already provided in many cases.
    Finally, EPA considered requiring a written test to gauge the
workers' or handlers' knowledge about the topics covered in training to
ensure that they have the information needed for self-protection. The
Agency, however, was dissuaded from this alternative due to concerns
for the ability of workers and handlers to successfully complete an
exam, even when they have been adequately trained, on account of
literacy and language challenges among workers and handlers. Some
stakeholders have indicated that noncertified applicators, who have
similar demographic profiles to workers and handlers, may find it
difficult to pass a written examination due to literacy and language
barriers; the Agency believes workers and handlers may have similar
difficulty (Ref. 36) (Ref. 37). Concerns exist for the perceived burden
on employers for providing the time for needed training and exam-
taking, and for the potential reduction in workforce when workers or
handlers cannot pass the exam, despite being aware of the training
content (Ref. 36) (Ref. 37). While testing might be a useful approach
in some situations, the Agency believes that in this context a testing
requirement is less likely than annual retraining to produce the
desired improvements in workers' and handlers' understanding of
pesticide safety. Therefore, EPA is not proposing testing as an
alternative to annual training.
    7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following questions:
     Should EPA consider different pesticide safety training
timing? If so, what timeframe and why?
     Do you have information concerning the relationship
between the frequency of training of workers and handlers and the
frequency of incidents of pesticide exposure or illness? If so, please
provide.
     Are there other ways EPA could ensure that workers and
handlers retain the information presented in pesticide safety training
so the retraining interval can be longer than one year?
     Are there other burdens or benefits associated with a 2-
year retraining interval that EPA has not considered?
     What would be the impact of a 1- or 2-year retraining
interval on states and tribes?
     Should EPA consider retaining the current 5 year
retraining interval for workers and handlers and adding a requirement
for annual refresher training? Please provide information on the
relative benefits to and burdens on employers, workers, and handlers.
EPA currently envisions that, if adopted, the annual refresher training
for workers would include the topics proposed at 170.309(e), the grace
period training (see Unit XVIII for a full discussion of the proposed
points for training workers under the grace period). The annual
refresher training for handlers would include a review of information
necessary for handlers to protect themselves, their families, workers,
and the environment from pesticide exposure. EPA anticipates that the
refresher training would be slightly shorter in duration than the
proposed full pesticide safety training, but seeks comment on the
duration of such refresher training. Retaining the current 5 year
retraining interval and adding a requirement for annual refresher
training would necessitate additional recordkeeping by the employer.
The employer would maintain training records for workers and handlers
as discussed in Unit VII.B. below, as well as records containing the
same information for the refresher training.

B. Establish Recordkeeping Requirements To Verify Training for Workers
and Handlers

    1. Overview. The existing WPS does not establish any mandatory
mechanism for verifying that a worker or handler has received pesticide
safety training. To improve compliance with the WPS training
requirements and to address the absence of documentation of worker and
handler training, the Agency proposes to eliminate the voluntary
training verification card system and to require employers to maintain
records of WPS worker and handler training for two years. In addition,
the employer would be responsible for providing a copy of the record to
each worker or handler upon completion of the training. EPA believes a
requirement for employers to maintain the training roster, an official
record, of employees' training would address current enforcement
difficulties in verifying whether a worker or handler has received
training. The requirement to provide workers and handlers with a copy
of the training record would allow a subsequent employer to verify that
the worker or handler had received training and to copy the training
verification record for the subsequent employer's own files.
    2. Existing WPS requirements. Presently, the WPS does not require
agricultural employers to document that they provided the training
required under the WPS for workers or handlers. The WPS also does not
require trainers or employers to record who they trained, what training
they provided, or when they provided pesticide safety training.
However, a voluntary program was established that allowed states,
tribes, and agricultural employers to use verification cards to
identify workers and handlers trained in accordance with the WPS.
Participating states, territories, and tribes have opted to distribute
cards printed by EPA or to generate agency-specific cards. States,
territories, and tribes allow distribution of the cards by trainers
qualified under the WPS or under stricter requirements. A few entities
require trainers of workers or handlers to submit the names of those
trained to the state regulatory agency; however, EPA does not maintain
such a list. Under the current voluntary training verification card
program, an agricultural or handler employer who hires workers and
handlers with valid training verification cards does not need to
provide training until the expiration date listed on the card. At least
20 states, territories, or tribes continue to use the voluntary
training card system (Ref. 43).
    3. Summary of the issues. Since 1998, EPA has received considerable
feedback from stakeholders, including state regulatory partners,
regarding the difficulty of enforcing the training provisions of the
WPS rule, primarily due to a lack of recordkeeping (Ref. 17) (Ref. 18).
Inspectors have noted that they cannot consult a record to determine if
the workers and handlers on the establishment have been trained. Their
primary method for evaluating compliance with training requirements is
to interview workers and handlers regarding the content of training
received or whether any training has occurred. Stakeholders, including
state inspectors and farmworker organizations, have indicated that
interview results may be compromised as workers and handlers may not
recall the training they received, may not connect the questions with
the training information, and may not be able to communicate with the
inspector in a

language that both are comfortable speaking. Some workers and handlers
may feel intimidated and provide inaccurate responses due to a lack of
anonymity. Some states and territories, including AZ, CA, HI, NV, NH,
NJ, PA, and PR, have addressed the issue through requiring a form of
recordkeeping for worker and/or handler training, such as training
records maintained by the employer, training records submitted to the
state, or making mandatory the voluntary training verification card
system. California has implemented a requirement for employers to
maintain records of handler training for 2 years (3 CCR 6724(e)).
    Some stakeholders voiced strong support for improved recordkeeping
as discussed in reports from the National Assessment of EPA's Pesticide
Worker Safety Program (Ref. 44). The General Training Issues Workgroup,
convened as part of the National Assessment, recommended that all
trainers be required to maintain records of trained workers for the
duration of the retraining interval, and suggested that EPA offer a
variety of methods for employers to demonstrate compliance (Ref. 15).
Farmworker organizations as well as other stakeholders have repeatedly
emphasized the need to improve enforcement and compliance verification
capabilities in order to assure greater protection for workers (Ref.
17) (Ref. 35).
    States, territories, and tribes have noted that the voluntary
training verification card system is undermined by fraudulent cards.
They cite instances of workers, handlers, and labor contractors
illegally exchanging cards and altering the expiration date. Without an
expiration year printed on each card and annual reprinting of current
verification cards, it is difficult to assess the validity of the card.
Without any requirement for creating and maintaining records of
training, it is virtually impossible to verify who has been trained.
States have informed the Agency that workers perceive the card as a
credential that potential employers may use to determine their
employability. As a result, state agencies have reported that falsified
cards are common because workers and handlers want to show that they
are employable. The Agency believes, based on information gathered
since the implementation of the training verification card system, that
the current system of voluntary training verification cards has proven
to be an unreliable method of tracking and identifying trained workers
(Ref. 37) (Ref. 45) (Ref. 46).
    4. Details of the proposal/rationale. The Agency proposes to
require agricultural and handler employers to keep records of all
workers and handlers who receive pesticide safety training for 2 years
on the agricultural establishment. Required information for the record
of worker and handler training would include the trained worker's or
handler's name, signature, date of birth, the date of training, the
trainer's name, proof of trainer's qualification to train, the
employer's name, employer's phone number or phone number of the
establishment, and which EPA-approved training materials were used. EPA
also proposes to require employers to provide a copy of the training
record to each worker and handler upon completion of the training.
    EPA believes these new recordkeeping requirements would address
some of the difficulties in effectively enforcing the existing rule
raised by regulatory and farmworker advocacy stakeholders. This
proposal would allow inspectors to verify training through records
retained by the employer and maintained by the workers and handlers
themselves rather than solely through interviews with workers and
handlers. The Agency's proposal is flexible in that it would allow
paper or electronic recordkeeping, so an employer could scan the
training records with employees' signatures and maintain electronic
files.
    The recorded date of birth would be used to verify that the minimum
age for handlers and early-entry workers has been met. [See Units XI.B.
and XII.A.] Retaining the trainer's proof of qualification to train
would allow the inspector to determine if the trainer met the criteria
to be a trainer. [See Unit VII.D]
    EPA recognizes the importance of maintaining some mechanism for
workers and handlers to change employers without repeating pesticide
safety training each time they enter an establishment. EPA believes
that the proposed option would meet the need for employers to verify
that workers and handlers have received appropriate training by
providing an official record rather than the voluntary training
verification card. The proposal to require employers to maintain
specific records of worker and handler training and to provide a copy
of the training record to each trained worker and handler would make
the voluntary training verification card program obsolete, redundant,
and unnecessary. An employer could consider a worker or handler trained
if either the employee or prior employer presents a copy of the
training record. EPA believes requiring employers to provide a record
of the training to workers and handlers would allow workers and
handlers to show future employers they have received WPS training. In
addition, future employers could maintain a copy of the workers' or
handlers' record in their files to comply with the requirement to
ensure the employees have received the appropriate training.
    The proposed regulatory text concerning the recordkeeping
requirements to verify training for workers and handlers appears in
Sec. Sec.  170.101(d) and 170.201(d), respectively, of the proposed
rule.
    5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost of requiring
employers to maintain records of worker training for 2 years would be
$1.6 million annually and about $4 per agricultural establishment per
year. The cost for employers to maintain records for handler training
for 2 years would be $160,000 annually, or less than $1 per
agricultural establishment and about $3 per commercial pesticide
handling establishment per year. For a complete discussion of the costs
of the proposals and alternatives, see the ``Economic Analysis of
Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,'' Chapter 3 Cost
Analysis (Ref. 1).
    Although EPA cannot quantify the benefits of this specific proposed
option, EPA believes that requiring records of worker and handler
training would improve employers' compliance with the training
requirements. Improved compliance would increase the likelihood that
workers and handlers perform WPS tasks with the information necessary
to mitigate exposure to pesticides for themselves and their family
members.
    6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. First, EPA
considered an option to require the employer or trainer to provide
every trained worker and handler with a wallet-sized verification
record (similar to the current voluntary training verification card)
that contains the proposed recordkeeping information, instead of the
proposal to provide a photocopy of the training recordkeeping form.
Distribution of the training verification cards would be limited to
trainers who meet the proposed qualifications. [See Unit VII.D.] The
cards would be issued by EPA on an annual basis and would indicate a
date after which the card would no longer be valid, i.e., a 2015 card
would state that it would not be considered a valid verification of
training after 12/31/2016. The annual card issuance by EPA and clear
statement of the card's longest potential

