrigation system on a 20-acre block of a vegetable
crop. They state that the WPS requirement for worker rotation after 1
hour is problematic because it would reduce efficiency and increase
costs to recruit, hire, train and schedule workers; irrigators are
unwilling to work for only 1 hour; and crop loss or nonuniform crop
maturation would result from potential untimely irrigation of sensitive
crops and seedlings.
4. Pesticide injuries. Requesters address the protective nature of
the requested exception by citing California Department of Pesticide
Regulation (CDPR) records of reported pesticide injuries through the
California Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program. The requesters'
evaluation of this information alleges that allowing protected workers
into treated areas to conduct irrigation activities for an unlimited
time after an initial period of prohibited entry does not result in
significant risk of illness or injury. Requesters support their
exception request with data from DPR's pesticide illness surveillance
program, which tracks potential pesticide injuries. They state, ``In
1990, there were approximately 2,500 alleged pesticide illnesses/
injuries reported. These included occupational and non-occupational
situations. Of these, only 20 cases involved irrigators that were in
fields when exposure occurred. Only 1 of the 20 irrigation-related
injury cases was classified as 'definitely' related to pesticides. In
that case, the worker was determined to be involved in an activity that
involved contact with containers contaminated with pesticide residues.
In 1990, there were over 2.2 million agricultural pesticide application
reports submitted in the state. The rate of irrigator injuries to
possible pesticide exposure was 1 in over 110,000 applications.''
B. Hawaii Request for Exception
The State of Hawaii provided EPA with an exception request
submitted by an agricultural establishment, the Hawaiian Commercial
Sugar Company (HC&S). The request related specifically to irrigation
activities related to planting new crops, and appeared to comprise full
exemption from WPS REI requirements for all agricultural activities
described in their request. Requesters specifically cite their desire
to return to the pre-WPS standard allowing agricultural workers to
enter a field after pesticide application, once dusts have settled and
sprays have dried. It is noteworthy that this was not allowed in the
legislation delaying implementation of some portions of the WPS, which
provided: ``Under the exception in section 2, no entry is allowed for
the first 4 hours after application of the pesticide. This restriction
parallels the requirements in the other exceptions to early entry
promulgated in the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) at 40 CFR
170.112.''
Requesters state that during seed planting there is a ``buffer
space'' between the cover machine and the herbicide tractor to ensure
that agricultural workers are not exposed to pesticide drift. The size
of the buffer space is dependent upon the wind
[[Page 2837]]
direction. Requesters state that herbicide sprays dry within a few
minutes, and that on a typical sunny day drying occurs on contact. The
irrigation hook-up crew follows behind the weed control operations, and
connect the irrigation tubing injected by the mechanical planter, to
the irrigation mainlines existing in the field. Requesters state that
the majority of irrigation work is done on the field edge, which has
the least amount of pesticide.
Requesters state that timing of the irrigation operation is
critical, since seed pieces are prone to desiccation and disease, and
the seed needs water to germinate. Soil into which the seed pieces are
placed is dry; thus if the fields are not irrigated immediately after
planting, seed pieces will not germinate.
Requesters also note that irrigation system repair is conducted at
the time of planting. The drip irrigation system is largely underground
and the main line at the field perimeter is reused for every crop.
Since it is underground, system damages from harvesting of the previous
crop are not evident until planting of the section is started. Drip
hookup is performed as soon as possible so system damages can be
repaired and the system returned to function before the seed
dehydrates. Underground pipes are composed of PVC (polyvinylchloride);
thus there is a delay of at least 1 day to dry repair glues.
Requesters utilize furrow irrigation for approximately 2,000 acres
of the 36,000 acre plantation, utilizing cane wash water from its
factories. Installation of feeder ditches follow herbicide application
in furrow irrigated fields. Some fields also are ``ratooned,'' where
cane stalks are severed at the base of the plant during harvest, and
the cane plant regrows from the stubble. The mechanical planter follows
the emerged cane line in ratooned fields and places seed in the gaps
where there are no plants. Vegetation is present to heights less than 1
foot. Requesters state that it is readily evident when ``sprays have
dried and dusts have settled'' in ratooned fields.
1. Alternate practices. The request was limited to the time until
new preemergence herbicides are approved for use in sugarcane fields.
