[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 211 (Monday, November 2, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67495-67574]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25970]

Vol. 80

Monday,

No. 211

November 2, 2015

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Part 170

 Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions; Final
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 /
Rules and Regulations

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR 170

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0184; FRL-9931-81]
RIN 2070-AJ22

Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing updates and revisions to the existing worker
protection regulation for pesticides. This final rule will enhance the
protections provided to agricultural workers, pesticide handlers, and
other persons under the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) by
strengthening elements of the existing regulation, such as training,
notification, pesticide safety and hazard communication information,
use of personal protective equipment, and the providing of supplies for
routine washing and emergency decontamination. EPA expects this final
rule to prevent unreasonable adverse effects from exposure to
pesticides among agricultural workers and pesticide handlers,
vulnerable groups (such as minority and low-income populations, child
farmworkers, and farmworker families) and other persons who may be on
or near agricultural establishments, and to mitigate exposures that do
occur. In order to reduce compliance burdens for family-owned farms, in
the final rule EPA has expanded the existing definition of ``immediate
family'' and continued the existing exemption from many provisions of
the WPS for owners and members of their immediate families.

DATES: This final rule is effective January 1, 2016. Agricultural
employers and handler employers will be required to comply with most of
the new requirements on January 2, 2017, as provided in 40 CFR 170.2.
Agricultural employers and handler employers will be required to comply
with certain new requirements on January 1, 2018 or later, as provided
in 40 CFR 170.311(a)(3), 170.401(c)(3), 170.501(c)(3) and 170.505(b).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0184, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeanne Kasai, Field and External
Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

A. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    This action is issued under the authority of sections 2 through 35
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7
U.S.C. 136-136y, and particularly section 25(a), 7 U.S.C. 136w(a).

B. What is the purpose of the regulatory action?

    EPA is revising the existing Worker Protection Standard (WPS), 40
CFR part 170, to reduce occupational pesticide exposure and incidents
of related illness among agricultural workers (workers) and pesticide
handlers (handlers) covered by the rule, and to protect bystanders and
others from exposure to agricultural pesticide use. This regulation, in
combination with other components of EPA's pesticide regulatory
program, is intended to prevent unreasonable adverse effects of
pesticides among workers, handlers and other persons who may be on or
near agricultural establishments, including vulnerable groups, such as
minority and low-income populations.

C. What are the major changes from the proposal to the final rule?

    This final rule revises the existing WPS. Some significant changes
are described in this Unit. Units V. through XIX. discuss in more
detail the proposed rule, public comments submitted, EPA's responses to
the public comments, and final regulatory requirements.
    In regard to training, the final rule retains the proposed content
expansions (including how to protect family members and reduce take-
home exposure) and the requirement for employers to ensure that workers
and handlers receive pesticide safety training every year. Employers
are required to retain records of the training provided to workers and
handlers for two years from the date of training. The final rule
eliminates the training ``grace period,'' which allowed employers to
delay providing full pesticide safety training to workers (for up to 5
days under the existing rule and for up to two days under the proposal)
from the time worker activities began, if the workers received an
abbreviated training prior to entering any treated area.
    In regard to notification, the final rule retains the proposed
requirements for employers to post warning signs around treated areas
in outdoor production when the product used has a restricted-entry
interval (REI) greater than 48 hours and to provide to workers
performing early-entry tasks, i.e., entering a treated area when an REI
is in effect, information about the pesticide used in the area where
they will work, the specific task(s) to be performed, the personal
protective equipment (PPE) required by the labeling and the amount of
time the worker may remain in the treated area. The final rule does not
include the proposed requirement for employers to keep a record of the
information provided to workers performing early-entry tasks. The final
rule retains the existing requirements concerning the sign that must be
used when posted notification of treated areas is required.
    In regard to hazard communication, the final rule requires
employers to post pesticide application information and a safety data
sheet (SDS) for each pesticide used on the establishment (known
together as pesticide application and hazard information) at a central
location on the establishment (the ``central display''), a departure
from the proposal to eliminate the existing requirement for a central
display of pesticide application-specific information. The final rule
also requires the employer to maintain and make available to workers
and handlers, their designated representatives, and treating medical
personnel upon request, the pesticide application-specific information
and the SDSs for pesticides used on the establishment for two years.
The final rule does not include the proposed requirement for the
employer to maintain copies of the labeling for each product used on
the establishment for two years.
    In regard to protections during pesticide applications, the final
rule designates the area immediately surrounding the application
equipment as the area from which workers and other persons must be
excluded. This ``application exclusion zone'' differs

from the proposed ``entry-restricted areas,'' which would have extended
a specified distance around the entire treated area during application
based on the application equipment used. The final rule requires
handlers to suspend application, rather than cease application, if they
are aware of any person in the application exclusion zone other than a
properly trained and equipped handler involved in the application.
    In regard to establishing a minimum age for handlers and workers
performing early-entry tasks, the final rule requires that handlers and
workers performing early-entry tasks be at least 18 years old, rather
than the proposed minimum age of 16 years old. This minimum age does
not apply to an adolescent working on an establishment owned by an
immediate family member. The final rule does not require the employer
to record workers' or handlers' birthdates as part of the training
record, but does require the employer to verify they meet the minimum
age requirements.
    In regard to PPE, the final rule cross-references certain
Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) requirements for
respirator use that employers will be required to comply with, i.e.,
fit test, medical evaluation, and training for handlers using
pesticides that require respirator use. The final rule expands the
respirators subject to fit testing beyond the proposal to include
filtering facepiece respirators. The final rule maintains the existing
exception from the handler PPE requirements when using a closed system
to transfer or load pesticides, and adopts a general performance
standard for closed systems, which differs from the specific design
standards based on California's existing standard for closed systems
discussed in the proposal.

D. What are the incremental impacts of the final rule?

    EPA has prepared an economic analysis (EA) of the potential impacts
associated with this rulemaking (Ref. 1). This analysis, which is
available in the docket, is summarized in greater detail in Unit II.C.,
and the following chart provides a brief outline of the costs and
impacts.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Category                 Description             Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized Benefits Avoided    $0.6-2.6 million/     EA Chapter 4.5.
 (Acute Pesticide Incidents).  year after
                               adjustment for
                               underreporting of
                               pesticide incidents.
Qualitative Benefits........  Willingness to pay    EA Chapter 4.
                               to avoid acute
                               effects of
                               pesticide exposure
                               beyond cost of
                               treatment and loss
                               of productivity.
                              Reduced latent
                               effects of avoided
                               acute pesticide
                               exposure.
                              Reduced chronic
                               effects from lower
                               chronic pesticide
                               exposure to
                               workers, handlers,
                               and farmworker
                               families, including
                               a range of
                               illnesses such as
                               Non-Hodgkins
                               lymphoma, prostate
                               cancer, Parkinson's
                               disease, lung
                               cancer, chronic
                               bronchitis, and
                               asthma.
Monetized Costs.............  $60.2-66.9 million/   EA Chapter 3.3.
                               year.
Small Business Impacts......  No significant        EA Chapter 3.5.
                               impact on a
                               substantial number
                               of small entities.
                              The rule will affect
                               over 295,000 small
                               farms, nurseries,
                               and greenhouses,
                               and commercial
                               entities that are
                               contracted to apply
                               pesticides.
                              Impact less than
                               0.1% of the annual
                               value of sales or
                               revenues for the
                               average small
                               entity.
Impact on Jobs..............  The rule will have a  EA Chapter 3.4.
                               negligible effect
                               on jobs and
                               employment.
                              The marginal cost of
                               a typical
                               farmworker is
                               expected to
                               increase $5/year.
                              The marginal cost
                               for a more skilled
                               pesticide handler
                               is expected to
                               increase by $50 per
                               year, but this is
                               less than 0.2% of
                               the cost of a part-
                               time employee.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you work in or
employ persons working in crop production agriculture where pesticides
are applied. The following list of North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive,
but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this
document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
     Agricultural Establishments (NAICS code 111000),
e.g., establishments or persons, such as farms, orchards, groves,
greenhouses, and nurseries, primarily engaged in growing crops, plants,
vines, or trees and their seeds.
     Nursery and Tree Production (NAICS code 111421),
e.g., establishments or persons primarily engaged in (1) growing
nursery products, nursery stock, shrubbery, bulbs, fruit stock, sod,
and so forth, under cover or in open fields and/or (2) growing short
rotation woody trees with a growth and harvest cycle of 10 years or
less for pulp or tree stock.
     Timber Tract Operations (NAICS code 113110),
e.g., establishments or persons primarily engaged in the operation of
timber tracts for the purpose of selling standing timber.
     Forest Nurseries and Gathering of Forest
Products (NAICS code 113210), e.g., establishments or persons primarily
engaged in (1) growing trees for reforestation and/or (2) gathering
forest products, such as gums, barks, balsam needles, rhizomes, fibers,
Spanish moss, ginseng, and truffles.
     Farm Workers (NAICS codes 11511, 115112, and
115114), e.g., establishments or persons primarily engaged in providing
support activities for growing crops; establishments or persons
primarily engaged in performing a soil preparation activity or crop
production service, such as plowing, fertilizing, seed bed preparation,
planting, cultivating, and crop protecting services; and establishments
or persons primarily engaged in performing services on crops,
subsequent to their harvest, with the intent of preparing them for
market or further processing.
     Pesticide Handling on Farms (NAICS code 115112),
e.g., establishments or persons primarily engaged in performing a soil
preparation activity or crop production service, such as seed bed
preparation, planting, cultivating, and crop protecting services.
     Farm Labor Contractors and Crew Leaders (NAICS
code 115115), e.g., establishments or persons primarily engaged in
supplying labor for agricultural production or harvesting.
     Pesticide Handling in Forestry (NAICS code
115310), e.g., establishments or persons primarily providing support
activities for forestry, such as forest pest control.

     Pesticide Manufacturers (NAICS code 325320),
e.g., establishments primarily engaged in the formulation and
preparation of agricultural and household pest control chemicals
(except fertilizers).
     Farm Worker Support Organizations (NAICS codes
813311, 813312, and 813319), e.g., establishments or persons primarily
engaged in promoting causes associated with human rights either for a
broad or specific constituency; establishments or persons primarily
engaged in promoting the preservation and protection of the environment
and wildlife; and establishments primarily engaged in social advocacy.
     Farm Worker Labor Organizations (NAICS code
813930), e.g., establishments or persons primarily engaged in promoting
the interests of organized labor and union employees.
     Crop Advisors (NAICS codes 115112, 541690,
541712) e.g., establishments or persons who primarily provide advice
and assistance to businesses and other organizations on scientific and
technical issues related to pesticide use and pest pressure.

B. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is finalizing changes to the WPS. The WPS is a regulation
primarily intended to reduce the risks of injury or illness resulting
from agricultural workers' and handlers' use and contact with
pesticides on farms, forests, nurseries and greenhouses. The rule
primarily seeks to protect workers (those who perform hand-labor tasks
in pesticide-treated crops, such as harvesting, thinning, pruning) and
handlers (those who mix, load and apply pesticides). The rule does not
cover persons working with livestock. The existing regulation has
provisions requiring employers to provide workers and handlers with
pesticide safety training, posting and notification of treated areas,
and information on entry restrictions, as well as PPE for workers who
enter treated areas after pesticide application to perform crop-related
tasks and handlers who mix, load, and apply pesticides.
    The final rule takes into consideration comments received from the
public in response to the proposed rule (Ref. 2), as well as additional
information such as reported incidents of pesticide-related illness or
injury.
    EPA believes that the changes to the WPS offer targeted
improvements that will reduce risk through protective requirements and
improve operational efficiencies. Among other things, EPA expects the
changes to:
     Improve effectiveness of worker and handler
training.
     Improve protections to workers during REIs.
     Improve protections for workers during and after
pesticide applications.
     Expand the information provided to workers, thus
improving hazard communication protections.
     Expand the content of pesticide safety
information displayed to improve the display's effectiveness.
     Improve the protections for crop advisor
employees.
     Increase the amounts of decontamination water
available, thus improving the effectiveness of the decontamination
process.
     Improve the emergency response when workers or
handlers experience pesticide exposures.
     Improve the organization of the WPS, thus making
it easier for employers to understand and comply with the rule.
     Clarify that workers and handlers are covered by
the rule only if they are employed, directly or indirectly, by the
establishment (i.e., receiving a salary or wage).
     Protect adolescents by establishing a minimum
age for handlers and for workers who enter a treated area during an
REI, but adding an exemption to the minimum age requirement for
adolescents who work on an establishment owned by an immediate family
member.
     Improve flexibility for small farmers and
members of their immediate family by expanding the definition of
immediate family members to be more inclusive and retaining the
exemptions from almost all WPS requirements for owners and their
immediate family members.

C. What are the costs and benefits of the rule?

    EPA estimates the incremental cost of the revisions to the WPS to
be between $60.2 and $66.9 million per year, given a three percent
discount rate. Using a seven percent discount rate, the rule is
estimated to cost between $56.2 and $66.9 million per year. The
majority of the costs, $53.0 to $62.2 million per year, are borne by
farms, nurseries, and greenhouses that hire labor and use pesticides,
which account for about 20 percent of all farms producing crops in the
United States. The approximately 2,000 commercial pesticide handling
establishments, which are contracted to apply pesticides on farms, may
collectively see an incremental cost of about $1.9 million per year.
Family-owned farms that use pesticides and do not hire labor may
collectively bear costs of about $1.4 million per year. Total costs
amount to an average expenditure of about $30 per year per farm worker.
Benefits, in terms of reduced illness from exposure to pesticides, are
likely to exceed $64 million per year in terms of avoided costs
associated with occupational pesticide incidents and with reductions in
chronic diseases associated with occupational pesticide exposure,
although the amount EPA can quantify is much less. The estimated
quantified benefits from reducing acute worker and handler exposure to
pesticides total between $0.6 million and $2.6 million annually.
    The changes to the current WPS requirements are expected to lead to
an overall reduction in incidents of unsafe pesticide exposure and to
improve the occupational health of the nation's agricultural workers
and pesticide handlers. This section provides an overview of the
qualitative benefits of the proposal and the estimated benefits that
would accrue from avoiding acute pesticide exposure in the population
protected by the WPS. It also provides an estimate of the number of
chronic illnesses with a plausible association with pesticide exposure
that would have to be prevented by the rule changes in order for the
total estimated benefits to meet the estimated cost of the proposal.
    A sizeable portion of the agricultural workforce may be exposed
occupationally to pesticides and pesticide residues. These exposures
can pose significant long- and short-term health risks. It is difficult
to quantify a specific level of risk and project the risk reduction
that would result from this rule, because workers and handlers are
potentially exposed to a wide range of pesticides with varying
toxicities and risks. However, there is strong evidence that workers
and handlers may be exposed to pesticides at levels that can cause
adverse effects and that both the exposures and the risks can be
substantially reduced. EPA believes the provisions in the final rule
will reduce pesticide exposures and the associated risks.
    The estimated quantified benefits from reducing acute worker and
handler exposure to pesticides total between $0.6 million and $2.6
million annually (Ref. 1). This conservative estimate includes only the
avoided costs in medical care and lost productivity to workers and
handlers and assumes that just 10% of acute pesticide incidents are
reported. It does not include quantification of the reduction in
chronic effects of pesticide exposure to workers and handlers, reduced
effects of exposure, including developmental impacts, to children and
pregnant

workers and handlers or willingness to pay to avoid symptoms of
pesticide exposure. Because the chronic effects of pesticide exposures
are seldom attributable to a specific cause, and thus are unlikely to
be recorded in pesticide poisoning databases, EPA is not able to
quantify the benefits expected to accrue from the final WPS changes
that are expected to reduce chronic exposure to pesticides. However,
associations between pesticide exposure and certain cancer and non-
cancer chronic health effects are well documented in the peer-reviewed
literature, and reducing these chronic health effects is an important
FIFRA goal.
    Even if the lack of quantitative data impairs the reliability of
estimates of the total number of chronic illnesses avoided, it is
reasonable to expect that the proposed changes to the WPS will reduce
pesticide exposure, and thereby reduce the incidence of chronic disease
associated with pesticide exposure. Therefore, EPA conducted a ``break
even'' analysis to consider the plausibility of the changes to the WPS
reducing the incidence of chronic disease enough to cause the net
benefits of the proposed rule to exceed its anticipated costs. Under
this analysis, EPA looked at the costs associated with non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma, prostate cancer, Parkinson's disease, lung cancer,
bronchitis, and asthma and their frequency among agricultural workers,
and found that reducing the incidence of lung cancer by 0.078% and the
incidence of the other chronic diseases by 0.78% per year (about 44
total cases per year among the population of workers and handlers
protected under the WPS) would produce quantified benefits sufficient
to bridge the gap between the quantified benefits from reducing acute
incidents and the final rule's estimated high-end cost of $66.9
million. Overall, the weight of evidence suggests that the requirements
will result in long-term health benefits to agricultural workers and
pesticide handlers in excess of the less than 1% reduction in just six
diseases that corresponds with the break-even point for the final rule,
not only by reducing their daily risk of pesticide exposures, but also
by improving quality of life throughout their lives, resulting in a
lower cost of health care and a healthier society.
    The changes to the current WPS requirements, specifically improved
training on reducing pesticide residues brought from the treated area
to the home on workers' and handlers' clothing and bodies and
establishing a minimum age for handlers and early entry workers, other
than those covered by the immediate family exemption, mitigate the
potential for children to be exposed to pesticides directly and
indirectly. The unquantified benefit to adolescent workers and
handlers, as well as children of workers and handlers is great;
reducing exposure to pesticides could translate into fewer sick days,
fewer days missed of school, improved capacity to learn, and better
long-term health. Parents and caregivers reap benefits by having
healthier families, fewer missed workdays, and better quality of life.
    By finalizing several interrelated exposure-reduction measures, the
rule is expected to avoid or mitigate approximately 44 to 73% of annual
reported acute WPS-related pesticide incidents. EPA believes the final
rule will substantially reduce for these workers and handlers the
potential for adverse health effects (acute and chronic) from
occupational exposures to such pesticides and their residues. These
measures include requirements intended to reduce exposure by:
     Ensuring that workers and handlers are informed
about the hazards of pesticides--the final rule changes the content and
frequency of required pesticide safety training, as well as making
changes to ensure that the pesticide safety training is more effective.
     Reducing exposure to pesticides--among other
things, the final rule changes and clarifies the requirements for
personal protective equipment. It also makes changes to the timing of
applications when people are nearby. These and other provisions should
directly reduce exposure in the agricultural workforce.
     Mitigating the effects from exposures that
occur--some accidental exposures are inevitable. EPA expects the final
rule will mitigate the severity of health impacts by updating and
clarifying what is required to respond to exposures.
    Further detail on the benefits of this proposal is provided in the
document titled ``Economic Analysis of the Agricultural Worker
Protection Standard Revisions'' which is available in the docket for
this rulemaking (Ref. 1).

III. Introduction and Procedural History

    The existing WPS was published in 1992 and implemented fully in
1995. Since implementation, EPA has sought to ensure that the rule
provides the intended protections effectively and to identify necessary
improvements. To accomplish this, EPA engaged diverse stakeholders,
individually and collectively through organized outreach efforts, to
discuss the rule and get feedback from affected and interested parties.
Groups with which EPA engaged included, but were not limited to,
farmworker organizations, health care providers, state regulators,
educators and trainers, pesticide manufacturers, farmers, organizations
representing agricultural commodity producers and crop advisors. EPA
engaged these groups formally through the National Assessment of the
Pesticide Worker Safety Program (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/workshops.htm), public meetings (e.g., National Dialogue on the Worker
Protection Standard), federal advisory committee meetings (e.g.,
Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee, http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/) and a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (Ref. 3). EPA also
engaged stakeholders informally, as individual organizations and in
small groups.
    Using feedback from stakeholders, along with other information, EPA
developed proposed changes to the WPS and published them for public
comment (Ref. 2). EPA received substantial feedback on the proposal,
including about 2,400 written comments with over 393,000 signatures.
Commenters included farmworker advocacy organizations, state pesticide
regulatory agencies (states) and organizations, public health
organizations, public health agencies, growers and grower
organizations, agricultural producer organizations, applicators and
applicator organizations, pesticide manufacturers and organizations,
PPE manufacturers, farm bureaus, crop consultants and organizations,
and others. The comments received covered a wide range of issues and
took diverse positions. Overall, the comments were thoughtful and
demonstrated a high level of interest in ensuring the protection of
workers and handlers, while minimizing burden on employers and
regulatory agencies. This document discusses some of the significant
comments received and EPA's responses. A full summary of comments
received and EPA's responses are available in the docket for this
rulemaking (Ref. 4).
    While considering stakeholder feedback and suggestions in
developing the final rule, EPA also gathered additional information,
such as updated demographic information for farmworkers, new data from
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Agricultural
Statistics Service, information on other federal rules (e.g.,
respirator standards, anti-retaliatory provisions), and more recent
data on

incidents related to occupational pesticide exposure in agriculture.
EPA reviewed the methodology used to estimate the number of acute
pesticide-related incidents in agriculture and used the updated
information to revise the estimated number of incidents that could be
prevented under the final rule. EPA also revised the Economic Analysis
for the final rule to include more recent information from the National
Agricultural Statistics Service and with input from public comments.