validity could help cut down the issues of fraudulent use raised by
states and other stakeholders.
    This alternative would increase the burden on trainers, employers,
and EPA and states, territories, and tribes. Instead of providing a
copy of the training record, the trainer would be required to copy the
information onto each individual training verification card. Subsequent
employers would need to verify the information on the card with the
original trainer or employer and to obtain a copy of the original
training record for their files. EPA would be responsible for printing
cards annually. EPA and states, territories, and tribes would be
responsible for distributing cards to approved trainers and tracking
who received the cards. EPA estimates that a mandatory training
verification card program for workers would add about $640,000 to the
cost of training records, increasing the total cost to about $2.2
million. Based on the increased burden to trainers, employers, and
states, territories, and tribes without significantly different
anticipated benefits to workers, handlers, trainers, and employers, EPA
decided not to propose this option.
    Second, EPA also considered requiring agricultural and handler
employers to submit worker and handler training records to EPA or to
the state, territory, or tribal regulatory authority. The agency
responsible at the federal or state, territory, or tribal level would
then maintain a database of trained workers and handlers. The Agency
believes that it is adequate for employers to maintain the records,
making them available to inspectors upon request. The submission of
training records to a central repository might benefit EPA and others
wishing to verify a worker's or handler's status. However, employers
would still bear the cost of either creating a record of the training
in the central repository or verifying a worker's or handler's
eligibility in the system. Since most workers and handlers have one or
two employers per year, the burden on employers to report to and check
with a central repository of information may not be justified. The
proposed rule would require that the employer maintain records on-site
for inspection purposes.
    Third, EPA also considered an option to require trainers, rather
than or in addition to employers, to retain records of those trained.
EPA is not pursuing this option because the WPS focuses on the
responsibilities of agricultural and handler employers. Trainers are
not responsible for the use of the pesticide on the establishment and
therefore cannot be legally responsible for following the labeling and
complying with the WPS requirements. Ultimately, the agricultural or
handler employer is responsible for ensuring that workers and handlers
receive training and for tracking that training. Inspections focus on
compliance of the agricultural or handler employer with the provisions
of the WPS, not the trainer. The WPS would not prohibit the creation of
training records by the trainer; however, the agricultural or handler
employer would have to maintain a copy of the records.
    Finally, the Agency considered establishing a 5-year interval for
the record retention cycle, which would coincide with the statute of
limitations for civil violations (28 U.S.C. 2462). The estimated cost
of this requirement would be $2 million for worker training records and
$290,000 for handler training records. The incremental cost between
record retention for two or five years would be negligible. However,
EPA believes based on state programs (e.g., California and Florida) and
stakeholder feedback that a requirement to keep records for 2 years is
sufficient. Therefore, EPA decided not to propose a 5-year interval for
record retention.
    7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following questions:
     Would a requirement for employers to report worker and
handler training information to the state or federal government for
compilation in a central repository have benefits? If so, please detail
the potential benefits and cost.
     Should the Agency reconsider any of the alternate options
presented in developing a final rule? If so, why? Please provide data
to support your position.
     Are there changes that would make the training
verification card program more effective and less prone to falsified
cards? If so, please provide detailed suggestions for improving the
system.
     Should EPA consider a performance standard to evaluate
worker and handler training (asking questions based on the training
content) rather than recordkeeping? Are there benefits or drawbacks to
this approach that the Agency has not considered?
     Would employers rely on training records provided by the
worker or handler as verification that the worker or handler had
received pesticide safety training?

C. Require Employers To Provide Establishment-Specific Information for
Workers and Handlers

    1. Overview. The existing WPS does not require employers to provide
to workers and handlers establishment-specific information on the
location of decontamination supplies as part of their pesticide safety
training. In order to allow workers and handlers to adequately protect
themselves in the event of an unexpected exposure that could occur
through spills, being sprayed, or other unusually high exposure
situations, the Agency proposes that in addition to required general
training employers must provide establishment-specific information
about the location of decontamination supplies and pesticide safety and
hazard information, as well as how to obtain medical assistance.
Agricultural and handler employers would be required to provide this
establishment-specific information to all workers and handlers,
including those previously trained on other establishments. The Agency
expects this change will equip workers and handlers with the knowledge
and capability to assist in better protecting themselves from adverse
effects of pesticide exposure.
    2. Existing WPS regulations. Sections 170.135(e) and 170.235(e)
require the employer to notify workers and handlers respectively about
the location of the pesticide safety poster and the emergency medical
information. Presently, part 170 has no requirement for employers to
provide information on the location of decontamination supplies or
hazard information to workers and handlers.
    3. Summary of the issues. Farmworker organizations have raised to
EPA the need for workers and handlers to receive establishment-specific
information even if the employer can verify that the workers and
handlers have already received pesticide safety training. The pesticide
safety training covers general self-protection principles.
Establishment-specific information on where to find, among other
things, decontamination supplies, emergency contact information, and
pesticide application information, is not consistent across
establishments. While the workers and handlers may have received
general information on how to protect themselves, without knowledge of
where the necessary supplies are located or how to obtain emergency
medical assistance they would not be able to use the knowledge to
protect themselves.
    4. Details of the proposal/rationale. The Agency proposes to
require employers to provide establishment-specific pesticide safety
training for workers and handlers when they enter the establishment and
before beginning WPS tasks. Content for the establishment-specific
information

would include the location of pesticide safety information, the
location of pesticide application and hazard information, the location
of decontamination supplies, and how to obtain emergency medical
assistance. Employers would be required to provide this training prior
to the handler performing handler activities or the worker performing
worker activities orally in a manner that the handler or worker can
understand, such as through a translator. Lastly, this training would
be required even if the employer can verify that the worker or handler
has already received pesticide safety training on another
establishment.
    EPA acknowledges that some of this information is already required
under the current rule. However, EPA believes that consolidating the
requirements for establishment-specific training would make them easier
for employers to find and comply with, resulting in a higher likelihood
that workers and handlers would receive the necessary information.
    The proposed regulatory text concerning the requirement for
employers to provide location-specific information to workers and
handlers appears in Sec. Sec.  170.103 and 170.203(b) of the proposed
rule.
    5. Costs and benefits. The estimated cost of this proposal is
included in the cost of expanded training discussed in Unit VII.E. EPA
assumes that employers cover this information as part of routine
pesticide safety training and therefore including the establishment-
specific information would add negligible time and cost.
    6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. EPA did not
consider any significant alternatives to the proposed option.
    7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following question:
     To what extent do employers already provide this
information to all workers and handlers when they first arrive at the
establishment, for example, during the hiring process?
     The current rule requires employers to ensure that the
workers and handlers receive information in a manner they understand.
Are there any issues with the current requirement for employers? If so,
please describe and provide data to support this position.

D. Establish Trainer Qualifications

    1. Overview. The current rule allows workers and handlers to be
trained by a variety of persons, including certified applicators and
handlers. In order to ensure that the pesticide safety training
received by workers and handlers is provided in a manner conducive to
adult learning and provided in a language and manner in which they can
understand, the Agency proposes to require trainers of workers to have
completed an EPA-approved train-the-trainer program or be designated by
EPA or an appropriate state or tribal agency as trainers of certified
applicators. Certified applicators would no longer be automatically
considered qualified to train workers. The Agency proposes to retain
the existing qualifications for handler trainers, namely that in order
to be a trainer of handlers, one must be a certified applicator under
40 CFR part 171 at the time of the training, to have completed train-
the-trainer program, or be designated by EPA or an appropriate state or
tribal agency as a trainer of certified applicators and to limit
approval of train-the-trainer programs to EPA. In addition, EPA
proposes to require trainers to be present throughout the training and
to ensure that there are no distractions, e.g., background videos, loud
machinery, or other instructions, competing for the worker's or
handler's attention.
    2. Existing WPS regulations. The existing WPS designates the
following groups as qualified to be pesticide safety trainers for
workers:
     Applicators certified according to 40 CFR part 171
(private and commercial applicators of RUPs);
     Persons designated as trainers of certified applicators,
or pesticide handlers by the appropriate state, federal, or tribal
agency;
     Individuals who have completed an approved pesticide
safety train-the-trainer program; or
     Persons who have completed WPS handler training.
    The existing WPS designates the following groups as qualified to be
pesticide safety trainers for handlers:
     Applicators certified according to 40 CFR part 171;
     Persons designated as trainers of certified applicators or
pesticide handlers by the appropriate state, federal, or tribal agency;
and
     Individuals who have completed an approved pesticide
safety train-the-trainer program.
    The current WPS also requires trainers to be present to answer
questions but does not require that they be present for the entire
length of the training.
    3. Summary of the issues. When EPA proposed what would become the
1992 WPS (53 FR 25970; July 8, 1988), stakeholders, specifically USDA
and farmer organizations, raised concerns about the need for adequate
numbers of qualified WPS trainers. To ease the burden of transition for
agricultural employers during the implementation of the rule, EPA made
approved criteria for trainers in the final rule (57 FR 38102, 38128-
29; Aug 21, 1992) intentionally broad. Since that time, the pool of
qualified trainers has expanded due to the increase and availability of
train-the-trainer programs. EPA has supported the Association of
Farmworker Opportunity Programs (AFOP) ``Serving America's Farmworkers
Everywhere'' AmeriCorps project for over ten years. This project
connects trainers with farmworker communities to build training
capacity and to provide free training services to agricultural and
handler employers. In addition, EPA has developed a train-the-trainer
handbook for worker training (Ref. 47). Many states have also increased
the number of qualified trainers through train-the-trainer programs and
other mechanisms.
    Farmworker organizations and pesticide safety educators have raised
to EPA the importance of pesticide safety trainers having expertise
both in the subject matter covered and in adult education for low-
literacy audiences. The Hazard Communications for Agricultural Workers
Report by JBS International found that workers want to receive
pesticide safety training from trainers who are knowledgeable and
certified (Ref. 40). In order to convey information about routes of
pesticide exposure, potential accidents and how to mitigate pesticide
exposure, and avoiding exposure through basic hygiene, the trainer must
have a strong knowledge of the subject matter. A person can obtain this
knowledge in several ways. First, a person who has gone through a
train-the-trainer program would become versed in the specific
information to be conveyed to the training audience. Second, a person
who is qualified, as a university professor or cooperative extension
agent, to conduct training for a broad range of pesticide users, would
have a working knowledge of the potential pesticide risks faced by
workers and handlers. Lastly, handlers and applicators learn the
subject matter in the training and certification programs, which cover
the concepts presented in pesticide safety training in more detail.
    Research and stakeholder input have highlighted the need for
trainers to have specific skills to reach this type of audience.
Farmworker organizations and pesticide educators expressed concern
about the ability of individuals without knowledge of adult education
practices to conduct effective pesticide safety training (Ref. 39)
(Ref. 46) (Ref. 48). Stakeholders have also informed EPA that training
may be presented