Requesters note that application of water to the field before the
herbicide operation would result in tractors stuck in the mud and
compaction of the moist soil. They state that application of herbicides
immediately after planting is critical because it allows for minimal
use of pesticides -- less material is needed to kill weeds as they try
to emerge than to kill weeds after they emerge. Requesters state that
capillary action of water is relied upon to wet the seed, this
occurring within 24 to 72 hours depending upon soil type. Requesters
state that if herbicide applications were delayed until after seed
pieces were wetted, weed seeds would have germinated and herbicide
usage rates would need to be increased.
Requesters also note that the HC&S is located on the island of
Maui, in a valley with average wind speeds of approximately 30 miles
per hour. Pesticide applications must be done carefully to reduce drift
to non-target areas; timing of application is used as the variable to
control pesticide volume applied, and tractors are used to minimize
herbicide usage by more accurately directing material to the target
area. Rains from 10 to 40 inches per year are very seasonal; therefore
requesters state that the plantation is totally reliant upon drip
irrigation for growing crops.
2. Current regulations. Requesters noted no pesticide regulations
beyond current pesticide label requirements governing their operations.
Requesters cited Hawaii's Workers Compensation Plan in discussing the
safety and feasibility of their requested exception.
3. Economic impact. Requesters state that immature sugarcane stalks
are high in moisture content and vulnerable to desiccation resulting in
failure to germinate. The cut ends of the stalk (as well as damaged
portions of the 40 percent of seed pieces which are damaged
physically), are avenues of entry for disease organisms, specifically
the fungus Ceratocystis paradoxa or pineapple disease. Requesters note
that timely treatment, planting and irrigation of seed pieces thus is
important.
Requesters note that tractor application of herbicides replaced
aerial applications 7 years ago, in order to reduce herbicide usage,
improve herbicide placement, reduce off-target drift, and to protect
workers and the environment. Requesters also state that aerial
applications are estimated to cost 20% more than current tractor costs,
or $137,880 per year. Respraying by hand or tractor application is
estimated to cost another $250,000 per year, to address areas missed
along roads and pole lines, and increased weeds when application is
delayed due to unfavorable wind conditions. Thus requesters estimate
that total increased operating costs for aerial herbicide applications
in place of timely tractor applications is $387,880 per year, an
increase of 55 percent over current practice, as well as unquantifiable
effects of potential off-target drift and potential for greater worker
exposure. Nighttime aerial application is precluded by undulating
terrain, poles and lines transecting fields, difficulty in determining
flight path, and variable wind.
Requesters also estimate that water application before herbicide
application would impair field trafficability, decrease plant growth,
increase weeds, require more pesticide use and additional worker
exposure, and cost approximately $30l,600 or 42 percent more than
current costs. Requesters estimate that using more tractors to cover
the treated seed would require significant capital expenditure, with
very poor return on investment since there will be significant amounts
of unproductive time between tractor operations. They estimate an
increase of $232,000 in operating costs per year to increase tractors
and associated additional manpower, an increase of 33 percent over
current operating costs, with no return on investment. Requesters also
considered utilizing night operations to minimize the impact of a 12-
hour REI. They estimate an increase of $188,873 in annual operating
costs, or 27 percent over current costs for this alternative, primarily
due to missed areas, repair to damaged risers, and installation of
lights.
Finally, requesters estimate a cost of $702,000 for adhering to a
stated 12-hour REI, due to delayed or reduced germination of seed
pieces, a loss of at least 2 months in crop age, and the added cost of
hand replanting. They estimate a loss of $2,332,800 in plantation
profitability due to yield impacts.
4. Pesticide injuries. Requesters cite the unique nature of
sugarcane cultivation in discussing the safety and feasibility of their
requested exception. They note that, unlike fields with crop canopies
taller than workers, such as cornfields or grape vineyards, newly
planted or ratooned sugarcane fields are bare or have vegetation less
than 1 foot in height. They cite company policy requiring all workers
to wear long-sleeved shirts, long pants, and eye protection. They note
that irrigation hookup crews wear company-provided rubber gloves and
rubber boots, due to constant contact with water. They state that
irrigation crews work on the field edge, which has a minimum amount of
herbicide, and that agricultural workers' frequent contact with water
will wash off any residue that may be contacted. They note that workers
have readily available potable water supplies, ready access to medical
facilities, and ready access to Workers Compensation claims if they
have a work related incident.