IV. Context and Goals of This Rulemaking

A. Context for This Rulemaking

    1. Statutory authority. Enacted in 1947, FIFRA established a
framework for the pre-market registration and regulation of pesticide
products; since 1972, FIFRA has prohibited the registration of
pesticide products that cause unreasonable adverse effects. FIFRA makes
it unlawful to use a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with the
labeling and gives EPA's Administrator authority to develop regulations
to carry out the Act. FIFRA's legislative history indicates that
Congress specifically intended for FIFRA to protect workers and other
persons from occupational exposure directly to pesticides or to their
residues (Ref. 5).
    Under FIFRA's authority, EPA has implemented measures to protect
workers, handlers, other persons, and the environment from pesticide
exposure in two primary ways. First, EPA includes specific use
instructions and restrictions on individual pesticide product labeling.
These instructions and restrictions are the result of EPA's stringent
registration and reevaluation processes and are based on the risks of
the particular product. Since users must comply with directions for use
and restrictions on a product's labeling, EPA uses the labeling to
convey mandatory requirements for how the pesticide must be used to
protect people and the environment from unreasonable adverse effects of
pesticide exposure. Second, EPA enacted the WPS to expand protections
against the risks of agricultural pesticides without making individual
product labeling longer and much more complex. The WPS is a uniform set
of requirements for workers, handlers and their employers that are
generally applicable to all agricultural pesticides and are
incorporated onto agricultural pesticide labels by reference. Its
requirements complement the product-specific labeling restrictions and
are intended to minimize occupational exposures generally.
    2. EPA's regulation of pesticides. EPA uses a science-based
approach to register and re-evaluate pesticides, in order to protect
human health and the environment from unreasonable adverse effects that
might be caused by pesticides. The registration process begins when a
manufacturer submits an application to register a pesticide. The
application must contain required test data, including information on
the pesticide's chemistry, environmental fate, toxicity to humans and
wildlife, and potential for human exposure. EPA also requires a copy of
the proposed labeling, including directions for use and appropriate
warnings.
    Once an application for a new pesticide product is received, EPA
conducts an evaluation, which includes a detailed review of scientific
data to determine the potential impact on human health and the
environment. EPA considers the risk assessments and results of any peer
review, and evaluates potential risk management measures that could
mitigate risks that exceed EPA's level of concern. In the registration
process, EPA evaluates the proposed use(s) of the pesticide to
determine whether it would cause adverse effects on human health, non-
target species, and the environment. In evaluating the impact of a
pesticide on occupational health and safety, EPA considers the risks
associated with use of the pesticide (occupational, environmental) and
the benefits associated with use of the pesticide (economic, public
health, environmental). However, FIFRA does not require EPA to balance
the risks and benefits for each audience. For example, a product may
pose risks to workers, but risk may nevertheless be reasonable in
comparison to the economic benefit of continued use of the product to
society at large.
    If the application for registration does not contain evidence
sufficient for EPA to determine that the pesticide meets the FIFRA
registration criteria, EPA communicates to the applicant the need for
more or better refined data, labeling modifications, or additional use
restrictions. Once the applicant has demonstrated that a proposed
product meets the FIFRA registration criteria and any applicable
requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 321 et seq., EPA approves the registration subject to any risk
mitigation measures necessary to meet the FIFRA registration criteria.
EPA devotes significant resources to the regulation of pesticides to
ensure that each pesticide product meets the FIFRA requirement that
pesticides not cause unreasonable adverse effects to the public and the
environment.
    When EPA approves a pesticide, the labeling generally reflects all
risk mitigation measures required by EPA. The risk mitigation measures
may include requiring certain engineering controls, such as the use of
closed systems for mixing pesticides and loading them into application
equipment to reduce potential exposure to those who handle pesticides;
establishing conditions on the use of the pesticide by specifying
certain use sites, maximum application rate or maximum number of
applications; or establishing REIs during which entry into an area
treated with the pesticide is generally prohibited until residue levels
have declined to levels unlikely to cause unreasonable adverse effects.
Because users must comply with the directions for use and use
restrictions on a product's labeling, EPA uses the labeling to
establish and convey mandatory requirements for how the pesticide must
be used to protect the applicator, the public, and the environment from
pesticide exposure.
    Under FIFRA, EPA is required to review periodically the
registration of pesticides currently registered in the United States.
The 1988 FIFRA amendments required EPA to establish a pesticide
reregistration program. Reregistration was a one-time comprehensive
review of the human health and environmental effects of pesticides
first registered before November 1, 1984 to make decisions about these
pesticides' future use. The 1996 amendments to FIFRA require that EPA
establish, through rule making, an ongoing ``registration review''
process of all pesticides at least every 15 years. The final rule
establishing the registration review program was signed in August 2006
(Ref. 16). The purpose of both re-evaluation programs is to review all
pesticides registered in the United States to ensure that they continue
to meet current safety standards based on up-to-date scientific
approaches and relevant data.
    Pesticides reviewed under the reregistration program that met
current scientific and safety standards were declared ``eligible'' for
reregistration. The results of EPA's reviews are summarized in
Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) documents. The last RED was
completed in 2008. Often before a pesticide could be determined
``eligible,'' additional risk reduction measures had to be put in
place. For a number of pesticides, measures intended to reduce exposure
to handlers and workers were needed and are reflected on pesticide
labeling. To

address occupational risk concerns, REDs include mitigation measures
such as: Voluntary cancellation of the product or specific use(s);
limiting the amount, frequency or timing of applications; imposing
other application restrictions; classifying a product or specific
use(s) for restricted use only by certified applicators; requiring the
use of specific PPE; establishing specific REIs; and improving use
directions. During this process, EPA also encouraged registrants to
find replacements for the inert ingredients of greatest concern. As a
result of EPA's reregistration efforts, current U.S. farm workers are
not exposed to many of the previously used inert ingredients that were
of the greatest toxicological concern.
    EPA's registration review program is a recurring assessment of
products against current standards. EPA will review each registered
pesticide at least every 15 years to determine whether it continues to
meet the FIFRA standard for registration. Pesticides registered before
1984 were reevaluated initially under the reregistration program. These
and pesticides initially registered in 1984 or later are all subject to
registration review.
    In summary, EPA's pesticide reregistration and registration reviews
assess the specific risks associated with particular chemicals and
ensure that the public and environment do not suffer unreasonable
adverse effects from those risks. EPA implements the risk reduction and
mitigation measures identified in the pesticide reregistration and
registration review programs through amendments to individual pesticide
product labeling.
    3. WPS. The WPS regulation is incorporated by reference on certain
pesticide product labeling through a statement in the agricultural use
box. The WPS provides a comprehensive collection of pesticide
management practices generally applicable to all agricultural pesticide
use scenarios in crop production, complementing the product-specific
requirements that appear on individual pesticide product labels.
    The risk reduction measures of the WPS may be characterized as
being one of three types: Information, protection and mitigation. To
ensure that employees will be informed about exposure to pesticides,
the WPS requires that workers and handlers receive training on general
pesticide safety, and that employers provide access to information
about the pesticides with which workers and handlers may have contact.
To protect workers and handlers from pesticide exposure, the WPS
prohibits the application of pesticides in a manner that exposes
workers or other persons, generally prohibits workers and other persons
from being in areas being treated with pesticides, and generally
prohibits workers from entering a treated area while an REI is in
effect (with limited exceptions that require additional protections).
In addition, the rule protects workers by requiring employers to notify
them about areas on the establishment treated with pesticides, through
posted and/or oral warnings. The rule protects handlers by ensuring
that they understand proper use of and have access to required PPE.
Finally, the WPS has provisions to mitigate exposures if they do occur
by requiring the employer to provide to workers and handlers with an
ample supply of water, soap and towels for routine washing and
emergency decontamination. The employer must also make transportation
available to a medical care facility if a worker or handler may have
been poisoned or injured by a pesticide and provide information about
the pesticide(s) to which the person may have been exposed.
    EPA manages the risks and benefits of each pesticide product
primarily through the labeling requirements specific to each pesticide
product. If pesticide products are used according to the labeling, EPA
does not expect use to cause unreasonable adverse effects. However,
data on incidents of adverse effects to human health and the
environment from the use of agricultural pesticides show that users do
not always comply with labeling requirements. Rigorous ongoing
training, compliance assistance and enforcement are needed to ensure
that risk mitigation measures are appropriately implemented in the
field. The framework provided by the WPS is critical for ensuring that
the improvements brought about by reregistration and registration
review are realized in the field. For example, the requirement for
handlers to receive instruction on how to use the pesticide and the
application equipment for each application is one way to educate
handlers about updated requirements on product labeling to ensure they
use pesticides in a manner that will not harm themselves, workers, the
public or the environment. In addition, the REIs are established
through individual product labeling, but action needs to be taken at
the use site to ensure that workers are aware of areas on the
establishment where REIs are in effect and given directions to be kept
out of the treated area while the REI is in effect. The changes to the
WPS are designed to enhance the effectiveness of the existing structure
of protections and to better realize labeling-based risk mitigation
measures at the field level.

B. Goals of This Rulemaking

    Discussions with stakeholders over many years, together with EPA's
review of incident data, led EPA to identify several shortcomings in
the current regulation that will be addressed by this final rule. As
discussed in Unit IV.A., EPA uses both product-specific labeling and
the WPS to effectuate occupational protections for workers and
handlers. EPA engages in ongoing reviews and reassessments of pesticide
products to ensure they continue to meet the standard of not causing
unreasonable adverse effects to human health and the environment. The
WPS must be updated to ensure that the rule continues to complement the
labeling-based protections and to address issues identified through
experience with the WPS, and review of incident data and stakeholder
engagement.
    1. Purpose of the WPS. The WPS is intended to reduce the risks
associated with occupational pesticide exposure to workers, handlers
and their families, and to protect others and the environment from
risks of pesticide use in agricultural production. The rule makes
employers of workers and handlers responsible for providing protections
to workers and handlers on their establishments. By imposing this
obligation, EPA seeks to ensure those who make pesticide use decisions
(employers) internalize the effects of their decisionmaking rather than
passing on the costs associated with these decisions (risks of
pesticide exposure) to others (workers and handlers).
    As noted in Unit IV.A., the components of the WPS generally can be
grouped into three categories: Information, protection, and mitigation.
Employers must provide workers and handlers with information needed to
protect themselves, others, and the environment from pesticides and
pesticide residues through pesticide safety training, pesticide
application and hazard information, and access to labeling. Employers
must provide protections to workers and handlers during and after
applications in order to minimize potential for exposure. Finally,
employers must be prepared to mitigate exposures that do occur by
providing supplies for washing and emergency decontamination, and
emergency transportation to a medical facility if necessary. These
elements are

