no relevance to a particular handler. Although the final rule continues
to refer to ``labeling'' in this context, it now requires employers to
ensure that for specific applications, handlers have read the portions
of the labeling applicable to the safe use of the pesticide or have
been informed in a manner they understand of all portions of the
labeling applicable to the safe use of the pesticide. Further, EPA has
amended handler training to require that handlers are instructed on
their duty to follow the portions of the labeling applicable to the
safe use of the pesticide, and on the format and meaning of information
contained on pesticide labels and in labeling.
    4. Costs and benefits. Where requirements related to labeling have
imposed a cost, e.g., the requirement for the employer to retain
product labeling, the cost is discussed in the Unit related to the
overall requirement. EPA does not estimate any additional costs with
these requirements.

B. Regulating Other Persons

    1. Current rule and proposal. Some provisions in the existing WPS
provide protections to persons other than

workers and handlers (``other persons''). For example, an existing
requirement on the label and in Sec.  170.210(a) specifies that the
applicator must apply the pesticide in a way that will not contact
workers or other persons. The existing requirement for entry-restricted
areas on nurseries in Sec.  170.110 specifies that an agricultural
employer must not allow or direct any person, other than an
appropriately trained and equipped handler, to enter or remain in the
restricted area. The existing immediate family exemption in Sec.
170.104(a)(2) states that the owner of the agricultural establishment
must provide protections to other workers and other persons who are not
part of his immediate family. The description of closed systems in
Sec.  170.240(d)(4) of the existing rule describes closed systems as
systems that enclose the pesticide to prevent it from contacting
handlers or other persons. Also, the scope and purpose in Sec.  170.1
of the existing rule explains that the WPS is intended, in part, to
reduce the risks of illness or injury resulting from the accidental
exposure of workers and other persons to pesticides.
    The proposed rule included these same protections for persons other
than workers and handlers and added several additional provisions that
would affect ``other persons.'' The proposed requirement for a handler
to cease or suspend application if a worker or other person is in the
treated area or entry-restricted area was intended to supplement the
existing ``do not contact'' requirements, which already protect persons
other than workers or handlers. In addition, EPA proposed to include
``other persons involved in the use of a pesticide to which this part
applies'' in the proposed anti-retaliation provision in Sec.  170.15.
    2. Final rule. The final rule includes the protections and
references to ``other persons'' that were proposed, except that EPA
removed the reference to other persons from the definition of closed
systems. The final rule's prohibition against ``other persons involved
in the use of a pesticide'' retaliating against workers or handlers in
Sec.  170.315 of the final rule is consistent with OSHA's non-
retaliation provision. The other sections that provide protections to
other persons continue existing requirements or supplement existing
requirements and are discussed in detail in Unit IX. and Unit XVII.C.
    3. Comments and responses.
    Comments. Some grower organizations, states and their
organizations, a retailer organization, and a commercial applicator
opposed including protections for ``other persons'' in the WPS. These
commenters argued that the proposal would extend the WPS to persons not
currently covered and would result in an unwarranted expansion of scope
beyond workers, handlers and employee/employer relationships. The
grower, retailer and applicator commenters stated that including
``other persons'' could create the potential for frivolous legal
challenges by anti-chemical activists seeking to prevent pesticide
applications.
    EPA Response. EPA disagrees with the comments on including
protections for ``other persons'' in the WPS. EPA already protects
``other persons'' in addition to workers and handlers in the existing
WPS. EPA notes that anti-chemical activists are not using the current
protections to prevent pesticide applications and the final rule does
not appear significantly more likely to be used in that manner.
    4. Costs and benefits. The final rule generally continues or
supplements existing protections so there are no incremental costs or
benefits to the protections for other persons.