[[Page 2838]]
Requesters state that company records indicate 11 pesticide related
incidents between 1985 and 1993. They estimate their records cover 80
handlers and 700 workers with field oriented tasks, working 40 to 48
hours per week, 12 months per year, for 15,795,000 exposure hours. They
report 10 unforeseen incidents involving handlers, including exposure
due to a broken hose or fittings. Requesters note that all but one
incident occurred before 1990, when operational sequences were changed
to address the exposure episodes. The one incident which required
absence from work did not involve pre-emergence herbicide application,
but rather hand application later in the crop cycle.
IV. The Agency's Exception Proposal
A. Background
Since the Worker Protection Standard was promulgated in August
1992, the Agency has received information from growers and
representatives from the Departments of Agriculture in several states
regarding the 1-hour-per-worker-per-day limit during a restricted-entry
interval to perform irrigation-related tasks. Most commenters,
including the National Association of the State Departments of
Agriculture (NASDA), asserted that the restriction would cause
substantial disruption in the production of a wide variety of
agricultural crops across a broad geographic area. NASDA and others
urged the Agency to consider allowing entry during a restricted-entry
interval for an unlimited time per day per worker, if the worker would
not have substantial contact with treated surfaces, including crop
foliage.
They asked the Agency also to consider establishing a single suite
of personal protective equipment that could be worn by irrigation
workers rather than requiring them to wear the early-entry PPE
specified on the labeling of the pesticide applied to the treated area.
They argued that often irrigation workers need to work in several
different treated areas in a single workday and that it would be
burdensome to require workers to consult the pesticide label and to
change their PPE before entering each different area. Although not
directly addressed in the exception requests from California and
Hawaii, these concerns are reflected in EPA's following proposed
exception for irrigation tasks, and in the comments and information EPA
solicits through this notice.
The proposed exception specifically excludes pesticides whose
labeling requires ``double notification'' -- both the posting of
treated areas and oral notification to workers. The following Table
lists the active ingredients subject to this requirement, which were
identified in PR Notice 93-7.
B. Worker Protection Standard ``Double Notification'' Active Ingredient
List
The following Table 1 does not contain the active ingredients in
products already bearing mandatory posting requirements prior to
adoption of the WPS and which must be retained under WPS. It may also
contain a few active ingredients which upon further Agency review, such
as during reregistration, will be found not to require double
notification (posting of treated areas and oral notification to
workers). EPA expects the list to be amended prior to any final
determination by the Agency. Nonetheless, EPA believes that this list
contains the bulk of the active ingredients subject to double
notification, and the list is included in this notice for the
convenience of commenters. These pesticides contain an active
ingredient categorized as highly toxic when absorbed through the skin
(acute dermal toxicity), or as highly irritating (corrosive) when it
contacts the skin, or otherwise are pesticides considered by EPA as
posing high risk to workers for reasons such as suspected delayed
effects, epidemiological data, or unusually long restricted-entry
intervals. The Agency requires ``double notification'' for a pesticide
when an incidental exposure -- for example, contact from brushing
against the treated surfaces -- has the potential to cause an acute
illness or injury or a delayed effect, such as developmental toxicity.