simultaneously with other information, preventing workers and handlers
from focusing completely on the safety information presented.
    Stakeholders have raised concerns that trainers lacking skills in
adult education may be ineffective in communicating necessary pesticide
safety information to workers (Ref. 35) (Ref. 36) (Ref. 48) (Ref. 46)
(Ref. 39). Farmworker organizations have supported limiting eligibility
of trainers of workers and handlers to those completing a train-the-
trainer program ``covering methods of conducting an informal adult
participatory education session for low literacy learners, with limited
English proficiency'' (Ref. 35). A pilot train-the-trainer program in
Washington State showed that participants who learned training
techniques applicable to the worker population were more successful in
communicating with their target audience than they had been prior to
training, indicated by improved performance of the audience on a post-
training evaluation of knowledge (Ref. 17).
    4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to require
trainers of workers to complete a pesticide safety train-the-trainer
program approved by EPA or to be designated as a trainer of certified
applicators by EPA or a state or tribal agency responsible for
pesticide enforcement. The proposal would delete the option for
certification under 40 CFR part 171 or training as a WPS handler to
serve as sufficient qualifications for a person to be a trainer for
workers.
    Additionally, the Agency proposes to require trainers of workers
and trainers of handlers to be present during the entirety of a
training session and to answer questions. Trainers must also ensure
that the training is presented in a manner free of distractions.
    EPA proposes to retain the existing categories for trainers of
handlers and to add a requirement that the train-the-trainer program be
approved by EPA.
    Under a cooperative agreement with the NASDA Research Foundation,
EPA has developed the National Worker Safety Trainer Handbook (Ref.
47). This manual outlines the necessary pesticide safety information
for workers, as well as describing adult education principles and how
to communicate across languages and cultures. In addition to the
National Worker Safety Trainer Handbook, EPA also supports the training
of pesticide safety trainers of workers by AFOP. Both of these programs
would serve as models for an EPA-approved train-the-trainer program.
Using these models, EPA would develop guidance to describe the
necessary elements of a train-the-trainer program and the process for
seeking EPA approval. EPA anticipates that any interested
organizations, including non-profit organizations, universities, state
regulatory agencies, and the pesticide industry, could seek approval
for and administer a train-the-trainer course that meets EPA's
standards.
    EPA proposes to retain the options for persons designated as
trainers of certified applicators or handlers by EPA or a state or
tribal agency responsible for pesticide enforcement because either EPA
or the state or tribe has recognized that they have the subject matter
expertise and qualifications necessary to convey the pesticide safety
information to workers or handlers. Many cooperative extension services
(part of land grant universities) have experts on pesticide safety that
work with agricultural employers to provide information on safe
pesticide use. EPA believes that in their role as educators and with
knowledge of adult education, pesticide application, and safety
principles, these persons are qualified to provide the information to
workers and handlers. State regulatory agencies also hire or contract
with adult educators to provide pesticide safety training to workers or
handlers. Rather than increase the burden on the state or tribal lead
agency by requiring that all persons complete a pesticide safety train-
the-trainer course, EPA believes that state and tribal lead agencies
would ensure that persons they designate as trainers can appropriately
convey the information required under the proposed regulation to
workers and handlers.
    EPA proposes to eliminate the automatic authorization of certified
applicators and WPS handlers to train workers. Although certified
applicators have demonstrated competency in pesticide application and
safety, they may not possess skills as trainers, particularly for low-
literacy, non-English speaking, adult audiences. Handlers may possess
pesticide safety knowledge and may have cultural and language abilities
in common with workers, but they may lack teaching skills or sufficient
technical knowledge needed to effectively convey the information. For
training to make the most impact, trainers need to be competent not
only in their knowledge of pesticide risks but also in communicating
with adult learners with educational challenges. Trainers may have
difficulty conveying the abstract concept of pesticide risk, due to
barriers such as the limited English language skills, cultural
differences, and low educational levels of many workers and handlers.
EPA believes that there are sufficient qualified trainers to meet the
proposed requirements now, as opposed to when the 1992 WPS was
implemented, based on trainers qualified by AFOP initiatives and the
publication and dissemination of an EPA train-the-trainer handbook.
    EPA proposes to retain the option for certified applicators to
train handlers. While the Agency has some concern regarding the ability
of certified applicators to provide effective training for workers
because worker trainers need to have specific capability to deliver
basic information to an audience that may have a low education level
and limited literacy and English skills, EPA thinks this group can be
successful as trainers for handlers. There is a large overlap between
the roles of applicators and handlers, which allows applicators to draw
on their personal knowledge and skills needed to correctly and safely
perform handler tasks. In addition, in the revisions to part 171, EPA
is proposing to require certified applicators to provide training that
mirrors the WPS handler training to noncertified applicators applying
RUPs under their direct supervision. EPA believes that the certified
applicators are appropriately qualified to convey the proper pesticide
application techniques and importance of protecting oneself from
pesticide exposure to handlers that will be performing similar tasks in
areas that have been treated with pesticides.
    EPA believes that increasing the qualifications of trainers will
increase the value of training sessions by improving the quality of the
training. Workers will benefit by improved understanding of the
learning objectives and an increased ability to protect themselves and
their families.
    To ease implementation and ensure a sufficient cadre of qualified
trainers is available, EPA proposes to continue allowing certified
applicators to conduct worker training until two years following the
effective date of the final rule. This transition period would allow
time for applicators and other persons that do not meet the current
requirements and who wish to conduct worker training to qualify as
trainers under the proposed requirements, either by attending an EPA-
approved train-the-trainer program or seeking designation as an
approved trainer of workers from EPA or the state or tribe, and for all
trainers to become familiar with new training materials developed as a
result of the finalized rule.
    EPA plans to support the development of training materials for
workers and handlers that reflect the

new training requirements such as manuals and videos. EPA will work
with stakeholders to develop these materials when the amendments to the
rule are finalized and plans to have them ready for distribution when
the revised training requirements go into effect.
    The proposed regulatory text concerning trainer qualifications for
workers and handlers appears in Sec. Sec.  170.101(c)(4) and
170.201(c)(4) respectively of the proposed rule.
    5. Costs. EPA estimates the cost of revising the standards for
worker trainers would be $1.1 million annually, or about $3 per
agricultural establishment. For a complete discussion of the costs of
the proposals and alternatives, see the ``Economic Analysis of Proposed
Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,'' Chapter 3 Cost Analysis
(Ref. 1).
    EPA cannot quantify the precise benefits associated with this
proposal; however, EPA believes requiring trainers to have the ability
to convey the pesticide safety information, along with knowledge of
adult education principles and how to communicate with low-literacy
audiences, would increase overall understanding and retention of the
pesticide safety training by workers. This improvement would increase
the likelihood that workers and handlers adopt the principles outlined
in the pesticide safety training and reduce the potential for exposure
to themselves and their family members.
    6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. EPA considered
several options regarding categories of qualified trainers. One option
considered by the Agency was to continue to consider applicators
certified under 40 CFR part 171 and handlers as qualified to train
workers. EPA does not think, however, that a certified applicator's
knowledge of pesticide safety and application principles alone is
sufficient to qualify the certified applicator as an educator for basic
safety principles for workers. As discussed above, teaching an adult
population, especially individuals with low-literacy skills, differing
cultural norms, and a variety of primary languages, requires trainers
with skills in reaching this type of audience. After considering this
alternative in light of the demographics of workers and the importance
of providing safety information in manner workers can understand, EPA
does not consider it reasonable to assume that certified applicators
and handlers necessarily have the adult education skills to adequately
perform WPS training for workers. Certified applicators and handlers
may become trainers if they complete a train-the-trainer course or are
designated as trainers by the EPA or a state or tribal agency.
    EPA also considered an option to restrict trainer eligibility to
only trainers who have completed a train-the-trainer program. The
Agency believes that allowing trainers of applicators and those having
completed a train-the-trainer course to train workers, as well as
allowing certified applicators to train handlers, will offer continued
flexibility for agriculture and result in less burden than restricting
the qualifications to a single type of trainer. EPA has confidence that
trainers designated as qualified by EPA or the states or tribes would
have knowledge of adult education and the safety principles that
workers need to know. Requiring all worker and handler trainers to
complete a train-the-trainer program would limit the number of eligible
trainers and as a result there might not be sufficient numbers to meet
employers' training needs.
    EPA also considered implementing a test to determine the
eligibility of trainers. Though examination would provide a method of
evaluating knowledge, safety educators and advocate groups maintained
that trainers need skills that cannot readily be assessed by an
examination. For example, it would be difficult to assess, through an
exam, whether a person has skills in communicating with low-literacy,
adult audiences. EPA believes that train-the-trainer courses in which
trainers learn and practice interactive and engaging training
techniques, in addition to the necessary pesticide safety information,
would be more effective than a written exam to prepare educators for an
audience of workers and handlers.
    7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following questions:
     Are there other programs that would prepare trainers to
convey pesticide safety information to workers and handlers? Please
describe the program and the feasibility of its implementation for
affected establishments.
     Should EPA consider requiring trainers of workers and
handlers to refresh their qualifications periodically, such as
requiring attending a train-the-trainer program every 5 years? Please
provide data in support or opposition.
     The current rule requires employers to ensure that the
workers and handlers receive information in a manner they understand.
Are there any issues with the current requirement for trainers? If so,
please describe and provide data to support this position.

E. Expand the Content of Worker and Handler Pesticide Safety Training

    1. Overview. The WPS currently requires employers to provide
pesticide safety training covering specific content to workers and
handlers. EPA proposes to expand the information required to be covered
in worker and handler pesticide safety training so that workers and
handlers can better protect themselves from adverse effects of
pesticide exposures.
    Additional content in worker pesticide safety training would
include, among other things, information on: how to reduce pesticide
take-home exposure, the requirements for early-entry notification, the
requirement for emergency assistance for workers, and the availability
of hazard communication materials for workers, and informing workers of
the obligations of agricultural employers and what workers can expect.
    Additional content in handler pesticide safety training would
include the handlers' requirement to cease application if he or she
observes a person other than another trained and properly equipped
handler in the area under treatment or entry restricted area, and a
requirement for OSHA-equivalent training on respirator use, fit-testing
of respirators, and medical evaluation for respirator users.
    EPA expects this additional information provided in the proposed
expansions to worker and handler pesticide safety training to better
protect workers and handlers from risks associated with pesticides.
    2. Existing WPS regulations. Under 40 CFR 170.130(d)(4), worker
pesticide safety training must include, at a minimum, the following 11
basic safety training points:
     Where and in what form pesticides may be encountered
during work activities.
     Hazards of pesticides resulting from toxicity and
exposure, including acute and chronic effects, delayed effects, and
sensitization.
     Routes through which pesticides can enter the body.
     Signs and symptoms of common types of pesticide poisoning.
     Emergency first aid for pesticide injuries or poisonings.
     How to obtain emergency medical care.
     Routine and emergency decontamination procedures,
including emergency eye flushing techniques.
     Hazards from chemigation and drift.
     Hazards from pesticide residues on clothing.
     Warnings about taking pesticides or pesticide containers
home.

     Requirements of the WPS designed to reduce the risks of
illness or injury resulting from workers' occupational exposure to
pesticides, including application and entry restrictions, the design of
the warning sign, posting of warning signs, oral warnings, the
availability of specific information about applications, and the
protection against retaliatory acts.
    Under 40 CFR 170.230(c)(4), handler pesticide safety training must
include, at a minimum, the following 13 basic safety training points:
     Format and meaning of information on the product label,
including safety information.
     Hazards of pesticides from toxicity and exposure.
     Routes through which pesticides can enter the body.
     Signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning.
     Emergency first aid for pesticide poisoning.
     How to get emergency medical care.
     Routine and emergency decontamination procedures.
     Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
     Heat-related illness issues.
     Safety requirements for handling, transporting, storing,
and disposing of pesticides.
     Environmental concerns.
     Warnings about taking pesticides or pesticide containers
home.
     Training on the requirements of the regulation related to
handling.
    3. Summary of the issues. The stakeholder engagement process
produced many comments on the content of pesticide safety training for
workers and handlers. [See Unit V.B.] Recommendations to improve worker
pesticide safety training in the ``Report on the National Assessment of
EPA's Pesticide Worker Safety Program'' included adding elements to
training on potential sources of pesticide exposure and preventing
family exposure, such as specific information on the need to wash work
clothes separately from other clothing (Ref. 17) (Ref. 15).
Additionally, farmworker organizations support expansion of the worker
pesticide safety training to include general information about
pesticide hazards, ways to reduce take-home exposure, and worker
rights. In contrast, other stakeholders raised concerns for extending
the length of training, increasing the burden on employers, or making
the training tedious for workers who may not be paid for time spent in
training. Many stakeholders also requested that EPA be mindful when
revising the WPS of the burdens faced by workers and some handlers, due
to their low income, low literacy, and limited English language skills.
    4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA is proposing a number of
new provisions to be included in the content for worker and handler
safety training. Each of these is discussed in greater detail in this
section. Where some proposed changes only clarify or enhance an
existing training topic, rather than substantially altering the content
of the topic, EPA does not discuss the proposed modifications in as
great detail as the proposed modifications to existing language that
substantially alter the content of the training topic.
    EPA proposes to add the following topics to both worker and handler
training: protection from pesticide take-home exposure, enhanced
emergency assistance provisions in the WPS, and the availability of
hazard communication materials.
    Additional worker safety training topics would add about 15 minutes
to the training and would include, in addition to the points in the
current WPS: Handler tasks that employers must not direct or allow
workers to do, early-entry notification requirements including age
restrictions, hazards of pesticide exposure to children and pregnant
women, how to report suspected violations, and the prohibition of
employer retaliation for reporting suspected violations or attempting
to comply with 40 CFR part 170.
    The proposed revised regulation for worker training at Sec.
170.101(c)(2) through (3) would require the following training content:
     Agricultural employers' obligation to provide workers with
information and protections designed to reduce work-related pesticide
exposures and illnesses. This includes providing pesticide safety
training, pesticide safety and application information, decontamination
supplies, and emergency medical assistance, and notifying workers of
restrictions during applications and on entering pesticide treated
areas.
     How to recognize and understand the meaning of the warning
sign used for notifying workers of restrictions on entering pesticide
treated areas on the establishment.
     How to follow directions and/or signs about keeping out of
entry restricted or pesticide treated areas.
     Where and in what form pesticides may be encountered
during work activities and potential sources of pesticide exposure on
the agricultural establishment. This includes pesticides drifting from
nearby applications, and that pesticide residues may be on or in
plants, soil, irrigation water, tractors, application equipment, or
used personal protective equipment.
     Potential hazards from toxicity and exposure that
pesticides present to workers and their families, including acute and
chronic effects, delayed effects, and sensitization.
     Potential hazards from chemigation and drift.
     Routes through which pesticides can enter the body.
     Signs and symptoms of common types of pesticide poisoning.
     Emergency first aid for pesticide injuries or poisonings.
     Routine and emergency decontamination procedures,
including emergency eye flushing techniques.
     Wash immediately in the nearest clean water if pesticides
are spilled or sprayed on the body and as soon as possible, shower,
shampoo hair, and change into clean clothes.
     How and when to obtain emergency medical care.
     When working near pesticides or in pesticide treated
areas, wear work clothing that protects the body from pesticide
residues and wash hands before eating, drinking, using chewing gum or
tobacco, or using the toilet.
     Wash or shower with soap and water, shampoo hair, and
change into clean clothes as soon as possible after working near or in
pesticide treated areas.
     Potential hazards from pesticide residues on clothing.
     Wash work clothes before wearing again.
     Wash work clothes separately from other clothes.
     Do not take pesticides or pesticide containers used at
work to your home.
     Agricultural employers are required to provide workers
with pesticide hazard information.
     Agricultural employers must not allow or direct any worker
to mix, load or apply pesticides or assist in the application of
pesticides unless the worker has been trained as a handler.
     There are minimum age restrictions and notification
requirements for early-entry activities.
     Potential hazards to children and pregnant women from
pesticide exposure.
     Keep children and nonworking family members away from
pesticide treated areas.
     Remove work boots or shoes before entering home.
     After working near pesticides or in pesticide treated
areas, remove work clothes and wash or shower before physical contact
with children or family members.