necessary to implement product-specific labeling requirements
effectively. For example, pesticide safety training informs workers
that areas treated with pesticides are off limits for entry for a
certain period after the application, i.e., a product-specific REI, and
that their employers will inform them of where and when REIs are in
effect and entry into the treated areas is prohibited. In some
instances, employers must provide further protection by posting warning
signs at treated areas while REIs are in effect to remind workers to
keep out of the treated areas. For handlers, training informs them
about basic pesticide safety and handling precautions and reducing the
potential to expose themselves or others. In addition, the employer
must provide information for each application, informing the handler
about the product-specific labeling restrictions and requirements.
    In summary, the WPS works in conjunction with product labeling to
protect workers and handlers from occupational pesticide exposure. The
rule imposes on the employer the responsibility for providing
protections to workers and handlers and to ensure they have access to
information necessary to protect themselves and others during and after
pesticide application.
    2. Surveillance data. When EPA promulgated the existing rule, it
used existing data on occupational pesticide-related incidents to
estimate that that approximately 10,000 to 20,000 incidents of
physician-diagnosed (not hospitalized) pesticide poisonings occurred in
the WPS-covered workforce annually. For this rulemaking, EPA estimates
that about 1,810 to 2,950 acute pesticide exposure incidents occur
annually on agricultural establishments that potentially could be
prevented by the WPS. This substantial drop in the estimated number of
incidents shows that the existing rule and efforts by employers,
workers and handlers have made great accomplishments in reducing
pesticide exposure for workers and handlers. Pesticide use in
agriculture is safer than it was 20 years ago.
    Current occupational health incident surveillance data show,
however, that avoidable incidents continue to occur. For example, some
of the occupational pesticide illnesses reported to state health
agencies have occurred when workers entered a treated area before the
REI expired. Although employers are obligated to warn workers to keep
out of treated areas and to ensure that workers receive training on and
information about treated areas, incidents continue to occur. Another
example of potentially avoidable exposure is spray drift. Labeling
instructs handlers to apply pesticides in a manner that does not
contact other persons, but pesticide drift continues to cause exposure
incidents. In addition to surveillance data, studies also show that
pesticide residues are brought home by workers and handlers on their
bodies and clothing (known as ``take-home exposure''), creating an
exposure pathway for family members.
    This rulemaking is intended to reduce avoidable incidents by
improving information, protections, and mitigations for workers and
handlers without imposing unreasonable burdens on employers. Although
EPA cannot quantify the specific reduction in incidents from any single
change to the regulation, taken together, EPA estimates that the final
rule will result in an annual reduction of between 540 and 1,620 acute,
health-related incidents. In addition, EPA expects that the final rule
will help reduce chronic health problems among workers and handlers by
reducing daily pesticide exposures, and thereby improving quality of
life throughout their lives, resulting in a lower cost of health care
and a healthier society. (See Unit II.C.) Units V. through XIX.
describe the final regulatory requirements and their potential to
reduce avoidable incidents. The Economic Analysis for this rulemaking
provides an estimate of the costs of the requirements and a
quantitative and qualitative discussion of the potential benefits,
including avoiding acute pesticide-related illnesses in workers and
handlers (Ref. 1).
    3. Demographics of workers and handlers. In addition to the
complexity of the science issues involving pesticide use, variability
of pesticide use patterns and incomplete information about occupational
pesticide-related illnesses and injuries, the diversity of the labor
population at risk and the tasks they perform makes it challenging to
ensure that workers and handlers are adequately protected.
    According to the most recent public data set available from the
Department of Labor's (DOL) National Agricultural Worker Survey (NAWS)
for 2011-2012, 64% of agricultural workers in the United States were
born in Mexico and 6% in Central and South America (Ref. 6). A majority
(69%) of all survey respondents speak Spanish as their primary language
(Ref. 6). Approximately 65% of this population speaks a little or no
English; 38% cannot read English at all and another 30% can only read
English ``a little'' (Ref. 6). Many have received only some formal
education; on average, the highest grade completed by foreign-born
workers was seventh grade (Ref. 6).
    Approximately 17% of the survey respondents were classified as
migrant, having traveled at least 75 miles in the previous year to find
a job in agriculture (Ref. 6). Only 17% of respondents lived in housing
provided by their employer and 55% rented housing from someone other
than their employer (Ref. 6). In general, agricultural workers surveyed
by NAWS do not have access to employer-provided health insurance--in
2011-2012, only 21% of farmworkers reported having the option for
employer-provided health insurance (Ref. 6). USDA research, based on
NAWS data, also reports that workers have difficulty entering the
health care system to receive treatment (Ref. 7). Cost was a
significant barrier for two-thirds of farmworkers, while about a third
listed language barriers as an impediment to receiving care. Most
workers fear that seeking treatment will result in losing their job
because someone will replace them while they are getting treatment or
the employer will label them as troublemakers and dismiss them. The
problem is more severe among undocumented workers because they fear
seeking treatment will lead to deportation or other adverse legal
action (Ref. 7). A USDA report indicates that the factors mentioned
previously contribute to the disadvantaged status of hired workers in
agriculture (Ref. 7).
    The NAWS found that 19% of workers and handlers surveyed earned
less than $10,000 annually from agricultural work, and another 39% earn
between $10,000 and $20,000 annually. Over 55% of respondents reported
a total family income below $22,500 (Ref. 6).
    Both the existing WPS and the changes included in the final rule
seek to eliminate some of the potential barriers to achieving effective
protection of these persons by requiring training in a manner that
workers and handlers can understand, requiring the employer to ensure
that handlers understand relevant portions of the labeling before
handling a pesticide, and expanding training to provide information on
seeking medical care in the event of a pesticide exposure and
highlighting the anti-retaliation provisions of the WPS.
    4. Summary of the final rule. The final rule amends the WPS by:
     Requiring pesticide safety training at one-year
intervals and amending the existing pesticide safety training content.
     Requiring recordkeeping for pesticide safety
training.

     Eliminating the ``grace period'' that allowed
workers to enter a treated area to perform WPS tasks before receiving
full pesticide safety training.
     Establishing a minimum age of 18 for handlers
and for workers who enter an area under an REI.
     Establishing requirements for specific training
and notification for workers who enter an area under an REI.
     Restricting persons' entry into certain areas
surrounding application equipment during an application.
     Clarifying requirements for supplies for routine
washing and emergency decontamination.
     Requiring employers to post warning signs around
treated areas when the product applied has an REI greater than 48 hours
and allowing the employer to choose to post the treated area or give
oral notification when the product applied has an REI of 48 hours or
less (unless the labeling requires both types of notification).
     Requiring employers to maintain and make
available copies of the SDSs for products used on the establishment.
     Requiring employers to provide application
information and SDSs to designated representatives making the request
on behalf of workers or handlers.
     Adding elements to the requirement to maintain
application-specific information.
     Adopting by cross reference certain OSHA
requirements for employers to provide training, fit testing and medical
evaluations to handlers using products that require use of respirators.
     Requiring employers to provide supplies for
emergency eye flush at all pesticide mixing and loading sites when
handlers use products that require eye protection.
     Maintaining the immediate family exemption and
ensuring it includes an exemption from the new minimum age requirements
for handlers and early-entry workers.
     Expanding the definition of ``immediate family''
to allow more family-owned operations to qualify for the exemptions to
the WPS requirements.
     Revising definitions to improve clarity and to
refine terms.
     Restructuring the regulation to make it easier
to read and understand.
    Units V. through XVIII. discuss the final rule requirements and
elements considered in the proposal but not included in the final rule.
Unit XIX. discusses implementation of the final regulatory
requirements. Each of these Units generally describes the existing
rule, proposal and final regulatory requirements (where appropriate),
and summarizes the major comments received and EPA's responses. A
separate document summarizing the comments received that were relevant
to the proposal and EPA's responses has also been prepared and is
available in the docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 4).
    EPA has grouped the discussion of the final rule and elements
considered in the proposal but not included in the final rule as
follows:
     Unit V: Pesticide Safety Training for Workers
and Handlers.
     Unit VI: Notification.
     Unit VII: Hazard Communication.
     Unit VIII: Information Exchange Between Handler
and Agricultural Employers.
     Unit IX: Drift-Related Requirements.
     Unit X: Establish Minimum Age for Handling
Pesticides and Working in a Treated Area while an REI is in Effect.
     Unit XI: Restrictions on Worker Entry into
Treated Areas.
     Unit XII: Display of Pesticide Safety
Information.
     Unit XIII: Decontamination.
     Unit XIV: Emergency Assistance.
     Unit XV: Personal Protective Equipment.
     Unit XVI: Decision not to Require Monitoring of
Handler Exposure to Cholinesterase-Inhibiting Pesticides.
     Unit XVII: Exemptions and Exceptions.
     Unit XVIII: General Revisions.
     Unit XIX: Implementation.

V. Pesticide Safety Training for Workers and Handlers

A. Shorten Retraining Interval for Workers and Handlers

    1. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS requires employers
to ensure that workers and handlers are trained once every five years.
EPA proposed to establish an annual retraining interval for workers and
handlers in order to improve the ability of workers and handlers to
protect themselves and their families from pesticide exposure.
    2. Final rule. In the final rule, EPA has adopted the proposed
requirement for workers and handlers to receive full pesticide safety
training annually. The final regulatory text for these requirements is
available at 40 CFR 170.401(a) and 170.501(a).
    3. Comments and responses.
    Comments. Several farmworker advocacy groups and public health
organizations supported full, annual training, stating that the more
frequent training would improve workers' and handlers' ability to
protect themselves and their families, and that annual training would
be simple to track administratively. Agricultural producer
organizations, pesticide producers, and the Small Business
Administration's Office of Advocacy recommended an initial in-depth
training for new workers followed annually by a shortened ``refresher''
training. A similar suggestion was to require initial in-depth training
for workers and handlers, followed by four years of refresher training,
with an in-depth training every fifth year. Some states suggested
training every two or three years, or allowing each state to set its
own training interval, to parallel the state's pesticide applicator
recertification interval. A few states recommended a system where the
training timeframe is based on the calendar year, to allow flexibility
for employers. For example, under this proposal, an employee trained in
March 2014 could be retrained as late as December 2015. This suggestion
would extend the permitted interval between worker and handler
trainings to as long as two years. Comments from pesticide industry
organizations suggested that the frequency of worker safety training be
commensurate with an individual workers' tasks, previous training, and
experience.
    EPA Response. EPA considered the alternatives described for
training frequency, and agrees with the comments that annual training,
in some form, is the appropriate interval to ensure that workers and
handlers receive more frequent reinforcement of the safety principles.
EPA rejected the suggestion for a limited refresher training based on
the difficulty both employers and regulators would face in tracking
multiple levels of training among a mobile workforce, the burdens of
maintaining multiple forms of training materials and providing
different trainings where employees are on differing cycles for full
and refresher training, and the fact that very little of the
substantive content of the required training appears to be material
that would not need to be brought to employees' attention annually.
    The suggestions for biennial or triennial training and allowing the
states to base the frequency of training for workers and handlers on
their pesticide applicator recertification requirements would present
similar administrative problems with tracking trainings and introduce
the possibility that workers or handlers would miss information needed
to protect themselves. Finally, the alternative to establish the
frequency of training based on the calendar year presents similar
issues with tracking training and needed frequency of repetition.

    The recommendation for training to be tailored to the individual
workers' tasks, experience, and prior training was rejected based on
the difficulty in tracking the specific training needs with a mobile
workforce, the need for multiple forms of training materials, and the
potential burden on employers to determine specific needs for each
employee. In addition, the training gives practical information that is
useful to everyone who works with or around agricultural pesticides.