For pesticides that contain ``double notification'' requirements on
their labeling, the short-term (1 hour per worker per day) exception at
40 CFR 170.112(c) would continue to apply.
Table 1.--Double Notification Active Ingredient List
From PR Notice 93-7, Appendix 3-A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common name Chemical code CAS Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aldicarb........................... 098301 116-06-3
aldoxycarb......................... 110801 1646-88-4
arsenic acid....................... 006801 7778-39-4
arsenic trioxide................... 007001 1327-53-3
carbofuran......................... 090601 1563-66-2
chlorflurenol...................... 098801 2536-31-4
chloropicrin....................... 081501 76-06-2
cuprous oxide...................... 025601 1317-39-1
disulfoton......................... 032501 298-04-4
dodine............................. 044301 2439-10-3
endothall, dimethylcocoamine....... 038905
endothall, disodium salt........... 038903 129-67-9
ethephon........................... 099801 16672-87-0
ethoprop........................... 041101 13194-48-4
fonofos............................ 041701 944-22-9
(s)-(+)-lactic acid................ 128929 79-33-4
metam-sodium....................... 039003 137-42-8
methamidophos...................... 101201 10265-92-6
methyl bromide..................... 053201 74-83-9
methyl parathion................... 053501 298-00-0
mevinphos.......................... 015801 7786-34-7
nicotine........................... 056702 54-11-5
paraquat........................... 061601 1910-42-5
parathion.......................... 057501 56-38-2
phorate............................ 057201 298-02-2
profenofos......................... 111401 41198-08-7
propargite......................... 097601 2312-35-8
sabadilla alkaloids................ 002201 8051-02-3
sulfotepp.......................... 079501 3689-24-5
sulfuric acid...................... 078001 7664-93-9
sulprofos.......................... 111501 35400-43-2
tefluthrin......................... 128912 79538-32-2
terbufos........................... 105001 13071-79-9
TPTH............................... 083601 76-87-9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency has identified a range of national irrigation options
with varying time and duration of entry, required PPE, and levels of
exposure. The Pesticide Compliance Dates Extension Act, Pub. L. No.
103-231, included these irrigation provisions:
[A] worker may enter an area treated with a pesticide product
during the restricted entry interval specified on the label of the
pesticide product to perform tasks related to the production of
agricultural plants if the agricultural employer ensures that -- (1)
no hand labor activity is performed; (2) no such entry is allowed
for the first 4 hours following the end of the application of the
pesticide product; (3) no such entry is allowed until any inhalation
exposure level listed on the product labeling has been reached; and
(4) the personal protective equipment specified on the product
labeling for early entry is provided in clean and operating
condition to the worker.
(b) Protective Equipment for Irrigation Work. -- For irrigation
work for which the only contact with treated surfaces is to the
feet, lower legs, hands, and arms, the agricultural employer may
provide coveralls,
[[Page 2839]]
chemical resistant gloves, and chemical resistant footwear instead
of the personal protective equipment specified on the label.
The Congressional Record of March 24, 1994 provides further
information concerning the legislative intent of the nature of the
irrigation exception:
Section 2(b) provides, until January 1, 1995, optional PPE for
early entry workers operating, moving, or repairing irrigation or
watering equipment where contact with the treated surfaces is
limited to hands, arms, lower legs, and feet. Instead of providing
the PPE on the label specified for early entry, in this situation,
the agricultural employer can provide to the irrigation workers the
following PPE: chemical resistant boots, chemical resistant gloves,
and coveralls. This exception is only for workers performing
irrigation work.
In considering the terms of a proposed national exception, one
concern is the need to learn from experience how the exception is being
implemented, and whether workers truly are protected under the terms of
the exception. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to limit the
exception to 2 years, and to review and revise the terms of the
exception as appropriate based upon experience during that 2 years.
C. Proposed Terms of Exception
The Agency is considering the following proposed exception to early
entry restrictions for irrigation tasks:
A worker may enter a treated area during a restricted-entry
interval to perform tasks related to operating, moving, or repairing
irrigation or watering equipment, if the agricultural employer ensures
that the following requirements are met:
(1) The worker's only contact with treated surfaces (including, but
not limited to, soil, water, air, surfaces of plants, crops, and
irrigation equipment if exposed to pesticides during application) is to
the feet, lower legs, hands and forearms.
(2) The tasks could not be delayed until after expiration of the
restricted-entry interval or the pesticide application could not be
delayed until after the task is completed.
(3) The pesticide product does not have a statement in the
pesticide product labeling requiring both the posting of treated areas
and oral notification to workers (``double notification'').
(4) The personal protective equipment for early entry is provided
to the worker. Such personal protective equipment shall either: (a)
conform with the label requirements for early entry; or (b) coveralls,
chemical resistant gloves, socks, and chemical resistant footwear.
(5) No hand labor activity is performed.
(6) The time in treated areas under a restricted-entry interval for
any worker does not exceed 8 hours in any 24 hour period.
(7) The requirements of 40 CFR 170.112(c)(3) through (9) are met.