     How to report suspected pesticide use violations to the
state or tribal agency responsible for pesticide enforcement.
     Agricultural employers are prohibited from intimidating,
threatening, coercing, or discriminating against any worker for the
purposes of interfering with any attempt to comply with the
requirements of this part, or because the worker has made a complaint,
testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation,
proceeding, or hearing pursuant to this part.
    Additional handler training topics would add about 15 minutes to
the existing training and would include: proper removal of PPE; the
requirement for handlers to cease application if persons are in the
treated area or entry restricted area; the requirement that handler
employers must ensure handlers have received respirator fit-testing,
training, and medical evaluation if required to wear a respirator; and
the minimum age requirement for handlers.
    The proposed revised regulation for handler training at Sec.
170.201(c)(2) through (3) would require the following training content:
     Employers' obligation to provide handlers with information
and protections designed to reduce work-related pesticide exposures and
illnesses. This includes providing pesticide safety training, pesticide
safety and application information, decontamination supplies, and
emergency medical assistance, and notifying handlers of restrictions
during applications and on entering pesticide treated areas.
     How to recognize and understand the meaning of the warning
sign used for notifying workers of restrictions on entering pesticide
treated areas on the establishment.
     How to follow directions and/or signs about keeping out of
entry restricted or pesticide treated areas.
     Where and in what form pesticides may be encountered
during work activities and potential sources of pesticide exposure on
the agricultural establishment. This includes pesticides drifting from
nearby applications, and that pesticide residues may be on or in
plants, soil, irrigation water, tractors, application equipment, or
used personal protective equipment.
     Potential hazards from toxicity and exposure that
pesticides present to workers and their families, including acute and
chronic effects, delayed effects, and sensitization.
     Potential hazards from chemigation and drift.
     Routes through which pesticides can enter the body.
     Signs and symptoms of common types of pesticide poisoning.
     Emergency first aid for pesticide injuries or poisonings.
     Routine and emergency decontamination procedures,
including emergency eye flushing techniques.
     Wash immediately in the nearest clean water if pesticides
are spilled or sprayed on the body and as soon as possible, shower,
shampoo hair, and change into clean clothes.
     How and when to obtain emergency medical care.
     When working near pesticides or in pesticide treated
areas, wear work clothing that protects the body from pesticide
residues and wash hands before eating, drinking, using chewing gum or
tobacco, or using the toilet.
     Wash or shower with soap and water, shampoo hair, and
change into clean clothes as soon as possible after working near or in
pesticide treated areas.
     Potential hazards from pesticide residues on clothing.
     Wash work clothes before wearing again.
     Wash work clothes separately from other clothes.
     Do not take pesticides or pesticide containers used at
work to your home.
     Agricultural employers are required to provide handlers
with pesticide hazard information.
     Agricultural employers must not allow or direct any worker
to mix, load or apply pesticides or assist in the application of
pesticides unless the worker has been trained as a handler.
     Early-entry workers must be at least 16 years of age to
perform early-entry activities and workers must receive notification
prior to conducting early-entry activities.
     Potential hazards to children and pregnant women from
pesticide exposure.
     Keep children and nonworking family members away from
pesticide treated areas.
     Remove work boots or shoes before entering home.
     After working near pesticides or in pesticide treated
areas, remove work clothes and wash or shower before physical contact
with children or family members.
     How to report suspected pesticide use violations to the
state or tribal agency responsible for pesticide enforcement.
     Employers are prohibited from intimidating, threatening,
coercing, or discriminating against any handler for the purposes of
interfering with any attempt to comply with the requirements of this
part, or because the worker has made a complaint, testified, assisted,
or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or
hearing pursuant to this part.
     Information on proper application and use of pesticides.
     Requirement for handlers to follow all pesticide label
directions.
     Format and meaning of all information contained on
pesticide labels and in labeling.
     Need for and appropriate use and removal of all personal
protective equipment.
     How to recognize, prevent, and provide first aid treatment
for heat-related illness.
     Safety requirements for handling, transporting, storing,
and disposing of pesticides, including general procedures for spill
cleanup.
     Environmental concerns, such as drift, runoff, and
wildlife hazards.
     Handlers must not apply pesticides in a manner that
results in contact with workers or other persons.
     Handler employers are required to provide handlers with
information and protections designed to reduce work-related pesticide
exposures and illnesses. This includes providing, cleaning,
maintaining, storing, and ensuring proper use of all required personal
protective equipment; providing decontamination supplies; and providing
specific information about pesticide use and labeling information.
     Handlers must cease or suspend a pesticide application if
workers or other persons are in the treated area or the entry-
restricted area.
     Handlers must be at least 16 years of age.
     Handler employers must ensure handlers have received
respirator fit-testing, training, and medical evaluation if they are
required to wear a respirator.
     Handler employers must post treated areas as required by
this rule.
    i. Protection from Pesticide Take-Home Exposure. Although the
current training instructs workers and handlers not to take home
pesticide containers and that clothing can carry pesticide residue, the
Agency proposes to expand the existing sections to include more
specific information in the worker and handler pesticide safety
training on ways to reduce take-home pesticide exposure. Specifically,
the expanded training content would include the following: Instructions
on washing before touching family members, removing soiled work boots
or shoes before entering the home, washing clothes that may have
pesticide residues

on them before wearing them again and separately from other family
clothes, and keeping family members away from treated areas, as well as
information on the potential risks to children and pregnant women from
pesticide exposure.
    Workers and handlers may be exposed to pesticides at work;
additionally, they and their families may be exposed to pesticide
residues brought into their homes from the workplace. ``Take-home''
exposure is the movement of agricultural pesticides from the workplace
to the home via contact with pesticide-contaminated clothing, dirt
tracked into the home, or other pathways. This type of exposure has
generated concern among health care professionals and worker advocates.
A 1995 study by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on worker's home
contamination found, in multiple industries, that hazardous chemical
contamination of workers' homes is a worldwide problem, resulting in
injury and at times, death (Ref. 49 pp. vii, 17-19).
    Although EPA does not have conclusive data about the impact of
pesticide residue transfer from a worker or handler to his or her home,
car, and family members, the Agency recognizes that workers and
handlers are exposed to chemicals in the workplace and should be
educated on minimizing the transfer of these chemicals to non-work
locations. Some studies have been conducted to evaluate whether non-
working children in agricultural families may have greater exposure to
agricultural chemicals than children of non-agricultural families from
the presence of pesticide residue in their home (Ref. 50).
Contamination of the home from agricultural pesticides can come from
numerous sources, including soil, dust, or other residue on clothing
and vehicles and contaminated storage containers (Ref. 49) (Ref. 51).
Additionally, agricultural pesticides introduced into the home may
persist longer than in outdoor areas, due to the lack of degradative
environmental processes, such as those furthered by rain and sun. Peer-
reviewed studies have concluded that ``farmworker and all rural
families must be educated about drift and how to reduce exposure''
(Ref. 52 p. 1259) (Ref. 53) and that ``pregnant farmworkers and those
living with farmworkers need to be educated to reduce potential take-
home pesticide exposure'' (Ref. 34 p. 491).
    Studies have focused on the presence of agricultural pesticides in
the homes of workers. Centers for Children's Environmental Health and
Disease Prevention Research were established to explore ways to reduce
children's health risks from environmental factors. The program is
jointly funded by EPA and the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences (NIEHS) and also collaborates with the Centers for
Disease Control (Ref. 54). Two of the centers, the University of
California at Berkeley (UC Berkeley) and the University of Washington,
have a number of studies which focus on agricultural pesticides and
children, some with a primary outcome of pesticide exposure reduction
strategies. The Center for the Health Assessment of Mother and Children
of Salinas (CHAMACOS) Study, a longitudinal birth cohort study of
children in the Salinas Valley, California, is the largest study
administered by UC Berkeley's Children's Center (Ref. 55). California
Department of Health Services tested dust in worker and non-worker
homes and concluded that there is a greater presence of pesticide
residue in the homes of workers (Ref. 56). Additional studies apart
from the UC Berkeley activities have also examined the transfer of
pesticide residues from pesticide-treated areas to the home and
automobiles, i.e., the take-home pathway (Ref. 23) (Ref. 50) (Ref. 51)
(Ref. 57) (Ref. 58).
    Effective methods of reducing take-home exposure exist. CDC's 1995
study identified worksite behaviors, such as minimizing workplace
exposures, storing clean clothes in uncontaminated areas of the
worksite, changing work clothes prior to returning home, and showering
before leaving the workplace, that are effective means to reduce take-
home exposure (Ref. 49). The report also identified methods in the home
to reduce contamination, such as laundering work clothes separately
from family laundry, preventing family members from visiting the
workplace, and informing the workers of risks to family members and how
to minimize their exposure. Workers and their families should be
familiar with how behaviors such as hand washing, proper laundering,
and removing work clothes before entering the home can reduce risk of
exposure (Ref. 34).