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

    1. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS does not specify how
an employer must verify that a worker or handler has received pesticide
safety training. EPA proposed to eliminate the existing voluntary
training verification card system and to require employers to maintain
records of WPS worker and handler training for two years. EPA proposed
that the training record include, among other things, the employee's
birthdate to verify minimum age for early-entry worker or handler
activities. EPA proposed to require the employer to provide a copy of
the record to each worker or handler upon completion of the training.
    2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the proposed requirement for
employers to maintain records of worker and handler training for two
years. Required information for the record of worker and handler
training includes the trained worker's or handler's name and signature,
the date of training, the trainer's name, evidence of the trainer's
qualification to train, the employer's name, and which EPA-approved
training materials were used. EPA has not included in the final rule
the proposed requirement for the employer to record or retain birthdate
of the employee. The final rule does not require employers to
automatically provide a copy of the training record to each worker and
handler; instead, the final rule only requires the employer to provide
a copy of the training record to the trained employee upon the
employee's request. The final regulatory text for the worker and
handler training recordkeeping requirements appears at 40 CFR
170.401(d) and 170.501(d), respectively.
    3. Comments and responses.
    Comments--compliance monitoring. Comments in support of a
requirement for recordkeeping stated that it would ensure employees
received the training and that it would improve enforcement and
compliance.
    EPA Response. EPA agrees with these commenters that recordkeeping
is necessary for the purpose of compliance monitoring.
    Comments--burden. Commenters stated that the proposed requirement
to distribute the record to every trained worker or handler would be
burdensome and that most workers or handlers would not take or keep the
records.
    EPA Response. EPA agrees with these commenters and has modified the
requirement. The final rule requires employers to provide training
records to the trained employee only on the employee's request. This
will reduce the burden on employers while ensuring that interested
employees will be able to demonstrate to future employers that they
were appropriately trained.
    Comments--birthdate. There were a number of comments, particularly
from states, related to the proposed requirement that employers include
the trained employee's birthdate among the information to be recorded
to document training. EPA proposed including the trained employee's
birthdate in the recordkeeping in order to facilitate its use to verify
that workers or handlers met the proposed minimum age requirement for
handling pesticides or entering treated areas while under an REI as
allowed under the early entry exceptions. States noted that a person's
birthdate can be considered confidential and personal information, the
distribution of which can lead to identity theft.
    EPA Response. EPA has decided the advantages of requiring the
employer to record the birthdate of the trained worker or handler are
outweighed in this instance by the concerns for protecting confidential
and personal information. Under the final rule, the employer is
responsible for determining that each employee has met the minimum age
requirement. The final rule does not include the proposed requirement
for the employer to collect or retain specific documentation of the
employee's birthdate or age.

C. Establish Trainer Qualifications for Workers and Handlers

    1. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS allows workers and
handlers to be trained by a variety of persons, including pesticide
applicators certified to use restricted use pesticides (RUPs) under 40
CFR part 171, persons identified by the agency with jurisdiction for
pesticide enforcement as a trainer of certified applicators, or persons
having completed an approved pesticide safety train-the-trainer course.
In addition, persons trained as handlers under the WPS are also
eligible to train workers.
    EPA proposed to limit eligible trainers of workers to those who
complete an EPA-approved train-the-trainer program or are designated by
EPA or an appropriate state or tribal agency as trainers of certified
applicators; being a certified applicator or trained as a handler under
the WPS would not automatically qualify a person to train workers under
the proposal. EPA did not propose to change the qualifications for
trainers of handlers.
    2. Final rule. In the final rule, EPA has expanded the class of
persons qualified to train workers relative to the proposed rule. Under
the final rule, qualified trainers of workers include persons who: Have
completed a pesticide safety train-the-trainer program approved by EPA,
are designated as a trainer of certified applicators, handlers or
workers by EPA or a state or tribal agency responsible for pesticide
enforcement, or are certified pesticide applicators under 40 CFR part
171. Unlike the proposal, certified applicators are considered
qualified to train workers under the final rule. However, consistent
with the proposal, the persons trained as handlers under the WPS are
not considered qualified to train workers under the final rule.
    The final rule does not make any changes from the existing rule and
proposal related to who is qualified to provide training to handlers.
    The final regulatory text for worker and handler trainer
qualifications is available at 40 CFR 170.401(c)(4) and 170.501(c)(4),
respectively.
    3. Comments and responses.
    Comments. Many of the comments advised EPA to retain certified
applicators as trainers of workers in the final rule. Several
commenters stated that without certified applicators providing worker
training, resources such as cooperative extension trainers would be
severely strained and there might not be adequate resources to provide
annual training for workers. Several states and others noted that
certified applicators possess the necessary competence to provide
training to workers; in some states, they must receive training
specifically for the purpose of training workers in order to meet their
certification requirements. Commenters also questioned how a certified
applicator could be considered qualified to train handlers, but not
workers, as many handlers have the same demographic profile as workers.
    There were few comments in support of retaining handlers as
trainers for workers. One comment suggested that handlers could be
required to take an

approved train-the-trainer course to ensure they can adequately train
workers.
    EPA Response. EPA is persuaded by the comments that it is
reasonable to expect that certified applicators can competently train
workers, as well as handlers. Commenters note that certified
applicators possess knowledge of pesticide safety from their
certification training and pesticide handling experience. The
commenters stated that the additional burden from the proposed
requirement for annual training in combination with the elimination of
certified applicators as trainers would severely strain trainer
resources and potentially result in fewer workers receiving annual
training. This concern persuaded EPA to include certified applicators
as qualified to train workers in the final rule.
    EPA agrees with the comment that handlers who have gone through a
train-the-trainer course should be eligible to train workers. Under the
final regulation, any person, including a handler, is qualified to
train workers after successfully completing an approved train-the-
trainer course.

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

    1. Current and proposed rule. The existing WPS requires employers
to provide pesticide safety training covering specific content to
workers and handlers. Under the existing rule, worker safety training
content must include the following 11 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 the existing rule, pesticide handler safety training must
include the following 13 basic safety training points:
     Format and meaning of information contained on pesticide
labels and in labeling, including safety information such as
precautionary statements about human health hazards.
     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 pesticide poisoning.
     Emergency first aid for pesticide injuries or
poisonings.
     How to get emergency medical care.
     Routine and emergency decontamination
procedures.
     Need for and appropriate use of PPE.
     Prevention, recognition, and first aid treatment
of heat-related illness.
     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.
    EPA proposed additional content in worker pesticide safety training
including, among other things, information on the requirements for
early-entry notification and emergency assistance, how to reduce
pesticide take-home exposure, the availability of hazard communication
materials for workers, the minimum age requirements for handling and
early entry, and the obligations of agricultural employers to provide
protections to workers.
    EPA proposed additional content in handler pesticide safety
training, including the requirement for handlers to cease application
if they observe a person, other than another trained and properly
equipped handler, in the area being treated or the entry-restricted
area, and information about the requirement for OSHA-equivalent
training on respirator use, fit-testing of respirators, and medical
evaluation in the event a handler must wear a respirator.
    2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the proposed additions to and
expansions of the worker and handler pesticide safety training. The
final regulatory text for the content of worker and handler pesticide
training is available at 40 CFR 170.401(c)(2)-(3) and 170.501(c)(2)-
(3).
    The final rule requires employers to ensure that workers are
trained on the following topics after EPA has announced the
availability of training materials (see Unit XIX. for information on
the timing of implementation):
     The responsibility of agricultural employers to
provide workers and handlers with information and protections designed
to reduce work-related pesticide exposures and illnesses. This includes
ensuring workers and handlers have been trained on pesticide safety,
providing pesticide safety and application information, decontamination
supplies and emergency medical assistance, and notifying workers of
restrictions during applications and on entering pesticide treated
areas. A worker or handler may designate in writing a representative to
request access to pesticide application and hazard information.
     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 pesticide-treated areas subject to an REI and
application exclusion zones.
     Where and in what form pesticides may be
encountered during work activities and potential sources of pesticide
exposure on the agricultural establishment. This includes exposure to
pesticide residues that may be on or in plants, soil, tractors,
application and chemigation equipment, or used PPE, and that may drift
through the air from nearby applications or be in irrigation water.
     Potential hazards from toxicity and exposure
that pesticides present to workers and their families, 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.
     Routine and emergency decontamination
procedures, including emergency eye flushing techniques, and if
pesticides are spilled or sprayed on the body, to use decontamination
supplies to wash immediately or rinse off in the nearest clean water,
including springs, streams, lakes, or other sources, if more readily
available than decontamination supplies, and as soon as possible, wash
or shower with soap and water, shampoo hair, and change into clean
clothes.
     How and when to obtain emergency medical care.
     When working 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
in pesticide-treated areas.
     Potential hazards from pesticide residues on
clothing.
     Wash work clothes before wearing them again and
wash them separately from other clothes.
     Do not take pesticides or pesticide containers
used at work to your home.
     Safety data sheets provide hazard, emergency
medical treatment and other information about the pesticides used on
the establishment they may come in contact with.
    The responsibility of agricultural employers to do all of the
following: Display safety data sheets for all pesticides used on the
establishment, provide workers and handlers information about the
location of the safety data sheets on the establishment, and provide
workers and handlers unimpeded access to safety data sheets during
normal work hours.
     The rule prohibits agricultural employers from
allowing or directing any worker to mix, load or apply pesticides or
assist in the application of pesticides unless the worker has been
trained as a handler.
     The responsibility of agricultural employers to
provide specific information to workers before directing them to
perform early-entry activities. Workers must be 18 years old to perform
early-entry activities.
     Potential hazards to children and pregnant women
from pesticide exposure.
     Keep children and nonworking family members away
from pesticide-treated areas.
     After working in pesticide-treated areas, remove
work boots or shoes before entering your home, and 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.
     The rule prohibits agricultural employers from
intimidating, threatening, coercing, or discriminating against any
worker or handler for complying with or attempting to comply with the
requirements of this rule, or because the worker or handler has
provided, caused to be provided, or is about to provide information to
the employer or to the EPA or its agents regarding conduct that the
employee reasonably believes violates this part, and/or has made a
complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an
investigation, proceeding, or hearing concerning compliance with this
rule.
    The final rule requires employers to ensure that handlers are
trained on the following topics after EPA has announced the
availability of training materials (see Unit XIX. for information on
the timing of implementation):
     All content for worker training.
     Information on proper application and use of pesticides.
     Handlers must follow the portions of the labeling
applicable to the safe use of the pesticide.
     Format and meaning of information contained on pesticide
labels and in labeling applicable to the safe use of the pesticide.
     Need for and appropriate use and removal of all PPE.
     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.
     The responsibility of handler employers 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 suspend a pesticide application if
workers or other persons are in the application exclusion zone.
     Handlers must be at least 18 years old.
     The responsibility of handler employers to ensure handlers
have received respirator fit-testing, training and medical evaluation
if they are required to wear a respirator by the product labeling.
     The responsibility of agricultural employers to post
treated areas as required by this rule.
    EPA intends to develop the training materials that meet the final
training requirements and to publish in the Federal Register a notice
of their availability. To allow time for the completion and
distribution of revised training materials and to allow time for
trainers to become familiar with them and begin training workers and
handlers, the rule extends the implementation period for training on
the new requirements for two years, or until six months after EPA has
made the revised training materials available, whichever is longer.
    The final requirements for the content of worker and handler
pesticide safety training are available at 40 CFR 170.401(c)(2)-(3) and
170.501(c)(2)-(3), respectively.
    3. Comments and responses.
    Comments. Farmworker advocacy organizations, many states, and
public health organizations provided support for the expanded training
topics, in particular information about preventing take home exposure
and medical evaluation, fit testing and training on respirator use for
handlers who need to wear respirators. Some farmworker advocacy
organizations commented on the importance of information about worker
rights.
    Agricultural producer organizations expressed concern for the
additional burden of the lengthier training. Some states asserted that
several of the handler training points are beyond the scope of the WPS
and should be addressed in applicator certification only. Specifically,
they requested that EPA eliminate training on environmental concerns
from pesticide use; proper application and use of pesticides; and
requirements for handlers to understand the format and meaning of all
information contained on pesticide labels and labeling, and to follow
all pesticide label directions. These commenters stated that these
training points are appropriate for persons who work under the
supervision of certified applicators, but they do not relate directly
to worker or handler safety. Two states recommended a revision to
language in the handler training topics requiring that ``all''
information on the pesticide label would be required to be covered,
stating that all labeling information may not be relevant to a given
application.
    EPA Response. EPA does not agree with comments from states that the
handler training topics related to environmental concerns from
pesticide use, proper application and use, requirements for handlers to
understand the format and meaning of information on labels and to
follow label directions are beyond the scope of the WPS and may expand
the liability of handlers. First, the ``Worker Protection Standard''
title is descriptive, and not jurisdictional. The WPS is, in essence, a
codification of material that EPA would otherwise have to require to