These are WPS requirements for all early-entry situations that involve
contact with treated surfaces. They include (a) a prohibition against
entry during the first 4 hours, and until applicable ventilation
criteria have been met, and until any label-specified inhalation
exposure level has been reached; (b) PPE definitions and requirements;
(c) label-specific instructions; (d) heat-related illness avoidance
measures; (e) decontamination requirements; and (f) a prohibition
against wearing home or taking home PPE.
(8) Notice about the exception for irrigation workers. The
agricultural employer shall:
(a) Notify early-entry irrigation workers orally, before such
workers enter a treated area, that the establishment is relying on this
exception to allow workers to enter treated areas to complete
irrigation tasks.
(b) post information about the terms and conditions of this
exception. The posted information shall convey the following
information:
(i) The establishment is operating under the conditions of the
exception for irrigation workers.
(ii) No entry is allowed for the first 4 hours following an
application, and until any exposure level has been reached or any
ventilation criteria have been met.
(iii) Time in treated areas under a restricted-entry interval for
any worker does not exceed 8 hours in any 24 hour period.
(iv) Decontamination and change areas are provided.
(v) Basic safety training and label-specific information must be
provided to early-entry irrigation workers.
(vi) The personal protective equipment specified on the product
labeling for early-entry, or a set of coveralls, chemical resistant
gloves, socks, and chemical resistant footwear must be provided,
cleaned, and maintained for early-entry irrigation workers.
(vii) Early-entry irrigation workers must be instructed in how to
put on, use, and remove the personal protective equipment.
(viii) Measures to prevent heat stress must be implemented when
appropriate.
(ix) A pesticide safety poster and information about pesticide
applications must be displayed in a central location.
(x) The exception expires on January 11, 1997.
(9) This exception shall expire 24 months after the effective date.
V. Comments Solicited
The Agency is interested in a full range of comments and
information on these exception requests, and is providing 45 days for
submission of comments. 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.
A. Possible Exceptions for Irrigation Tasks
The Agency requests comments on whether an exception (if granted)
should be limited to a geographic region that would be comprised of two
or more States in one area. Comments are requested on whether an
exception should be limited to California, should be limited to Hawaii,
should include other states with irrigation issues similar to
California and Hawaii, or should include the whole country.
In determining whether to grant an exception, and, if so, whether
the exception should or should not be limited to any particular
geographic areas, the Agency will assess whether the risks and benefits
associated with early-entry irrigation tasks differ across the country.
In that regard, it should be noted that the California and Hawaii
requests contained much information that may not apply to other parts
of the country. This is particularly true with regard to the issue of
the need to perform early-entry tasks. On this issue, the requestors
identified a number of factors which may be unique to the two States
involved. Commenters are encouraged to provide information about
conditions in other States, and are particularly encouraged to include
in their comments whether (and to what extent) the comments apply to
particular geographic areas or to the whole country.
The Agency particularly welcomes comments and risk/benefit
information (including scientific data, where available) on the
California, Hawaii, and Agency proposed exceptions, addressing the
following issues:
(1) The risks to workers under the various proposed exceptions, and
whether risks differ among irrigation tasks or crop sites.
[[Page 2840]]
(2) Whether use of personal protective equipment while performing
irrigation work is feasible; and to what extent PPE is necessary to
reduce risk to workers performing irrigation tasks.
(3) Whether it is reasonable to expect early entry irrigation
workers to wear the early entry PPE required on the pesticide label.
(4) Whether feasible alternative practices would make routine early
entry unnecessary to perform irrigation work.
(5) Whether an exception is necessary to perform all irrigation
tasks on all crop sites, or whether the Agency decision should
differentiate among irrigation tasks or crops.
(6) Whether an exception is necessary in all States, or whether the
Agency decision should differentiate among States or regions (two or
more States in one area) because of climate, water availability, or for
other reasons.
(7) The economic impact on the agricultural industry (or portions
of the agricultural industry) of continued limitation of irrigation
tasks during WPS restricted-entry intervals if the requested exception
(or part of the exception) is not granted.
(8) Other States' regulation of irrigation workers' exposure to
pesticides.
B. Exposure Data to Evaluate Irrigation Exception Proposals
To fully evaluate the exception proposals, the Agency solicits
specific information concerning the following:
(1) Potential worker exposure to pesticide residues related to
early-entry irrigation activities, including setting-up, running,
maintaining, checking, repairing, and moving irrigation equipment for
different irrigation systems and equipment.