ii. Training on Reporting Violations and Employer Retaliation
Prohibition

    EPA proposes to require that worker and handler pesticide safety
training include information on how to report suspected pesticide use
violations. EPA also proposes to include a training point explaining
that agricultural employers are prohibited from retaliation against
workers and handlers for attempting to comply with the WPS or reporting
suspected violation of the WPS. Including this information in the
worker and handler training would increase the effectiveness of the
existing WPS protections against retaliations.
    Under the current 40 CFR 170.7(b) employers are prohibited from
taking ``any retaliatory action for attempts to comply with this part
or any action having the effect of preventing or discouraging any
worker or handler from complying or attempting to comply with any
requirement of this part.'' The existing Sec.  170.130(d)(4)(xi)
requires employers to provide training on protections against
retaliatory acts. Similar protection against retaliation for handlers
is covered in Sec.  170.230(c)(4)(xiii).
    Farmworker advocacy organizations recommend including in the worker
and handler pesticide safety training information on the rights of
workers and handlers under the WPS (Ref. 36). The Agency agrees that
workers and handlers should be aware of WPS provisions on how to report
violations and the prohibition on retaliation by the agricultural
employer. Farmworker advocacy organizations indicate that workers and
handlers informed of their employers' requirements and the process to
report violations and pesticide exposure incidents are more likely to
report them. This can lead to a clearer understanding of circumstances
leading to WPS violations and pesticide exposure issues by enforcement.
    EPA believes it is important for workers and handlers to understand
that the WPS provides protections for their safety and that if their
employers do not provide the required protections, the government can
assist them. By incorporating this information into the WPS training,
it is more likely that workers and handlers will understand the
information and be aware of the resources available to them in the
event of a suspected act of retaliation or noncompliance with the WPS.
    Farmworker organizations requested that WPS worker and handler
training include contact information for legal representation (Ref.
35). EPA, however, does not agree. EPA does not consider it appropriate
to recommend particular attorneys or legal representatives. Moreover,
while legal representation may be helpful for a worker or handler who
experiences retaliation or a serious pesticide exposure, it is not
clear that requiring the requested notification would significantly
contribute to the goals of FIFRA.
    The proposed regulatory text concerning training in regard to
reporting suspected violations and employer prohibition against
retaliation

appears in Sec. Sec.  170.101(c)(3)(viii) through (ix) and
170.201(c)(3)(v) of the proposed rule.
    iii. Training on Hazard Communications Materials for Workers and
Handlers. EPA proposes to require agricultural and handler employers to
provide workers and handlers with access to the expanded pesticide
application information, the SDS, and the pesticide product labeling
upon request for up to two years. [See Unit IX.] EPA proposes to
include an overview of the new hazard communication requirements and
materials (expanded application information, SDS, and product labeling)
in the pesticide safety trainings for workers and handlers.
    The proposed regulatory text concerning hazard communication
content of worker and handler pesticide safety training appears in
Sec. Sec.  170.101(c)(3)(i) and 170.201(c)(3)(v) of the proposed rule.
    iv. Training on Early-Entry Notification for Workers. EPA is
proposing to add to the worker pesticide safety training points about
the minimum age restriction and notification requirements for early-
entry work. Workers would learn that entry into a treated area under an
REI would be limited to workers 16 years of age or older and what
notification requirements must be provided prior to being directed to
perform early-entry tasks. EPA expects that providing this information
to workers during training would make workers aware of their
agricultural employer's obligation to provide information on the
protections required when asked to perform early-entry work. EPA
believes that workers should be made aware of employer obligations in
their training so they will understand the significance of (and, if
they fail to receive it, notice the absence of) the information
employers would be required to provide. For a complete discussion of
the proposed amendments to the early-entry requirements, see Unit XII.
The proposed regulatory text concerning early-entry notification and
minimum age content of worker and handler pesticide safety training
appears in Sec. Sec.  170.101(c)(3)(iii) and 170.201(c)(3)(v) of the
proposed rule.
    v. Handler Responsibilities. EPA proposes that a handler be
required to cease application if the handler observes a person other
than another trained and properly equipped handler in the area under
treatment or associated entry-restricted area. EPA believes that either
the handler would have prior knowledge that another handler would be in
the area during treatment, or would cease application until he or she
could verify whether the person(s) in the treated area met the standard
as a trained and properly equipped handler. This new requirement would
impose additional responsibility on handlers. [See Unit XI.] Therefore,
EPA proposes to add to the handler training requirements a point on
this specific handler responsibility.
    The proposed regulatory text concerning the cessation of
application content of handler pesticide safety training appears in
Sec.  170.201(c)(3)(i) of the proposed rule.
    vi. Respirator Fit-Testing and Medical Evaluation for Handlers.
Unit XVI.E. discusses EPA's proposal to adopt the OSHA standard (29 CFR
part 1910) for respirator use. The OSHA standard requires employers and
users to take steps to ensure respirators are used safely, including
fit testing the handler's respirator, conducting medical evaluation,
and training handlers on proper respirator use.
    EPA proposes to require that handler training inform handlers of
the new obligations of handler employers regarding proper respirator
use. Handler training content is proposed to inform handlers that their
employer must ensure they have received respirator fit-testing,
training and medical evaluation if they are required to wear a
respirator; only those handlers who would use a respirator would need
to receive the full OSHA training on respirators. EPA expects this
change would inform handlers of the new requirements for respirator use
and their importance.
    The proposed regulatory text concerning adding to the training the
employer's responsibility to provide handlers using respirators with
respirator training, fit-testing, and medical evaluation appears in
Sec.  170.201(c)(3)(iii) of the proposed rule.
    5. Costs. The proposed expansions to training content would expand
worker training from approximately 30 minutes to 45 minutes, and
handler training from 45 minutes to 60 minutes. The Agency believes
that the expanded training is necessary for workers and handlers to
better protect themselves.
    EPA estimates the cost of expanding pesticide safety training for
workers would be $4.3 million annually or about $11 per agricultural
establishment per year. The cost to expand pesticide safety training
for handlers would be $660,000 annually, or about $3 per agricultural
establishment and $15 per commercial pesticide handling establishment
per year. For a complete discussion of the costs of the proposals and
alternatives, see the ``Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the
Worker Protection Standard,'' Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1).
    EPA cannot quantify the specific benefits associated with this
proposal. However, EPA believes that adding information to worker and
handler training would assist workers and handlers to mitigate
pesticide exposure to themselves and their families. EPA believes this
would result in a lower number of occupation-related pesticide
exposures and reduce chronic and developmental effects from pesticide
exposure.
    6. Alternate options considered but not proposed. EPA considered
various combinations of the additional training content discussed
above. For example, EPA considered simply clarifying the training
required under the current rule to be more specific about the
information to be covered. EPA also considered not adding the
information about employers' responsibilities to provide training to
early-entry workers and to handlers using respirators in order to
shorten the total duration of a training program; however, given the
importance of communicating the additional information to workers and
handlers to ensure they have the information necessary to protect
themselves and their families from pesticide exposure and the
relatively low burden associated with extending the training to cover
the content, EPA believes that all of the aforementioned points should
be added to the training.
    While a shorter training program with fewer points would reduce the
cost of the proposal slightly, EPA believes the benefits of providing
the proposed additional training topics to workers and handlers are
reasonably balanced against the cost.
    7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following questions:
     Are there any training points listed above that EPA should
consider not including in the final proposal? If so, which points and
why?
     Are there points that EPA should consider adding to the
training content? If so, what points should be added? Please provide a
rationale for why the additional content would benefit workers and/or
handlers.

F. Retain Audiovisual Presentations as Permissible Methods for
Pesticide Safety Training

    1. Overview. The existing WPS allows trainers to train workers and
handlers using a variety of methods, including an EPA-approved video or
DVD. EPA recognizes concerns raised by stakeholders that the video/DVD
may not be an adequate training tool when

used as a stand-alone training, but EPA has decided to retain the video
as a training method and to add requirements for the trainer to be
present throughout the presentation, to answer all questions from those
participating in the training, and to ensure that the training is
reasonably free of distractions.
    2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS requires trainers to present
the pesticide safety information ``either orally from written materials
or audiovisually'' (40 CFR 170.130(d)(1) and 170.230(c)(1)). EPA
developed a variety of training materials, including training videos
covering the pesticide safety points specified in 40 CFR 170.130 and
170.230. A worker training video, ``Chasing the Sun Pesticide Safety
Training'' runs for approximately 30 minutes, and a handler training
video, ``Pesticide Handlers and the WPS'' runs for approximately 50
minutes. Each video covers the current training points and both are
available in English and Spanish.
    3. Summary of the issues. Farmworker organizations have voiced
opposition to maintaining a video as the training device (Ref. 35),
instead recommending that EPA require employers to provide training
using methods with greater interaction to better communicate with
workers (Ref. 36). A report from EPA's National Assessment of the
Worker Protection Program recommended that training materials encourage
interaction and participation, and be both culturally and
linguistically appropriate (Ref. 15).
    The Agency recognizes the passive nature of video training and
understands that some stakeholders believe that a lack of worker or
handler engagement during video training may prevent effective
transmission of pesticide safety information. Focus-group research,
however, indicates that workers prefer to receive training information
in a video or provided orally along with simple drawings on paper as
visual aids rather than an oral presentation without any visual aids
(Ref. 40). Additionally, research has shown that comprehension of
pictorials for safety-related information is significantly enhanced
when accompanied by even brief trainer involvement (Ref. 59).
    4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to continue to
allow audiovisual training tools, and to add requirements for the
trainer to be present during the training, to answer questions from
trainees, and to ensure that the training is reasonably free from
distractions. [See Unit VII.D.] Combined with more qualified trainers
familiar with the principles of adult education, EPA expects that use
of EPA-approved video would enhance, rather than diminish,
comprehension of training objectives.
    Based on feedback received directly from the affected community of
workers, EPA decided to retain the option for trainers to use
audiovisual materials, including but not limited to videos, DVDs, and
PowerPoint presentations, as part of the training program. EPA believes
that allowing use of audiovisual training tools provides flexibility to
trainers and employers by allowing them to be present to monitor the
audience, to stimulate discussion, and to answer questions, while the
video presents the major concepts of the training. This would help
small establishments that conduct infrequent trainings to ensure that
the training covers all of the major points. In addition, EPA
recognizes that some employers and trainers are more comfortable
utilizing audiovisual materials as part of training because widely used
videos employ actors portraying workers to communicate the messages,
which can be more convincing to the training audience.
    The proposed regulatory text requiring the trainer to be present
throughout the training for workers and handlers appears in Sec. Sec.
170.101(c)(1) and 170.201(c)(1), respectively, of the proposed rule.
    5. Costs and benefits. EPA does not estimate any costs associated
with this proposal because it retains an existing provision of the
rule.
    6. Alternate options considered but not proposed. EPA considered
eliminating the option for trainers to present material audio visually.
Based on the rationales discussed above, EPA believes that allowing
trainers to use audiovisual training materials and adding a requirement
for the trainer to be present and answer workers and handlers'
questions would adequately address the concerns raised by farmworker
groups while allowing trainer's flexibility in how they communicate
with workers and handlers.
    7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following question:
     Please provide any additional information on the efficacy
of different methods used to conduct worker and handler training.