appear on the labels of agricultural pesticides. Thus its potential
scope is as broad as EPA's labeling authority. While there may be some
point at which a prospective provision might be so tangentially related
to the rest of the WPS that its inclusion in the WPS would cause
excessive confusion that is not the case with the provisions included
in this final rule.
    In addition, this is not the first time that requirements included
in the WPS have served purposes beyond the protection of agricultural
workers and handlers. Section 170.210(a) of the existing rule requires
that ``The handler employer and the handler shall assure that no
pesticide is applied so as to contact, either directly or through
drift, any worker or other person, other than an appropriately trained
and equipped handler'' (emphasis added). Section 170.234(c) of the
existing rule requires that, among other things, when application
equipment is sent to non-handlers for repair, the handler employer must
assure that pesticide residues have been removed, or else warn the
person who would perform the repair. The handler training point on
environmental concerns from pesticide use already appears in the
existing rule at 40 CFR 170.230(c)(4)(xi). In response to a similar
comment on the proposal that resulted in the existing regulation, EPA
stated:

    One comment questioned the relevancy of environmental information
in worker protection training. The Agency believes such training is
relevant to worker protection. Many environmental concerns are
applicable not only to the organisms in the environment, but also to
workers and other persons who may be in that environment. Ground and
surface water warnings, for example, are designed not to protect only
aquatic organisms, but to protect workers and other persons who may be
using the water for drinking, cooking, bathing, etc. The Agency notes
that FIFRA defines ``environment'' as including ``water, air, land, and
all plants and man and other animals living therein, and the
interrelationships which exist among these (Ref. 8).''

    The final rule retains the requirement for handler training on
environmental concerns related to pesticide use from the current WPS.
    EPA does not agree that the training topic requiring handlers to
receive instruction on proper application and use of pesticides is only
appropriate for noncertified applicators making application under the
direct supervision of a certified applicator. First, handlers routinely
apply pesticides, and misapplication of pesticides can result in injury
to persons covered by the WPS, including workers and handlers. Training
on proper use can help prevent such misapplication and consequent
exposure to people. Second, relying solely on the training of
noncertified applicators under direct supervision would cover only
applicators using Restricted Use Products (RUPs), and many agricultural
use products covered by the WPS are not RUPs. To ensure that handlers
under the WPS have the training to apply pesticides properly, it is
necessary for them to be trained on proper use. The final rule includes
the handler training topic requiring information on proper application
and use of pesticides.
    EPA does not agree with the commenters that requirements for
handlers to understand the format and meaning of information on labels
and to follow labeling directions are only appropriate for noncertified
applicators applying under the supervision of certified applicators. To
properly handle agricultural pesticides covered by the WPS rule,
handlers need to understand the information on the labeling related to
safe use of the pesticide and follow the use instructions. Use of a
product in a manner inconsistent with the labeling may cause injury or
illness to the handler and to others. For a more detailed discussion of
the comments and EPA's responses on issues related to labeling, see
Unit XVIII.A.

E. Exception to Full Pesticide Safety Training for Workers Prior to
Entry Into Treated Areas (Grace Period)

    1. Current rule and proposal. Except in regard to workers entering
treated areas during an REI, the existing WPS permits the agricultural
employer to delay providing full pesticide safety training until the
end of the fifth day after the worker's entry into a treated area,
often called the ``grace period,'' provided that the worker receives
training in a basic set of two safety points before entering the
treated area (i.e., an area that has been treated or where an REI has
been in effect within the last 30 days). Under this exception, the
worker must receive the full safety training on the content outlined in
the rule prior to the sixth day of entry into a treated area. EPA
proposed to shorten the ``grace period'' to two days, require that full
training take place before the third day of entry into a treated area,
and expand the basic set of safety information to be provided prior to
the worker's first entry into a treated area under the ``grace
period.''
    2. Final rule. EPA has eliminated the ``grace period'' entirely.
The final rule requires employers to ensure that workers receive full
pesticide safety training before entering a treated area (i.e., an area
that has been treated or where an REI has been in effect within the
last 30 days).
    3. Comments and responses.
    Comments. Few commenters supported the proposed two day grace
period coupled with the expanded basic safety points prior to first
entry. Many agricultural producer organizations and the Small Business
Administration's Office of Advocacy requested that EPA retain the five
day grace period in the existing rule, stating it is needed for
flexibility in scheduling training sessions as workers arrive at
various times on the establishment. Several farmworker advocacy
organizations and two states recommended elimination of the grace
period entirely. One state recommended, as an alternative, adoption of
the two day grace period with reduced material relative to the proposal
required prior to first entry. Farmworker advocacy organizations that
supported the elimination of the grace period cited the importance of
workers having full safety information prior to entering an area with
pesticide residues. One state that supported the elimination of the
grace period expressed concern that this change would heighten concerns
about the number of qualified trainers in the event that EPA would
follow through on its proposal to make certified applicators ineligible
to train workers.
    EPA Response. While EPA recognizes the flexibility that the grace
period offers agricultural employers in scheduling training sessions
for workers, and the economic importance of that flexibility, EPA
remains convinced that the elimination of the grace period is
reasonable. The full pesticide safety training provides information
that workers need to have before their exposure to pesticide treated
areas so they can protect themselves. Under OSHA, training must take
place at the time of the employee's initial assignment. EPA has decided
that the cost of eliminating the grace period is reasonable when
compared to the benefit from workers receiving the complete pesticide
safety training before their first exposure to pesticides.
    EPA acknowledges concerns raised by agricultural producer
organizations and states that eliminating the ``grace period'' combined
with the proposal to limit who is qualified to conduct worker training
could result in an inadequate number of people available to provide
worker training. The final rule continues to allow certified
applicators to be trainers of workers (see Unit V.D.).

As a result, EPA expects that there will be an adequate number of
trainers to provide full pesticide safety training for workers prior to
their entry into treated areas.

F. Training Program Administration Requirements

    1. Current rule and proposal. Under the existing WPS, pesticide
safety training must be presented either orally from written materials
or in audiovisual format. The information must be presented in a manner
that the worker or handler can understand, and the trainer must respond
to questions, but the existing rule does not require the trainer to be
present for the entire training period. EPA proposed to retain the
requirement to provide training in an oral and audiovisual format, to
require that the trainer remain present throughout the training
session, and to require that the training be presented in a place that
is conducive to learning and reasonably free of distractions.
    2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the proposed requirements for the
presentation of training. Trainers of workers and handlers must remain
present during training sessions to respond to questions. The training
environment must be conducive to training and be reasonably free of
distractions, to help ensure training quality. The final rule retains
the existing requirement for pesticide safety training to be delivered
either orally from written materials or by audiovisual means.
    The final regulatory text for these requirements is available at 40
CFR 170.401(c)(1) and 170.501(c)(1).
    3. Comments and responses.
    Comments on use of videos. Some farmworker advocacy organizations
endorsed the use of videos, stating that when used they enhance
understanding of the material, especially when combined with hands-on
activities or other kinds of learning approaches. Other farmworker
advocacy organizations stated that there is a lack of interaction
between the trainer and the employees trained using a video, resulting
in reduced information transfer. Agricultural producer organizations
and states also supported the use of the video, citing ease of use, and
effectiveness. Many commenters from each category urged EPA to update
the videos; a few suggested EPA evaluate different media presentations.
    EPA Response. EPA agrees with the commenters who consider videos to
be effective and useful training material. EPA recognizes that a video
is a passive form of training, and has added the requirement for the
trainer to be present to answer questions during the entire session to
mitigate this problem. EPA also expects the requirement for the
training to be in a location reasonably free of distractions to improve
the ability of workers and handlers to absorb and retain information.
    Comments on the requirement for trainers to remain present during
entire training session. Farmworker advocate organizations and another
commenter supported the proposal for trainers to remain present during
the entire training, citing the need for them to be interactive with
workers to enhance the training and facilitate discussion. One
commenter, experienced in providing pesticide safety training, noted
that the interaction with trainees, through hands-on training and
sharing of experiences, was effective. Agricultural producer
organizations opposed the requirement, stating that it would be
distracting for the video to be interrupted for questions, and there
would be lost time for the trainer. One commenter suggested it would
lead to larger training conferences that would discourage post-video
interaction. Some states opposed the requirement for the trainer to be
present throughout the training; one state recommended that the trainer
only needs to be available before and after the training if a video is
used.
    EPA Response. EPA agrees that having trainers present during the
entire training program could facilitate discussion and promote
interaction. EPA disagrees that the questions for the trainer would be
disruptive to the training. A 2006 study (Burke) cited interactive
training activities as a best practice for supporting training
transfer. EPA is convinced that the trainer's presence during the video
enhances the training by enabling questions and discussion during the
presentation (Ref. 9).
    Comments on the requirement for the training environment to
relatively free of distractions and conducive to learning. The
commenters were mostly in agreement that the learning environment needs
to have minimal distractions and be conducive to learning. Farmworker
advocacy organizations and public health organizations supported the
proposed requirement as a way to improve the learning environment. Two
farm bureaus suggested allowing the trainer to be absent during the
video, and to have a supervisor present to ensure the quality of the
training environment. One state supported the proposed requirement for
the training to be conducted in an environment free of distractions.
Finally, one agricultural organization described the environment where
their workers receive training as taking place either on or outside
their transportation bus or in the field, and noted that the low number
of incidents is evidence that the training is effective.
    EPA Response. EPA agrees that the requirement for the training
environment to be reasonably free from distractions and conducive to
training would make it easier for workers and handlers to learn. As
discussed in the previous response, EPA disagrees with comments
requesting that EPA eliminate the requirement for the trainer to be
present throughout the training. The proposal and final rule establish
requirements for the training location; the ultimate responsibility for
ensuring the requirements are met rests with the employer. EPA
recognizes that there are challenges in locating environments in
agriculture that are quiet and present few distractions; classrooms are
rarely convenient. However, EPA is requiring employers to provide a
training environment that is reasonably free from distractions and
conducive to training. EPA notes that the final rule does not prohibit
providing training in any specific location, such as outdoors or on a
bus, as long as the environment is reasonably free from distraction and
conducive to training.