(2) The amount of potential worker exposure/contact with surface
residues or pesticides, including residues on soil, foliage, and
irrigation pipes and equipment, including the expected timing,
frequency, and duration of exposure.
(3) The potential for field/site variables to affect potential
exposure such as type of crop, crop height and density, crop row
spacing, or whether surface residues are wet or dry.
(4) Minimal exposure irrigation practices including incidental or
intermittent exposure to surface residues on soil, foliage, irrigation
pipes and equipment; versus potentially high exposure practices
involving prolonged or continuous hand and upper body exposure from
contact with residues on medium to tall crops, or moving irrigation
pipes that may have high surface pesticide residues from being exposed
in the field during pesticide spray operations.
C. Benefits Data to Support Exception
EPA is specifically interested in benefits data that include, but
are not limited to, the following:
(1) Identification of the crops, specific production tasks and/or
unique geographic areas for which this exception would apply. A well
supported explanation of the use practices (e.g. typical rates, number
and methods of application) that would be adversely impacted by denying
the exception.
(2) Evaluation of technically and financially viable alternatives
for each crop/task combination and projection of the most likely
alternative(s) that would be adopted by the growers in each unique
geographic area if no exception is granted (e.g., rescheduling
pesticide application or irrigation tasks, using non-chemical pest
controls or shorter REI pesticides, utilizing different irrigation
systems or agronomic practices, producing different crops, or any other
adjustments that may be relevant). The submitted evaluations of impacts
should be supported with documented empirical data as fully as
possible; if experimental data are lacking, the basis for projected
impacts must be adequately explained and documented.
(3) Unique geographic estimates of grower impacts per acre for crop
yield, market grade or quality, revenues, and production costs. These
estimates should be based on the assumption that the growers will adopt
the most likely alternative(s). Any new investment costs associated
with the REI should be appropriately annualized. All estimates should
be sufficiently documented for items such as current crop production
budgets and comparative efficacy/performance studies for alternative
pest control practices. Background information such as five previous
years of data associated with total acres grown or harvested, total
production/yield, farm level prices, market grades and other relevant
information for each unique geographic area should be provided in order
to establish a baseline.
(4) Aggregate grower level impacts on an annual basis for all
estimated impacted acres in each unique geographic area. Estimation of
expected crop price changes, if any, without the exception and the
basis for these estimates.
(5) Estimation of any other significant economic impacts that are
expected if the exception is not granted. Examples include impacts on
consumers and foreign trade, regional shifts in commodity production,
or social/community effects associated with local employment and
income.
D. Other Valuable Data Solicited
The Agency also solicits comment and information (including
scientific data, where available) on the Agency's proposed exception
and on several possible modifications to the proposed exception that
the Agency is considering. These modifications include:
(1) Establishing specific criteria for determining whether the
early-entry is a necessity rather than a convenience.
(2) Excluding from the exception all pesticides with the signal
word DANGER in addition to (or rather than) those with ``double
notification.''
E. Applicability of Exceptions
EPA remains convinced that routine entry for unlimited time periods
into areas remaining under a restricted-entry interval should not be
allowed except under rare circumstances. Therefore, if the Agency
grants a special exception for irrigation tasks, it intends, to the
extent feasible, to limit the exception to situations where entry
during the restricted-entry interval is a technical and economic
necessity. The Agency seeks comments and information about:
(1) Criteria limiting the exception to situations where the
availability of irrigation water is unpredictable or the length of the
REI exceeds the acceptable watering interval for the crop.
(2) Situations where entry during a restricted-entry interval is an
economic necessity.
(3) Situations where entry during a restricted-entry interval is a
technical necessity.
(4) Other possible criteria for limiting an exception to those
circumstances where early entry is unavoidable.
(5) Excluding double-notification pesticides from any exception it
may grant.
(6) Whether to exclude all products with the signal word DANGER
from any exception it may grant. EPA notes, however, that signal words
are based on the acute toxicity of the end-use (formulated) product by
any route of entry. The signal word would not reflect any concerns
about delayed effects or sensitization. Furthermore, a DANGER signal
word may be a result of an irritating ``inert'' ingredient in the
formulated product that is volatile and thus is no longer present
beyond 4 hours after the application is complete. Also, the DANGER
signal word may be based on oral or inhalation toxicity,
[[Page 2841]]
which are not usually a concern for exposures to residues on treated
surfaces.