G. Eliminate Exception to Handler Training Requirements

    1. Overview. Currently, an employer does not have to provide
handler training to a person performing handler tasks if the handler
has satisfied the training requirements under the Certification of
Pesticide Applicators Regulation (40 CFR part 171). In order to ensure
handlers receive the information necessary to understand WPS
protections, EPA proposes to eliminate this exception. EPA expects
removal of this exception would ensure all handlers receive complete
information to protect themselves in situations specific to WPS
establishments.
    2. Existing WPS regulations. Under 40 CFR 170.230, pesticide
handlers currently are required to be trained on pesticide safety.
Under 40 CFR 170.230(b)(2), employers may be excepted from the
requirement to provide handler training when their handlers have
satisfied the training requirements in 40 CFR 171. Part 171, however,
does not include specific training requirements relevant to WPS;
therefore, the exception allows handlers to qualify without learning
about part 170 requirements, such as REIs and the prohibition against
spraying when anyone is in the treated area.
    3. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to eliminate the
exception for handler training for a handler who has been trained in
accordance with the requirements in 40 CFR part 171. In essence, this
change would require persons who apply pesticides under the direct
supervision of a certified applicator to receive handler training under
the WPS. As explained in Unit II, the Agency is considering separate
revisions to 40 CFR part 171 that could include specific training
requirements for persons applying RUPs under the supervision of a
certified applicator. Although the training requirements in these two
proposed rules overlap substantially (e.g., safe application
techniques, understanding label requirements, safe storage and
disposal), the training EPA is considering to require under 40 CFR part
171 does not include specific information on WPS requirements, handler
responsibilities, and reducing take-home exposure specifically in
agriculture. WPS information is critical for handlers so they can
protect themselves, their families, workers, the environment, and
bystanders.
    4. Alternative options considered but not proposed. While EPA
considered proposing identical training requirements for both Sec.
170.201 and part 171, many RUP users never apply agricultural
pesticides, and would not need to know all the detailed requirements
related to the WPS protections, such as warning sign postings and
specific handler responsibilities. EPA believes the WPS-

specific information is critical to equip a handler to avoid risk of
exposure and illness in agricultural situations. Therefore, the Agency
does not intend to impose the same training requirements for
noncertified applicators under 40 CFR part 171.
    5. Cost. EPA believes the cost for this requirement would be
negligible. Those employers that intend to provide training under 40
CFR part 171 for their handler employees would be able provide the
proposed WPS handler training and satisfy the requirements of both
regulations. The estimated training burden for the two requirements is
substantially similar.
    6. Request for comment. EPA requests feedback on the following:
     Should the proposed training under 40 CFR part 171 include
a requirement for expanded training on the WPS?
     How would the benefits to employers from giving a single
training that would apply to both WPS handlers and applicators using
RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicator compare to
the costs of requiring agricultural applicator training for all
applicators using RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified
applicator?

VIII. Notifications to Workers and Handlers

A. Posted Notification Timing & Oral Notification

    1. Overview. The current rule allows employers to provide to
workers either oral or posted warnings about areas where an REI
(regardless of its length) has been in effect within the last 30 days
unless required to provide both oral and posted warnings by the
specific pesticide label. For farms, forests, and non-enclosed
nurseries (what EPA is proposing to define as ``outdoor production''),
EPA proposes to require that agricultural employers post warning signs
regarding the application of a pesticide that has an REI greater than
48 hours, and proposes to allow the option of oral warning or posted
notification for products with REIs of 48 hours or less. For
greenhouses and indoor nurseries (what EPA is proposing to define as
``enclosed space production''), EPA proposes to require that
agricultural employers post warning signs according to the current
posted warning requirements when the product applied has an REI greater
than 4 hours, and proposes to allow the option for oral or posted
notification where the product applied has an REI of 4 hours or less.
EPA expects the changes to improve worker protection by increasing
workers' awareness of treated areas and reminding them to take required
precautions and to avoid pesticide exposure, leading to an overall
reduction in occupational pesticide-related illnesses.
    2. Existing WPS regulations. Under 40 CFR 170.120, agricultural
employers are required to notify workers about pesticide applications
and areas on the agricultural establishment subject to an REI.
Notification is required when workers or handlers are on the
establishment during application or the REI and will pass within one
quarter (1/4) mile of the treated area. In greenhouses and some
enclosed nurseries, the agricultural employer must post warning signs.
On farms, and in forests and non-enclosed nurseries, the agricultural
employer may choose either to post warning signs at the usual points of
entry around the treated area or to notify workers orally about
applications that will take place on the establishment. Both posted and
oral worker notification must inform workers about the location of the
application and treated areas under REIs so workers do not enter. In
cases where the product labeling requires both written and oral
notification of workers, the WPS also requires this ``double
notification.'' Part 170 does not currently require the agricultural
employer to keep a record of oral warnings.
    3. Summary of the issues. In 2006, Farmworker Justice sent a letter
to the EPA Administrator, signed by more than 50 different farmworker
groups, suggesting revisions for making the WPS more protective. The
letter states, ``Restricted-entry intervals (REIs) are . . . intended
to provide a physical barrier, reducing worker exposure to pesticides
when and where the risk is greatest. But workers are not effectively
warned to keep out of recently treated areas.'' (Ref. 35) Farmworker
organizations noted three problems with the current requirement:
Workers may not remember REI details that span multiple days, oral
warnings may not be adequately provided by the employer in the
appropriate language or understood and retained by the worker, and
compliance with the oral warning requirement is difficult to verify.
Farmworker Justice recommended posting areas treated with a pesticide
with an REI longer than 72 hours and requiring recordkeeping of oral
notifications to workers.
    The Farmworker Justice comments are consistent with research
showing that oral instruction alone may not be an effective method of
safety instruction.
    4. Details of the proposal/rationale. For ``outdoor production,''
EPA proposes to require that agricultural employers post warning signs
where the pesticide to be applied has an REI greater than 48 hours, and
to allow the option of oral warning or posted notification for products
with an REI of 48 hours or less. For ``enclosed space production,'' EPA
proposes to require posting of warning signs where the product applied
has an REI greater than 4 hours, and to allow the option of oral
warning or posted notification for products with an REI of 4 hours or
less.
    EPA believes that under the current rule agricultural employers
most commonly opt to provide oral notification to their workers because
this is less costly and less burdensome than physically posting treated
areas. However, workers may not recall oral notifications when REIs are
longer than a few days. Adults remember only about 10% of what they
hear, but when the information is seen and heard retention improves to
about 50% (Ref. 41). Entry into a treated area during an REI presents
an elevated risk of pesticide exposure and EPA believes that ensuring
that workers are adequately notified of treated areas in a manner they
can recall and understand would result in fewer entries into treated
areas during the REI without appropriate protection.
    A 2008 SENSOR-Pesticides/California Department of Pesticide
Regulation publication cites reentry into pesticide-treated areas prior
to the end of the REI as the second leading factor contributing to
reports of acute occupational pesticide poisoning cases in agricultural
workers (Ref. 11). One reason workers may be entering pesticide-treated
areas is their lack of awareness that the area has been treated with a
pesticide and is under an REI, which EPA believes can be addressed by
more robust posting of treated areas.
    Because workers face challenges with literacy and understanding
English, EPA believes that reducing the reliance on spoken messages to
protect workers and increasing reliance on a clear, graphic, posted
warning would better protect workers from the risks of entering a
treated area before the REI expires without proper protection. The
posted warning signs will serve as physical reminders for workers to
avoid areas in which the REI has not expired. During pesticide safety
training, workers would be informed of the requirement for agricultural
employers to provide oral or posted notification for treated areas, in
addition to the current requirement to describe the warning signs,
which would increase workers' likelihood of noticing and complying with
entry restriction signs. [See Unit VII.E.]

Treated areas under an REI pose elevated risk of exposure; thus, by
keeping workers out, negative health effects of pesticide exposure may
be avoided. EPA expects the proposed requirement to increase the number
of areas posted on agricultural establishments across the nation,
thereby increasing the number of workers who are aware of the REI and
avoid entering, and ultimately leading to a reduction of incidence of
pesticide illnesses related to unintentional entry into treated areas
under an REI.
    The protective effect of increased posting requirements through
subsequent reduction of pesticide illnesses has been shown in Monterey
County, California. In response to a series of worker exposure
incidents, Monterey County required agricultural employers to post
areas treated with a pesticide with an REI of 24 hours or longer. Since
its implementation, this county-specific requirement has led to a
significant reduction in pesticide-related illnesses caused by entering
a treated area before the expiration of an REI (Ref. 60). California
cannot provide specific data on the percent reduction, but a 2001
report from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation noted
stakeholder consensus on and support for the requirement, stating:
``All participants strongly believe that field posting prevents workers
from early reentry. Monterey County participants support their 24-hour
posting regulations, even though compliance is costly, because field
posting prevents both application and reentry errors'' (Ref. 60).
    EPA believes the proposed posting requirement may also foster
compliance and facilitate enforcement because WPS inspectors could
readily view posted warning signs. Inspectors who see workers in a
treated area while the posted warning signs were displayed could
investigate whether the workers received proper early entry
protections.
    EPA believes posting all treated areas would be a very effective
method for ensuring that workers are notified about what areas are
under an REI. However, the burden on employers to post all treated
areas subject to an REI would be substantial. To treat an area with an
REI of 24 hours, the employer would have to post the area, make the
treatment, and retrieve the signs the following day. EPA believes that
it is reasonable to expect workers to remember oral warnings related to
treated areas under REIs for at most 2 work days, or about 48 hours.
    EPA is proposing to allow oral or posted warnings for areas in
greenhouses treated with an REI of 4 hours or less. Greenhouse
production is much more compact than outdoor production. In a row of
planting tables, there could be many applications. EPA recognizes the
need for workers to have information about the different risks they
face; however, EPA also believes that products with an REI of 4 hours
or less generally pose lower risks than products with longer REIs.
    As noted, EPA believes that workers can retain warning information
provided orally for up to 48 hours. However, greenhouses and other
enclosed space production establishments have significantly more
applications in a smaller space. EPA believes it is unreasonable to
expect workers to remember all of the information provided orally about
treated areas when each different planting tray could have different
requirements, therefore EPA is proposing a lower threshold for posting
notification of treated areas on establishments where multiple
applications may be conducted in a small area. EPA believes allowing
employers the option to provide oral or posted notification of treated
areas for a small subset of pesticides provides employers with
flexibility while ensuring workers receive the information necessary to
protect themselves.
    The proposed regulatory text concerning notification appears in the
following sections of the proposed rule: outdoor production--Sec.
170.109(a)(1)(i) and enclosed space production--Sec.
170.109(a)(1)(ii).
    5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost of requiring
employers to post all treated areas with an REI longer than 48 hours
would be $11.1 million annually, or about $28 per establishment per
year. EPA estimates that the proposed changes to notification in
greenhouses would save about $10,000 per year, or $14 per small
greenhouse. For a complete discussion of the costs of the proposals and
alternatives, see the ``Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the
Worker Protection Standard,'' Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1).
    EPA cannot quantify the benefits associated with this specific
proposal; however, EPA believes requiring employers to post treated
areas under an REI of greater than 48 hours would provide workers with
more reliable information on treated areas and when to stay out. EPA
expects this would result in fewer workers entering treated areas under
an REI and therefore reduce the number of pesticide-related illnesses
attributable to this cause.
    6. Alternative options considered but not proposed.--i.
Alternatives to Posting Timeframe. EPA considered the Farmworker
Justice recommendation for EPA to require posted warning signs in
treated areas with REIs greater than 72 hours. This option would
provide more protection than the current regulation, but not as much as
the proposed option which would require the same posting, but for REIs
greater than 48 hours. Given the importance to the worker of
understanding which areas are under an REI, EPA believes that posted
notification for products with REIs over 72 hours would not adequately
warn workers to take precautions. EPA believes that it would be
unreasonable to expect a worker to retain the information about what
areas were treated and when REIs expire for longer than a two day
period. EPA estimates the cost of this proposal would be about $7.9
million, or $20 per establishment.
    EPA also considered requiring agricultural employers to post
warning signs in treated areas with an REI of 24 hours or longer,
similar to the requirement in Monterey County, California. EPA
recognizes the impact of Monterey's posting requirement in reducing
exposure to workers. However, EPA also recognizes the need to balance
the protection of workers and burden on agricultural employers and
applicators. Monterey County represents a small geographical area. EPA
believes that while posting of treated areas with an REI of 24 hours or
longer may have been practical in this limited region, it would not be
practical as a national requirement. Agricultural employers would have
a much higher burden to post every treated area with an REI of 24 hours
or longer. EPA believes that workers could retain information on
treated areas and REIs for up to two days.
    Lastly, EPA considered a requirement to post warning signs in all
treated areas under REIs for enclosed space and outdoor production.
This option would ensure that workers are aware of the status of every
treated area and every area without posting would be safe for workers
to enter. Posting of all treated areas where an REI is in effect would
send a clear message to workers; however, it would be very difficult
for agricultural employers to comply with this requirement. Some
products have an REI of 4 hours. In essence, an employer would post
signs after application and almost immediately take them down. While
this task may be easy in enclosed space production, it may be
substantially more burdensome for an agricultural employer engaged in
outdoor production.