G. Require Employers To Provide Establishment-Specific Information to
Workers and Handlers

    1. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS does not clearly
require employers to provide to workers and handlers establishment-
specific information on the location of decontamination supplies or
hazard information as part of their pesticide safety training. EPA
proposed that in addition to required pesticide safety training,
employers must provide workers and handlers with establishment-specific
information about the location of decontamination supplies and
pesticide safety and hazard information, as well as how to obtain
medical assistance. EPA proposed that 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.
    2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the proposed requirement for
employers to provide establishment-specific information to workers and
handlers. The final rule requires employers to provide establishment-
specific information for workers and handlers when they enter the
establishment and before beginning WPS tasks in areas

where within the last 30 days a product requiring compliance with the
WPS has been applied or an REI has been in effect. Content for the
establishment-specific information includes the location of the
pesticide safety information, the location of pesticide application and
hazard information, and the location of decontamination supplies.
Employers are required to provide this information in a manner that the
worker or handler can understand, such as through a translator, and
prior to the worker or handler performing activities covered by the
WPS. Lastly, this information is required even if the employer can
verify that the worker or handler has already received the general
pesticide safety training on another establishment, because the
information required is specific to each establishment. The final
regulatory text for these requirements is available at 40 CFR 170.403
and 170.503(b).
    3. Comments and responses.
    Comments. Commenters largely supported the addition of the
establishment-specific training, with some noting that it is currently
being provided voluntarily.
    EPA Response. EPA agrees with the commenters that the
establishment-specific training is necessary for workers and handlers
to know where to find information on the establishment to protect
themselves from pesticides and their potential effects. EPA notes that
some of this information is required under the existing rule. However,
EPA is convinced that consolidating the requirements for establishment-
specific training will make them easier for employers to find and
comply with, resulting in a higher likelihood that workers and handlers
will receive the necessary information.

H. Costs and Benefits of Revisions to Pesticide Safety Training

    1. Costs. EPA estimates the cost of changes to pesticide safety
training for workers and handlers, including increased frequency,
expanded content, recordkeeping, eliminating the ``grace period,''
changing who is qualified to conduct training, and amending training
program administration requirements would be $29.9 million annually and
range from approximately $62 to $80 per agricultural establishment per
year. For a complete discussion of the costs see the ``Economic
Analysis of Final Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard'' (Ref.
1).
    2. Benefits. While EPA can estimate the costs of the changes to
pesticide safety training for workers and handlers, quantifying the
benefits is more difficult. Nonetheless, as explained in the NPRM, it
is reasonable to expect that more frequent training would lead to
better retention of information by workers and handlers, ultimately
resulting in fewer incidents of pesticide exposure and illness in
workers and handlers, improved decontamination procedures, reduced
take-home exposure, and better protection of children. Similarly,
providing workers with training before they enter a treated area will
give them tools they need to protect themselves before they encounter
pesticides as part of their occupation. Improving the quality of worker
training by limiting trainers to persons who have completed a train-
the-trainer course, are certified applicators under Part 171, or have
been designated by the regulatory agency responsible for pesticide
enforcement as a trainer of workers, handlers or certified applicators
is expected to advance worker comprehension of the safety principles
and result in better self-protection. Finally, enhancing the quality of
the training environment and ensuring that there is a knowledgeable
person available throughout the training session to respond to
questions will improve the ability of the trainee to retain the
information.
    The expansion of information provided in the training will enable
workers and handlers to better protect themselves and their families,
by increasing their knowledge of how to reduce take-home residues from
treated areas. The training gives practical information that is useful
to everyone who works with or around agricultural pesticides.
    The requirement for recordkeeping is an important element of the
training requirement. Although in itself not a protective factor, it
will support the determination of compliance when partnered with worker
and employer interviews and therefore promote adherence to the
requirements. In the final rule the employer must provide the record to
the worker or handler upon request. The burden of providing copies of
training records will be offset by the reduction in the number of
trainings that would otherwise have to be provided to workers and
handlers who have already been trained at another establishment.

VI. Notification

A. Posted Notification Timing and Oral Notification

    1. Current rule and proposal. The current WPS requires agricultural
employers to notify workers about pesticide applications and areas on
the agricultural establishment subject to an REI. Notification is
required when workers are on the establishment during application or
the REI and will pass within one-quarter mile of the treated area. On
farms, and in forests and non-enclosed nurseries (referred to as
``outdoor production'' in the proposal) 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. In greenhouses and some other
enclosed spaces (referred to as ``enclosed space production'' in the
proposal), the agricultural employer must post warning signs for all
applications, regardless of the product's REI. In cases where the
product labeling requires both written and oral notification of
workers, the WPS also requires this ``double notification.''
    For outdoor production, EPA proposed requiring agricultural
employers to 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 proposed requiring posting of
warning signs only when the product applied has an REI greater than
four hours, and to allow the option of oral warning or posted
notification for products with an REI of four hours or less.
    2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the proposed requirements to post
warning signs for all ``outdoor production'' when a product with an REI
longer than 48 hours is used, and to allow either oral or posted
warnings for ``enclosed space production'' when a product with an REI
of 4 hours or less is used. The final regulatory text for these
requirements is available at 40 CFR 170.409(a)(1)(ii)-(v). The final
rule modifies the existing requirement for employers to take down
posted warning signs within three days of the expiration of the REI by
prohibiting worker entry into the area until the posted warning signs
have been removed (except for early entry pursuant to 40 CFR 170.603).
The final regulatory text for this prohibition is available at 40 CFR
170.409(b).
    3. Comments and Responses.
    Comments. Many states and some farmworker advocacy organizations
and public health organizations supported the ``field posting'' and
notification requirements as proposed. They noted the potential benefit
to workers and employees of crop advisors of mandatory posting for the
most toxic pesticides. They agreed with EPA's assessment that
additional posting

would provide added protection for workers while placing a minimal
burden on employers.
    Several grower associations and farm bureaus supported the proposed
change in notification requirements for indoor production but opposed
the proposal for additional posting for outdoor production. They noted
that signs can be destroyed, removed, or relocated and that
agricultural producers may not return to some fields more than once per
week. One grower association specifically requested that EPA clarify
how enforcement would address these challenges without inappropriately
penalizing agricultural employers. This group stated that workers are
fully capable of understanding oral notification and suggest focusing
instead on reinforcing the existing oral notification. Several grower
organizations also did not agree that EPA justified the cost of the
proposal with the benefits.
    Farmworker advocacy organizations suggested a number of
alternatives, including requiring both posting signs and providing oral
warnings for all pesticide applications, or at a minimum for those
pesticides with an REI of 12 hours or more. Some farmworker advocacy
organizations suggested mandatory posting of any treated area subject
to an REI greater than 24 hours, and others requested that EPA require
mandatory posting of any treated area subject to an REI. They
reiterated EPA's rationale that oral notification of pesticide
application information is difficult to recall over multiple days, that
oral notification may not be clearly communicated due to multiple
language barriers and that it is difficult to verify whether oral
notification was in fact given.
    EPA Response. EPA considered the comments submitted and agrees that
increasing workers' awareness of treated areas will lead to an overall
reduction in occupational pesticide-related illnesses at reasonable
cost.
    EPA disagrees with comments that suggest oral notification alone
would provide sufficient notification to workers and agrees with
comments that support increased posting requirements. As noted in the
proposal for this rule, research has shown that oral instruction alone
may not be an effective method of safety instruction. EPA is aware that
compliance with the posting requirement for outdoor production could
require some establishments to change their business practices or
monitor posted fields more often.
    EPA considered additional posting requirements presented by
farmworker advocacy organizations and was not convinced that the
increased cost to employers to post all treated areas, or to post areas
treated with products with REIs of 12 hours or greater, or 24 hours or
greater would result in significantly more increased protections than
the requirement to post areas treated with products with an REI longer
than 48 hours. EPA concluded that it is reasonable to expect workers to
remember oral warnings regarding REIs for two work days, or about 48
hours total, and reasonable to require visual reminders for longer
periods.
    4. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the annual cost of posting
treated areas under an REI of more than 48 hours and allowing oral
notification for indoor production applications of products with an REI
of 4 hours or less to be $10.4 million annually, with the per
establishment cost of $33, and finds this cost to be reasonable in
comparison to the benefit to workers to avoid pesticide illness by
remaining out of treated areas under an REI.

B. Revise Content of Warning Sign

    1. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS requires
agricultural employers to post warning signs with the words ``DANGER,''
``PELIGRO,'' ``PESTICIDES'' and ``PESTICIDAS,'' at the top of the sign,
and the words ``KEEP OUT'' and ``NO ENTRE'' at the bottom of the sign.
A circle containing an upraised hand on the left and a stern face on
the right must be near the center of the sign. EPA proposed replacing
``KEEP OUT'' and ``NO ENTRE'' with ``Entry Restricted'' and ``Entrada
Restringida,'' and changing the shape containing the face and hand to
an octagon (similar to a stop sign).
    2. Final rule. EPA has decided not to change the text or graphic of
the existing warning sign. The final regulatory text for the warning
sign content is available at 40 CFR 170.409(b)(2).
    3. Comments and responses.
    Comments. Two states and several grower organizations supported the
proposed changes on the grounds that ``Entry Restricted'' would be less
confusing to workers than ``KEEP OUT,'' since entry is allowed under
certain circumstances. Many more state, farmworker advocacy
organizations, and public health organizations opposed changing the
existing warning sign. Those commenters asserted that ``KEEP OUT''
sends a much clearer message than ``Entry Restricted,'' particularly to
people with lower levels of literacy. They noted that the term
``Entrada Restringida'' is not common in Spanish, which is the first
language of the majority of farmworkers in the U.S., whereas ``KEEP
OUT'' is simple and well understood even by people who do not speak or
read English. Commenters pointed to standard readability test results
confirming that ``KEEP OUT'' is easily understood by most six-year-
olds, while ``Entry Restricted'' is placed at the grade 12-13 reading
level and would be beyond the reading and comprehension level of the
majority of farmworkers in the U.S.
    A number of states commented that the existing sign is sufficient.
They noted that although ``Entry Restricted'' is more accurate, it
would be a costly change for growers that may lead to confusion and not
be more protective than the language on the existing warning sign.
States also commented that 20 years of training and experience with the
current sign is what makes it effective for keeping workers out of
fields under an REI. The states and farmworker advocacy organizations
agreed that for the predominantly low-literacy population of
farmworkers, a simpler message, along with training on the message, is
more protective than the proposed wording for the warning sign.
    EPA Response. EPA was persuaded that the proposed changes to the
warning sign would be costly for employers and not increase protections
for workers as much as expected. A significant factor in EPA's decision
was the additional information presented in public comments regarding
the potential lack of understanding of the term ``Entrada
Restringida.'' EPA was convinced that eliminating the existing
language, ``KEEP OUT,'' in favor of a technically more accurate sign
would be less protective for the majority of workers. The goal of the
warning sign is to keep workers out of areas that are treated with
certain pesticides. Entry into these areas is prohibited while the REI
is in effect with a few narrow exceptions. Workers that are directed to
enter treated areas under an REI and/or areas where the warning sign is
posted must have received pesticide safety training, be provided
additional protections, and be informed that their entry is subject to
the limitations established for early entry exceptions in the
regulation. Because EPA expects that the majority of workers would
never enter treated areas during an REI, because 20 years of training
and experience have familiarized workers with the message and intent of
the sign, and because EPA has added additional training and protection
for workers entering treated areas while an REI is in effect, EPA
agrees with commenters that the easily understood message of ``KEEP
OUT'' is most appropriate.
    4. Costs and benefits. Since the final rule does not change the
requirement in

the existing rule, there are no costs associated with this decision.