(7) Physical activities involved in irrigation. The Agency's
proposed exception would allow only those irrigation tasks for which
contact with the treated surfaces would be limited to the feet, lower
legs, hands, and forearms. These tasks would include tasks such as
operating irrigation gates, adjusting irrigation valves, and checking
for or unclogging obstructions in areas with low crops or widely spaced
rows. Carrying irrigation equipment that was in the treated area during
application on one's shoulder or against one's chest would NOT meet
these criteria.
Therefore, the Agency solicits specific information about potential
worker exposure to pesticide residues during various irrigation
activities, including moving, installing, operating, maintaining,
checking, repairing, and unclogging irrigation equipment. The Agency
also seeks comment and information about whether the irrigation-related
tasks that would be performed if the exception is granted would result
in exposures just to the feet, lower legs, hands, and forearms, or
whether many such tasks would result in more widespread exposures due
to contact with residues on medium to tall crops or on residue-laden
irrigation equipment.
(8) Finally, EPA requests comment on whether to allow employers of
early-entry irrigation workers to choose whether to provide the PPE
specified on the pesticide label for early entry or the exception-based
PPE (coveralls plus chemical-resistant gloves and footwear). For any
toxicity category pesticide, the label-specified PPE might be more
protective, because it might include coveralls over other work attire
and/or protective eyewear. However, since the exposures are limited to
the feet, lower legs, hands, and forearms, this extra PPE may not be
necessary. Conversely, the coveralls plus chemical-resistant gloves and
chemical-resistant footwear PPE in the proposed exception are more
protective than the early-entry PPE required for toxicity III and IV
(signal word CAUTION) pesticides, where chemical-resistant footwear is
not required (labels will require coveralls, chemical-resistant gloves,
shoes, and socks). EPA requests comment on whether to require chemical-
resistant footwear for all irrigation workers under this exception,
because of the long period of potential exposure. The Agency did not
include protective eyewear in the proposed exception, since exposure is
limited to feet, lower legs, hands, and forearms. Also many pesticides
that are highly irritating to skin (and are excluded from this
exception) are also highly irritating to the eyes. Therefore, many of
the products most irritating to the eyes also will be excluded from the
exception. However, EPA solicits comment on whether protective eyewear
should be included in the minimum PPE requirement for early-entry
irrigation workers under any exception due to concern about workers
rubbing or wiping residues into their eyes from hands, gloves, or
sleeves.
VI. Public Docket and Electronic Comments
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number ``OPP-250098'' (including comments and data submitted
electronically as described below). A public version of this record,
including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does
not include any information claimed as confidential business
information (CBI), is available for inspection from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The public record is
located in Room1132 of the Public Response and Program Resources
Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Arlington, VA. Written comments should be mailed to: Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C) Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
As part of an interagency ``streamlining'' initiative, EPA is
experimenting with submission of public comments on selected Federal
Register actions electronically through the Internet in addition to
accepting comments in traditional written form. This proposed exception
is one of the actions selected by EPA for this experiment. From the
experiment, EPA will learn how electronic commenting works, and any
problems that arise can be addressed before EPA adopts electronic
commenting more broadly in its rulemaking activities. Electronic
commenting through posting to the EPA Bulletin Board or through the
Internet using the ListServe function raise some novel issues that are
discussed below in this Unit.
To submit electronic comments, persons can either ``subscribe'' to
the Internet ListServe application or ``post'' comments to the EPA
Bulletin Board. To ``Subscribe'' to the Internet ListServe application
for this proposed exception, send an e-mail message to:
[email protected] that says ``Subscribe RIN-2070-AC69
.'' Once you are subscribed to the ListServe,
comments should be sent to: RIN-2070-AC[email protected]. All
comments and data in electronic form should be identified by the docket
number OPP-250098 since all five documents in this separate part
provide the same electronic address.