    EPA believes that the proposed option to require posting of all
areas of outdoor production treated with a product with an REI greater
than 48 hours strikes a balance between the three alternatives
considered. EPA recognizes the value of allowing oral warning for
worker notification of treated areas with REIs less than 48 hours
because this option would provide regulatory flexibility (Ref. 18). EPA
believes that workers informed orally can remember that an area has
been restricted for entry for up to two days. Posting areas treated
with a pesticide product with an REI greater than 48 hours would
provide workers visual reminders when the REI is sufficiently long that
a worker could have difficulty remembering the specific area treated or
length of the REI.
    ii. Recordkeeping of Oral Notification. To address concerns that
workers may not receive oral notifications of treated areas with REIs
shorter than or equal to 48 hours, EPA considered adding a requirement
for agricultural employers to retain records of the oral warning
provided, signed by the workers who received the notification, for 2
years. The required record would contain:
     Location and description of the entry-restricted area and
the treated area;
     Date and time the REI starts and ends;
     Date and time the agricultural employer provided the oral
warning;
     Name and signature of the person providing the warning;
and
     Name and signature of each employee that received
notification.
    Requiring the employee's signature on the record would provide
incentive to the employer to provide the notification in a manner the
worker understands in order to obtain the signature. This requirement
would impose significant burden on employers. The time required to
comply with the recordkeeping would substantially increase the time
currently required to provide the oral notification, based on the
additional requirement to explain the notification record and secure
the signatures of all workers entering or working within 1/4 mile of
the treated area.
    In addition, workers may have difficulty reading and understanding
the record of the notification because many are not literate in
English. Workers may sign the notification record because instructed to
do so by the employer, not because they understand the information
provided and intent of the record of the oral notification, undermining
the intent of the record as confirmation of transfer of information to
workers.
    EPA estimates the cost to collect and retain records for 2 years
would be about $20 million, or about $51 per establishment. This cost
is substantially higher than the cost for recordkeeping of pesticide
safety training because pesticide safety training would only occur once
annually per worker whereas records of oral notification could be
required almost every time an application occurs. EPA has insufficient
data to support a claim that the potential benefits of this
alternative, i.e., increased enforceability of the WPS, would outweigh
the potential burden on agricultural employers to record and maintain
the information.
    7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following questions:
     For outdoor production, EPA proposes to allow the option
of oral warning or posted notification for products with an REI of 48
hours or less. Is there a different time period that would better
balance the costs of compliance with the expected risk reduction?
     Will the proposed requirements for posting instead of oral
warnings provide sufficient benefit for workers to warrant the
additional burden placed on agricultural employers?
     Should EPA require recordkeeping for oral notification? If
so, why?

B. Locations of Warning Sign

    1. Overview. Where the existing WPS requires a warning sign to be
posted, the signs must be placed where they are visible from all usual
points of worker entry to the treated area, the corners of the treated
area, or an area affording maximum visibility. EPA proposes to revise
the required posting locations to include locations visible from a
worker housing area if the housing area is within 100 feet of a treated
area for outdoor production.
    2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS requires employers to post
warning signs (40 CFR 170.120(c)). For applications in farms, forests,
and non-enclosed nurseries (what EPA is proposing to define as
``outdoor production''), the warning signs must be visible from all
usual points of worker entry into the treated area, including, at a
minimum, each access road, each border with a labor camp (what EPA is
proposing be referred to as a ``worker housing area'') adjacent to the
treated area, and each footpath or other walking route that enters the
treated area. For applications in greenhouses and indoor nurseries
(what EPA is proposing to define as ``enclosed space production''), the
warning signs must be visible from all usual points of worker entry to
the treated area, including, each aisle or other walking route that
enters the treated area. When there are no usual points of worker entry
to the treated area (farm, forest, nursery or greenhouse), the employer
must post signs in the corners of the treated area or in any other
location offering maximum visibility.
    3. Summary of the issues. During the National Assessment process,
stakeholders, including farmworker groups and healthcare organizations,
raised concerns about providing notice to worker housing inhabitants
when their location is not directly adjacent to the treated area (Ref.
17). Workers and their families housed near treated areas may have a
higher likelihood of exposure to pesticides from inadvertently entering
a treated area; the increased detection of pesticides in the body has
been found to be associated with housing adjacent to treated areas
(Ref. 51) (Ref. 57). In order to mitigate the risk associated with
walking into a treated area without adequate notification, stakeholders
suggested increasing the posting of areas near worker housing areas
(Ref. 35).
    4. Details of the proposal/rationale. To prevent inadvertent entry
into treated areas from onsite worker housing areas, EPA proposes to
require a posted warning sign visible from a worker housing area if the
housing area is within 100 feet of a treated area for outdoor
production in addition to the required current locations. EPA expects
this requirement would improve notification of workers and their
families in worker housing areas, mitigating exposure resulting from
entry into a treated area under an REI. This additional posting
location should also improve safety of families living on or near
agricultural establishments. Individuals in worker housing areas would
be able to see the posted warning signs and avoid entry into the area.
    EPA considered the demographics of the worker population when
developing this proposal. In recognition of their low literacy and
limited English language skills, EPA proposes to use the widely
recognized warning sign indicating to stay out of a particular area
with text in at least two languages. In addition, workers and their
families generally live near agricultural areas but may not be aware of
when a nearby area has been treated. Children may play around the home
in a treated area, increasing the likelihood of exposure to pesticides.
By posting information warning of pesticide applications near worker
housing for workers and their families to see, EPA believes that they
will be less likely to inadvertently enter a

treated area and thereby will reduce overall risk of exposure to
pesticides. This proposal supports EPA's commitments to keeping
children safe and to take specific measures to protect vulnerable or
disadvantaged communities and populations.
    The proposed regulatory text concerning the warning sign appears in
Sec.  170.109(b)(3)(ii) of the proposed rule.
    5. Cost. EPA believes the cost of this proposed expansion of the
areas that must be posted would be negligible. For a complete
discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the
``Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection
Standard,'' Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1).
    6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. EPA considered
a recommendation offered by Farmworker Justice to require signs to be
posted at the usual points of entry and every 100 feet along the
perimeter of the treated area (Ref. 35). Many members of the PPDC
workgroup, including state regulatory agencies, cooperative extension
services, and the agricultural industry, said that posting warning
signs every 100 feet around treated areas under an REI would impose
unnecessary burdens on the agricultural employer without resulting in
additional protections for workers (Ref. 36). Based on anticipated high
burden without demonstrable benefits for this option, EPA decided not
to propose increasing posting to every hundred feet around the
perimeter.
    7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following questions:
     Are there preferable alternatives to the proposed option
for posting locations that EPA has not considered? If so, please
describe and provide data to support the alternative.

C. Warning Sign Content

    1. Overview. The current WPS warning sign says ``Keep Out'' and has
a picture of a stern-faced man with an upraised hand in a red circle.
EPA proposes to require the phrase ``Entry Restricted'' instead of
``Keep Out'' on warning signs. EPA also proposes to change the red
shape on the sign from a circle to an octagon. EPA believes the text
change would more accurately reflect the intended message for workers
to be adequately prepared and informed before entering a posted area,
and the octagonal shape will provide an effective signal that entry is
restricted that does not depend on literacy or language spoken.
    2. Existing WPS regulations. Under 40 CFR 170.120(c)(1), posted
warning signs must state ``Danger, Pesticides'' and ``Keep Out'' in
English and Spanish or another language the workers understand and
contain the ``stern-faced man with the upraised hand'' in a red circle
as pictured (in black and white) below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19MR14.000

    3. Summary of the issues. Stakeholders, including state regulators,
educators, and farmworker groups, have noted that the message on the
sign can be confusing. Under the WPS, workers can be trained and
equipped to enter a treated area during an REI to conduct certain
early-entry tasks, such as repairing a clogged irrigation hose. [See
Unit XII.B.] Due to these exceptions, including the ``Keep Out'' text
on the warning sign may lead to worker confusion, since workers have
been trained to stay out of a treated area posted with the warning sign
and also may be directed by their employer to enter the treated area to
conduct an appropriate early-entry task.
    4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to revise the
required text on the warning sign to convey more accurate information
to workers. While warning signs would retain the phrase ``Danger,
Pesticides'' text at the top, the message at the bottom of the sign
would read ``Entry Restricted'' instead of ``Keep Out''. EPA believes
this revision to the text more accurately reflects that the sign is a
warning to those entering a treated area. ``Entry restricted'' provides
a bold warning for anyone entering a treated area but also allows that
some entry may be permitted.
    Additionally, EPA plans to replace the current shape of the red
circle that contains the stern-faced man with the upraised hand with an
octagon. A red octagon is a widely-recognized symbol to stop, and this
will provide a stronger signal to workers to be cautious when they
encounter the posted warning sign, even if they are unable to
comprehend the text. Workers will receive pesticide safety training to
reinforce the meaning of the warning signs and help them in determining
how to proceed. [See Unit VII.E.] The proposed warning sign is pictured
below (in black and white).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19MR14.001

    EPA specifically considered input received directly from workers in
developing this proposal. Workers have indicated that they prefer to
get information in simple language and images that communicate the
message (Ref. 40). EPA expects that these modifications to the warning
sign will provide a clearer, simpler warning to workers. EPA is aware
of the importance of conveying clear and simple safety information to
worker populations, particularly for workers who may have a low
literacy level in English or their native language (Ref. 61, p. 16).
NAWS data show that 85% of workers would have difficulty obtaining
information from printed materials in any language (Ref. 3, p. 17). The
proposed modifications to the warning sign would make it clearer and
simpler, which should enhance comprehension by low-literacy adults, and
by children of farm workers (Ref. 62).
    The proposed regulatory text concerning the content of the warning
sign appears in Sec.  170.109(b)(2) of the proposed rule.
    5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost of requiring
employers to use the revised warning sign would be $99,000 annually, or
an average of $0.25 per establishment per year. EPA estimates that
employers currently purchase new signs every 2 years because weather
and outdoor exposure renders the signs unusable after this period. For
a complete discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives,
see the ``Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker
Protection Standard,'' Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1).
    EPA cannot quantify specific benefits for this proposal. EPA
believes that requiring the use of signs that more accurately convey
the intended message would lead to better understanding of the sign and
its message by workers. This would result in less confusion about what
the sign means, which should mean less potential for workers to
disregard the sign out of confusion, and thus, fewer workers entering
treated areas under an REI which should decrease the number of
occupational pesticide-related illnesses.
    6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. Farmworker
Justice

recommended that EPA replace the ``stern-faced man with the upraised
hand'' with the skull and crossbones. They noted that the skull and
crossbones is a universally recognized symbol that communicates high
risk of danger or death, and suggest that workers would better
recognize the risks associated with entering an area posted with the
warning sign if it bore this symbol.
    EPA considered Farmworker Justice's recommendation to change the
warning sign graphic to the skull and crossbones, but decided against
this option. The skull and crossbones symbol is currently used on
Toxicity I and II pesticide product labeling and for designation of
treated areas for certain extremely hazardous pesticides, for example,
fumigants, and using the same symbol in less hazardous conditions would
weaken its impact where it is needed most. The skull and crossbones
symbol is associated with extreme toxicity or death, which is not
always appropriate for every pesticide that has an REI. In contrast,
the proposed sign indicates to workers that they should use caution in
entering the treated area, but that entry may be permissible with the
proper safety equipment. EPA does not want to send workers a mixed
message by using the skull and crossbones on the sign. In addition,
workers have been trained to recognize the current sign since the rule
went into effect. The Agency believes that the ``stern-faced man with
the upraised hand'' is still the most appropriate and well-recognized
symbol for workers.
    7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following questions:
     Should EPA consider replacing the current or proposed
general field posting sign with risk-based reentry signs? What would be
the costs and benefits of using risk-based signs?