C. Warning Sign Location Revisions

    1. Current rule and proposal. Under the existing rule, when signs
are required for applications in outdoor production, they ``shall be
visible from all usual points of worker entry to the treated area,
including at least each access road, each border with any labor camp
adjacent to the treated area, and each footpath and other walking route
that enters the treated area.'' EPA proposed maintaining the existing
posting requirement for outdoor production and clarifying the language
to require posting be visible from ``each border with any worker
housing area within 100 feet of the treated area,'' rather than ``labor
camps adjacent to the treated area.''
    2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the proposed changes to the
warning sign location requirements for outdoor production. The final
regulatory text for this requirement is available at 40 CFR
170.409(b)(3)(ii).
    3. Comments and responses.
    Comments. Several states, grower organizations, and farmworker
advocacy organizations supported the proposal and agreed that it would
support EPA's goal of increasing clarity of the rule and enhance the
ability of employers to understand their responsibilities under the
regulation. Commenters in support of the change noted that ``adjacent''
is a vague term that may be interpreted differently by different people
and that ``labor camp'' is too limited and does not technically include
worker housing. They noted that clearer posting requirements could lead
to better compliance and thus be a better system for keeping people
living in close proximity to treated fields safe.
    Some pesticide manufacturers opposed the proposal on the grounds
that it is an overly prescriptive, costly, and unnecessary provision
which would not provide additional protection above that already
provided by the label and existing WPS.
    A public health organization proposed adding pesticide application
information and REIs to the posting requirement near worker housing
areas. One state suggested revising the language by stating ``Each
border with any worker housing area provided by this establishment/
employer within 100 feet of the treated area.''
    EPA Response. EPA was not persuaded by the comments that the
requirement would be a significant additional burden on employers. The
requirement only clarifies where employers need to post warning signs
but does not increase posting requirements beyond what was intended in
the existing regulation. EPA agrees with commenters who noted that
increased clarity on posting requirements will lead to better
compliance and increase awareness of treated fields by workers who live
near treated areas.
    4. Costs and benefits. Because this change only clarifies an
existing requirement, the cost, if any, would be negligible.

VII. Hazard Communication

A. Hazard Information--Location and Accessibility

    1. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS requires employers
to display certain information about pesticide applications at a
central location on the establishment when workers or handlers are
present and an application of a pesticide requiring compliance with the
WPS has been made or an REI has been in effect within the past 30 days
(referred to as the ``central display'' requirement).
    EPA proposed to replace the existing requirement for the
application information to be located at the central display with a
requirement for employers to make the application information and
additional hazard information accessible upon request by workers,
handlers or their authorized representatives.
    2. Final rule. EPA has decided not to finalize the proposal. The
final rule generally retains the existing requirement related to the
location of, and accessibility for workers and handlers to, the
pesticide application information, makes some changes to the content of
the required information, requires display of hazard information, and
includes the accessibility requirements proposed for workers, handlers,
and their designated representatives (``authorized representatives'' in
the proposal). The employer must display the information at a place on
the establishment where workers or handlers are likely to pass by (the
``central display''). The information must be displayed when workers or
handlers are on the establishment and an application of a WPS-covered
pesticide has been made or an REI has been in effect within the past 30
days. After this time, the information must be kept on the
establishment for two years and made available to workers, handlers, or
their designated representatives or any treating medical personnel. The
final rule contains more specificity than the proposal, particularly in
reference to the designated representative, where details are drawn
from OSHA's rule at 29 CFR 1910 (Ref. 17).
    The designated representative must provide written evidence of such
designation, including the name of the worker or handler being
represented, a description of the specific information being requested,
including dates of employment of the employee, the dates for which the
records are requested, the type of work conducted by the worker or
handler during that period, a statement indicating that the
representative is designated by the worker or handler, the specific
application and/or hazard information requested, a statement
designating the representative to request the information on the
worker's or handler's behalf, the date of the designation, and the
printed name and contact information for the designated representative.
If the information is to be sent to the requester, direction for where
that information must be sent is to be included. When the employer is
presented a request that contains all of the necessary information
specified in the regulations, the employer must provide a copy of, or
access to, all of the requested information that is applicable within
15 working days from the receipt of the request. Failure to respond to
the request would be a violation of the rule. The final regulatory text
for this requirement is available at 40 CFR 170.311(b)(9).
    Workers and handlers who worked on the establishment may request,
orally or in writing, the pesticide-specific information retained by
the employer. The information must have been displayed while the worker
or handler worked on the establishment. The employer must provide
access to, or a copy of, the information within 15 days of the request.
The regulatory text for this requirement is available at 40 CFR
170.311(b)(7).
    Under the requirements to provide records to workers, handlers, and
designated representatives, EPA also added language similar to that
found in OSHA regulations (see 29 CFR 1910.1020(e)(1)(v)) to ensure
that whenever a record has been previously provided without cost to a
worker, handler, or their designated representative, the agricultural
employer may charge reasonable, non-discriminatory administrative costs
(i.e., search and copying expenses but not including overhead expenses)
for a request by the worker or handler for additional copies of the
same record.
    Medical personnel or persons acting under their supervision may
also request the pesticide-specific

information required to be retained in 170.311(b)(6) to inform
diagnosis or treatment of workers or handlers who were employed on the
establishment during the time the information was required to be
displayed. The request may be provided orally or in writing to the
agricultural employer, and the employer must respond promptly to the
request. The regulatory text for this requirement is available at 40
CFR 170.311(b)(8).
    Lastly, the final rule makes some changes to the content of the
required pesticide application information and when it must be posted,
as explained in Units VII.C. and VII.D. The final regulatory text for
this requirement is available at 40 CFR 170.311(b).
    3. Comments and responses.
    Comments. The overwhelming majority of commenters requested EPA to
keep the existing central display requirement. Many comments from
farmworker advocacy organizations, public health organizations, states,
and some members of Congress noted that they thought it was
unreasonable and unrealistic to think a vulnerable population such as
workers and handlers would request hazard information from their
employers. These commenters cited many reasons for this position,
including barriers (e.g., language differences, concern about
compromising their immigration status, and fear of retribution,
retaliation or job loss) and the power and social dynamics between
employer and employee. These commenters were adamant that workers and
handlers needed ready, anonymous, unhampered access to hazard
information as currently provided through the central display
requirement.
    Most of these commenters supported the inclusion of a designated
representative who could request the hazard information on behalf of a
worker or handler, including farmworker advocacy organizations citing
OSHA's requirements at 29 CFR 1910.1020(e)(1) that establish access to
exposure records for workers in other industries. Comments in support
of including access to hazard information by workers' or handlers'
designated representatives note that workers and handlers may be
reluctant to request the information for themselves due to their
inability to communicate effectively with, or fear of, their employer,
or because they may not be able to understand the information without
help. One comment described a situation where a farmworker advocacy
organization requested such information from an employer on behalf of
two ill workers, but their request was denied because the workers
themselves did not make the request.
    In contrast, there was significant opposition from the agricultural
industry to the proposal for the authorized representative, including
growers, pesticide manufacturers, and their organizations, some states,
and the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy. Comments
from these groups centered on the additional burden on employers to
provide the records. Commenters also expressed concerns that allowing
access to pesticide application information by designated
representatives could be abused by anti-pesticide organizations, who
could send people onto the establishment requesting information
purportedly on behalf of a worker or handler. In addition, some farm
bureau comments stated that the requirement for providing the
information to a representative is a violation of farmer's legal and
privacy rights, stating that the representative could demand all
information related to pesticides on that establishment.
    Some commenters provided recommendations to improve the proposed
requirement for a designated representative. Suggested improvements
included limiting the designated representative requirement to current
workers and handlers or to employees who worked on the establishment
within two years of the request, limiting access to medical personnel
only, or limiting the request to a specific incident. Many commenters
recommended that the request be in written form, and include
designation of the representative by the worker or handler. One state
recommended defining a time frame for provision of the information to
the requester. Another state suggested that the request clearly
identify the information required to be provided to the authorized
representative, and the purpose of the request or intended use of the
information.
    Many of the commenters in favor of keeping the existing central
display requirement explained that a central display requirement that
provides information about general pesticide safety, including symptoms
of pesticide illness, and the specific pesticides used on the
establishment, is necessary to protect the health of workers and
handlers. First, having information available in non-emergency
situations could help workers and handlers be aware of symptoms before
they occur, help them avoid exposure, and possibly enhance the
reporting of illnesses. Secondly, they stated that emergency medical
personnel would not have to lose critical time tracking down
information instead of treating the ill or injured person if they could
rely on accessing the information quickly from the central display.
    EPA also received comments from one pesticide manufacturer
organization, a couple of states and some farm bureaus in favor of the
proposal to eliminate the existing requirement for a central display of
pesticide application information. These commenters agreed with EPA's
observations in the preamble to the proposal that this requirement
imposes a paperwork burden and that states often cite employers for
technical violations of the display requirement. The commenters stated
it is difficult to keep the displayed information current when
application plans change, especially on large establishments. They also
noted the difficulty keeping information legible when it is displayed
at a central location subject to weather conditions. These commenters
encouraged EPA to eliminate the existing central display requirement,
not to finalize the proposed requirement to provide hazard
communication information to workers, handlers, or their designated
representative, and to require employers to only keep records of
pesticide applications on their establishment.
    EPA Response. EPA agrees with those commenters who argued that
workers and handlers must have relatively unhindered access to
pesticide-specific information, and has decided to retain the central
display requirement. Although the extent and type of barriers and
employer-employee dynamics are unique to each situation, EPA recognizes
that a significant number of workers and handlers face disadvantages
that can reasonably be expected to make them hesitant to ask their
employers for information relating to their pesticide exposure.
Consequently, EPA believes that it is not reasonable to make an
employee's task of obtaining this information more difficult,
particularly given the potential usefulness of the information if an