For online viewing of submissions and posting of comments, the
public access EPA Bulletin Board is also available by dialing 202-488-
3671, enter selection ``DMAIL,'' user name ``BB--USER'' or 919-541-
4642, enter selection ``MAIL,'' user name ``BB--USER.'' When dialing
the EPA Bulletin Board type at the opening message. When the
``Notes'' prompt appears, type ``open RIN- 2070-AC69'' to access the
posted messages for this document. To get a listing of all files, type
``dir/all'' at the prompt line. Electronic comments can also be sent
directly to EPA at:
[email protected].
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption. To obtain further
information on the electronic comment process, or on submitting
comments on this proposed exception electronically through the EPA
Bulletin Board or the Internet ListServe, please contact John A.
Richards (Telephone: 202-260-2253; FAX: 202-260-3884; Internet:
[email protected]).
Persons who comment on this proposed rule, and those who view
comments electronically, should be aware that this experimental
electronic commenting is administered on a completely public system.
Therefore, any personal information included in comments and the
electronic mail addresses of those who make comments electronically are
automatically available to anyone else who views the comments.
Similarly, since all electronic comments are available to all users,
commenters should not submit electronically any information which they
believe to be CBI. Such information should be submitted only directly
to EPA in writing as described earlier in this Unit.
Commenters and others outside EPA may choose to comment on the
comments submitted by others using the RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe or the
EPA Bulletin Board. If they do so, those comments as well will become
part of EPA's record for this rulemaking. Persons outside EPA wishing
to discuss comments with commenters or
[[Page 2842]]
otherwise communicate with commenters but not have those discussions or
communications sent to EPA and included in the EPA rulemaking record
should conduct those discussions and communications outside the RIN-
2070-AC69 ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically in the RIN-2070-
AC69 ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board, in accordance with the
instructions for electronic submission, into printed, paper form as
they are received and will place the paper copies in the official
rulemaking record which will also include all comments submitted
directly in writing. All the electronic comments will be available to
everyone who obtains access to the RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe or the EPA
Bulletin Board; however, the official rulemaking record is the paper
record maintained at the address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the beginning of
this document. (Comments submitted only in written form will not be
transferred into electronic form and thus may be accessed only by
reviewing them in the Public Response and Program Resources Branch as
described above.)
Because the electronic comment process is still experimental, EPA
cannot guarantee that all electronic comments will be accurately
converted to printed, paper form. If EPA becomes aware, in transferring
an electronic comment to printed, paper form, of a problem or error
that results in an obviously garbled comment, EPA will attempt to
contact the comment submitter and advise the submitter to resubmit the
comment either in electronic or written form. Some commenters may
choose to submit identical comments in both electronic and written form
to ensure accuracy. In that case, EPA requests that commenters clearly
note in both the electronic and written submissions that the comments
are duplicated in the other medium. This will assist EPA in processing
and filing the comments in the rulemaking record.
As with ordinary written comments, at the time of receipt, EPA will
not attempt to verify the identities of electronic commenters nor to
review the accuracy of electronic comments. Electronic and written
comments will be placed in the rulemaking record without any editing or
change by EPA except to the extent changes occur in the process of
converting electronic comments to printed, paper form.
If it chooses to respond officially to electronic comments on this
proposed rule, EPA will do so either in a notice in the Federal
Register or in a response to comments document placed in the rulemaking
record for this proposed rule. EPA will not respond to commenters
electronically other than to seek clarification of electronic comments
that may be garbled in transmission or conversion to printed, paper
form as discussed above. Any communications from EPA employees to
electronic commenters, other than those described in this paragraph,
either through Internet or otherwise are not official responses from
EPA.
VII. Agency Decision on Proposed Exception
EPA will publish in the Federal Register its decision whether to
grant the requests for exception, as well as its final decision on a
national exception. EPA will base its decision on whether the benefits
of the exceptions outweigh the costs, including the value of the health
risks attributable to the exception. An exception may be withdrawn by
the Agency at any time if the Agency receives poisoning information or
other data that indicate that the health risks imposed by the early-
entry exception are unacceptable or if the Agency receives other
information that indicates that the exception is no longer necessary or
prudent.
List of Subjects
Administrative practice and procedure, Labeling, Occupational
safety and health, Pesticides and pests.
Dated: January 3, 1995.
Lynn R. Goldman,
Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances.
[FR Doc. 95-585 Filed 1-6-95; 12:16 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F