IX. Hazard Communication

A. Pesticide-Specific Hazard Communication Materials--General

    1. Overview. The existing WPS does not require employers to provide
workers and handlers with pesticide-specific hazard information on the
products they may be exposed to in the workplace. In contrast, OSHA's
Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), which covers most workplaces,
requires employers to provide chemical-specific hazard information
(i.e., the safety data sheets or SDSs) to workers before they enter an
area where they could be exposed and to make the same material
available to workers upon request. EPA proposes to require that
agricultural and handler employers provide workers and handlers with
access to copies of the SDS and pesticide labeling for products that
have been applied on the establishment and to which workers and
handlers may be exposed. EPA believes making this information available
to workers and handlers may assist them and possibly health care
providers in the event of an emergency situation involving pesticide
exposure. EPA also believes that providing access to specific hazard
information would assist workers and handlers in better protecting
themselves and others from pesticide hazards in the workplace.
    2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS contains several provisions
designed to communicate pesticide hazard information to workers and
handlers. By providing workers and handlers with relevant information,
these provisions minimize workplace risks associated with pesticide use
and mitigate the potential for occupational pesticide exposure. First,
the WPS requires employers to train workers and handlers on basic
pesticide safety and the general hazards associated with pesticides (40
CFR 170.130 and 170.230). Second, the WPS requires employers to display
basic pesticide safety information at a central location on the
establishment to remind workers and handlers of safe practices when
working with or around pesticides and to provide information about
obtaining emergency medical assistance (40 CFR 170.124 and 170.224).
Third, the WPS requires employers to provide handlers with access to
the pesticide labeling during pesticide handling activities and to
ensure that the handler has read the labeling, or been informed in a
manner the handler understands, of all labeling requirements related to
safe pesticide use (40 CFR 170.232(a)). Lastly, employers must display
certain information about pesticide applications made on the
establishment whenever workers or handlers will be on the establishment
and a pesticide has been applied or an REI has been in effect within
the last 30 days (40 CFR 170.122 and 170.222). Although the existing
WPS requirements provide workers and handlers with basic safety
information on how to protect themselves from general pesticide
hazards, and where pesticides have been applied on the establishment,
no requirement exists for employers to make pesticide-specific hazard
communication materials, such as the SDS and the pesticide labeling,
accessible to both workers and handlers.
    3. Summary of the issues. During the National Assessment meetings,
health care, medical, and farmworker organizations urged the Agency to
add pesticide-specific hazard communication provisions to the rule
(Ref. 17). They noted that the WPS-required information about pesticide
applications that must be displayed at the establishment provides a
limited set of information about the pesticides used on the
establishment. The information does not provide an explanation of the
specific symptoms associated with exposure to a specific product, nor
does it provide other use-related information that workers, handlers,
and health care providers would benefit from reviewing in the event of
a pesticide-related illness or an emergency. To support their request,
they noted the disparity between information about chemical hazards
required to be provided to workers and handlers covered by the WPS and
the information provided to workers in all other industries under the
OSHA HCS.
    Farmworker organizations suggested that workers and handlers should
receive ``written information, in a pictorial and low-literacy format,
concerning the short- and long-term health effects associated with each
pesticide used at their worksite'' (Ref. 35, p. 2). Farmworker Justice
recommended that growers provide ``crop sheets,'' i.e., booklets with
information on each pesticide used on an establishment, to each worker
and handler at the beginning of each work period that involves entry
into any treated area. (Crop sheets can take various forms but
generally summarize information about the pesticides used on a
particular crop, the timing of application, the type of application
(for example, air blast or ground boom), and potential symptoms from
exposure to the pesticide.) Farmworker Justice suggested that the crop
sheets be available in English and Spanish. They believe that
information presented in this format would enable workers and handlers
to recognize adverse effects and seek medical assistance if they
experienced symptoms related to exposure to a specific pesticide (Ref.
35). Other stakeholders have suggested that the detailed health effects
information from Safety Data Sheets be provided orally to employees.
EPA believes that the benefits of reading this detailed and often
lengthy information to workers and handers are uncertain and such
information could confuse workers with complex pesticide hazard
information where the level of hazard is different for every situation.
    Pesticide safety trainer representatives on the Pesticide Program
Dialogue Committee Workgroup suggested that providing simple
information on how to prevent potential pesticide exposure is

the most effective way to enable workers and handlers to protect
themselves (Ref. 36) (Ref. 39); they did not endorse a specific type of
hazard communication information. Health care organizations noted that
requiring employers to maintain pesticide labeling or SDS could
facilitate quick access to these documents by workers, handlers, or
their representatives in the event of an accidental exposure requiring
medical attention. These groups noted that health care practitioners
can provide more appropriate medical attention if they can review and
reference either the label or the SDS. [See Unit XIV.]
    4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to require that
agricultural and handler employers make available to workers and
handlers SDS and the labeling for pesticides used on the establishment
that require WPS compliance. This proposed requirement would be in
addition to the existing requirements to notify workers and handlers of
the date, time, and location of application, length of REI, and to
identify the pesticide product. Employers would be required to maintain
the SDSs and the pesticide labeling on the establishment for 2 years
from the date of the pesticide application. Workers, handlers or their
authorized representatives could request access to the pesticide-
specific hazard information during normal business hours. [See Units
IX.B. and IX.C. for proposed revisions to employer requirements to
provide information about pesticide applications.]
    In adopting the Hazard Communication Standard, OSHA said there was
evidence to indicate potential for chemical exposure in every type of
industry, and that lack of knowledge about those hazardous chemicals
puts employees at significant risk of experiencing material impairment
of health (52 FR 31852; August 24, 1987) (59 FR 6126; February 9, 1994)
(Ref. 63). While the WPS pesticide safety training provides general
information about risks associated with pesticide exposure and how a
worker or handler can protect himself or herself, the addition of a
requirement to provide information about each specific pesticide would
provide complete hazard information. The addition of a requirement to
provide pesticide-specific hazard information about each pesticide
product requiring WPS compliance that is applied on the establishment
would provide workers and handlers with more complete information about
the chemical hazards they may encounter in the workplace.
    Requiring employers to maintain the product labeling and SDSs for
products applied on their establishment would ensure that workers and
handlers have access to detailed types of pesticide hazard and
emergency response information that would enable them to better protect
themselves and respond to emergencies. Additionally, as discussed in
Unit XVI., medical personnel are generally able to provide better
treatment in the event of a pesticide exposure incident when they have
more information about the pesticide product to which the worker or
handler may have been exposed. Allowing authorized representatives of
workers and handlers to have access to the product labeling and SDSs
upon request would assure that the information can be accessed if a
worker or handler is incapacitated; in addition, it would help assure
that access to this information is not impeded due to employee fears of
retaliation. It also increases the likelihood that workers and handlers
will receive assistance in reading and understanding these documents in
cases where they need such assistance.
    EPA believes that imposing this requirement would not be unduly
burdensome to employers and would provide workers, handlers, and
emergency responders with access to appropriate pesticide-specific
hazard information that should meet their needs. The SDS provides
succinct information about the known health hazards of the material,
providing hazard information that typically is not presented on the
product labeling, and it is readily available from pesticide
manufacturers and should be provided with the pesticide container at
the point of sale. Based on EPA's review of current state pesticide
laws and regulations, and labor laws pertaining to agricultural
operations using pesticides, 12 states currently require agricultural
employers to make SDSs available to employees that may potentially be
exposed to pesticides as part of their occupational duties (Ref. 64).
Ten of the states implement this requirement under state labor
regulations. Florida and California implement it under state pesticide
laws.
    The use of SDS in hazard communication in all other industries, as
well as in agriculture in several states, leads the Agency to believe
that it would be the appropriate vehicle to make pesticide-specific
hazard information available to workers and handlers.
    EPA recognizes that some employers may maintain electronic copies
of their records. Under the proposed option, an employer could maintain
a copy of the pesticide labeling used for the application and the
corresponding SDS in either paper or electronic form. The employer
would need to be able to provide a paper copy of the materials upon
request. Employers would not need to update the pesticide labeling on
file each time a new version is released; the labeling on file must
correspond with the labeling used at the time of application.
    The proposed regulatory text concerning the provision of SDSs and
pesticide product labeling appears in Sec.  170.11(b) of the proposed
rule.
    5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost of requiring
employers to maintain application information, SDS, and labeling for 2
years would be $3 million annually, or about $8 per WPS establishment
per year. The cost to obtain the SDS and labeling, as well as the
additional information described in unit IX.B., and to make it
available would be about $5.3 million annually, or about $14 per
establishment. For a complete discussion of the costs of the proposals
and alternatives, see the ``Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to
the Worker Protection Standard,'' Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1).
    EPA cannot quantify the specific benefits associated with this
proposal; however, the Agency believes that workers and handlers would
benefit from having access to more complete information about the
pesticides to which they may be exposed. The additional information
also could be used to assist in more accurately diagnosing and treating
pesticide-related illnesses. EPA believes the costs of making more
pesticide application information available to workers and handlers are
reasonable when compared to the expected benefits associated with the
requirement.
    6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. EPA considered
three alternatives to the proposed option: a requirement to make crop
sheets available, a requirement to translate SDSs into different
languages, and limiting the required pesticide information to the
pesticide labeling.
    First, the Agency considered requiring employers to provide workers
and handlers with a crop sheet in English and Spanish for each
pesticide they might encounter, each time they enter the treated area.
The Agency is aware of several attempts by state agencies to pilot this
use of crop sheets. California and Texas have had requirements for
employers to provide crop sheets to those working in pesticide-treated
areas. Texas funded the initial development and periodic updating of
the crop sheets, but the process became too expensive and labor
intensive for the

state to continue. The states reported that the crop sheets were left
as litter in the treated area. Texas reported that the redundancy
between the requirements under Texas law and the WPS contributed to the
decision to discontinue the crop sheet program.
    EPA believes that developing crop sheets as recommended by
farmworker organizations would be challenging because they suggested
simple pictorial descriptions of hazards and symptoms, which would not
be accomplished easily with the technical information that is generally
included on an SDS. In addition, many agricultural enterprises produce
a variety of commodities, increasing the number and complexity of the
crop sheets. Agricultural practices differ across regions and according
to local conditions, making it difficult to develop a standard set of
crop sheets that could be used nationally; a booklet that would be
useful for vegetables grown in New England would not be representative
of practices in vegetable production in the Southwestern United States.
As part of its consideration, the Agency assessed the cost of
developing crop sheets based on the assumption that pesticide
registrants would develop the crop sheets because they have the most
complete knowledge of each pesticide's properties, hazards, and
potential health effects. The estimated cost of $13 million annually
does not include copying and distributing the crop sheets to workers
and handlers every time they enter a treated area. Copying and