C. Definitions

    1. General
    i. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS provides definitions
for certain terms for use in the rule. In addition to the specific
definitions for the twenty terms listed in 40 CFR 170.3, the WPS
defines the terms ``closed system,'' ``enclosed cab,'' ``entry-
restricted area,'' ``personal protective equipment,'' and ``use'' in
other sections of the rule where those terms are used. EPA proposed to
revise certain existing definitions to provide greater clarity, to add
several new definitions for terms used in the rule, including
definitions for the terms that had previously been defined elsewhere,
and to eliminate two unnecessary existing definitions for
``greenhouse'' and ``forest.''
    ii. Final rule. In the final rule, EPA has adopted the revisions to
the definitions as proposed except for the definitions of the terms
``agricultural establishment,'' ``agricultural plant,'' ``authorized
representative,'' ``closed system,'' ``commercial pesticide handler
employer,'' ``commercial production,'' ``employ,'' ``enclosed space
production,'' ``entry-restricted area,'' ``farm,'' ``forest
operation,'' ``hand labor,'' ``immediate family,'' ''labor contractor''
``outdoor production,'' ''nursery,'' and ``use.'' In the final rule,
EPA has deleted the definitions for the terms ``greenhouse'' and
``forest'' as proposed. EPA has also deleted the existing definitions
for the terms ``farm,'' ``forest operation,'' and ``nursery,'' as well
as the proposed definition for ``commercial production.'' Additionally,
in the final rule EPA has added a new definition for the term
``application exclusion zone.'' The discussions of the existing
definitions and proposal, final rule, comments and EPA response for
these terms are contained in Units XVIII.C.2--XVIII.C.8. The final
regulatory text for these definitions is available at 40 CFR 170.305.
    iii. Comments and responses.
    Comments. EPA received comments on the proposed definitions of the
terms ``authorized representative,'' ``closed system,'' ``enclosed
space production,'' ``entry-restricted area,'' ``hand labor,''
``immediate family,'' ``outdoor production,'' and ``use''. EPA did not
receive any substantive comments opposed to the other proposed
revisions related to definitions. EPA received several general comments
from state, grower and agricultural producer associations that
supported developing improved definitions because it would reduce the
likelihood of alternative interpretations, while improving compliance
and enforceability. Many farmworker advocacy organizations and public
health organizations also supported EPA's proposed revisions to improve
definitions, commenting that it is important to have clear and
understandable language in order to avoid ambiguity.
    During USDA's FIFRA section 25 review of the final rule, USDA
commented that the definition for ``agricultural plant'' depends on the
definition for ``commercial production,'' and the definition for
``commercial production'' depends on the definition for ``agricultural
plant'' (Ref. 15). USDA said similar issues exist in the definitions of
``agricultural establishment'' and ``farm,'' ``forest operation,'' and
``nursery.'' USDA recommended resolving these circular dependencies.
USDA also commented that the proposed definitions of ``employ,''
``labor contractor,'' and ``commercial pesticide handler employer''
contained problematic language that could confusion as to who is
ultimately responsible for providing the handler protections in Subpart
F of the proposed rule.
    EPA Response. EPA agrees that improved definitions will reduce the
likelihood of ambiguity and alternative interpretations, while
improving compliance and enforceability. EPA believes these proposed
revisions to the definitions adopt more widely used and commonly
accepted ``plain English'' language, and will add clarity and
consistency to the rule. The proposed revisions to the definitions will
also

help address regulatory or policy issues with the existing rule raised
by state regulatory partners and other program stakeholders.
    In response to comments from USDA made during their FIFRA section
25 review of the final WPS rule, EPA agrees that the definitions for
``agricultural plant'' and ``commercial production,'' and the
definitions for ``agricultural establishment'' and ``farm,'' ``forest
operation,'' and ``nursery'' are circular (Ref. 15). While EPA is not
convinced that serious confusion would result, EPA has eliminated some
definitions and revised others to address USDA's concern. The terms
``commercial production,'' ``farm,'' ``nursery,'' and ``forest
operation'' appear only in the definition section and are not used
elsewhere in the regulation. Accordingly, EPA has deleted these
definitions and merged their substantive content into the definitions
of ``agricultural establishment'' and ``agricultural plant.'' EPA also
agrees that the current definitions of labor contractor and commercial
pesticide handler employer contain some problematic language that could
result in potential confusion and/or conflict regarding agricultural
employer and commercial pesticide handler employer duties under the
rule. In the final rule, EPA has adopted revised definitions for
``employ,'' ``labor contractor,'' and ``commercial pesticide handler
employer'' to address the potential confusion that could result from
conflicting language in the existing proposed definitions. EPA believes
the revised regulatory text clarifies that CPHEs are responsible for
the handlers they employ and agricultural employers would no longer be
considered employers of CPHE handlers for the purposes of the WPS,
without overlooking the fact that some handlers are hired by
agricultural employers through labor contractors and not CPHEs. A copy
of USDA's comments and EPA's responses is available in the docket for
this rulemaking. (Ref. 15).
    iv. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the proposed changes to the
definitions will not substantially change the cost of the final rule.
    2. Authorized Representative. i. Current rule and proposal. The
existing WPS does not contain a definition for ``authorized
representative.'' EPA proposed to add the term ``authorized
representative'' to the rule and defined it as ``a person designated by
the worker or handler, orally or in writing, to request and obtain any
information that the employer is required to provide upon request to
the worker or handler.''
    ii. Final rule. The rule finalizes the proposed definition with
changes. EPA has retitled the term ``authorized representative'' to
``designated representative'' to better describe the relationship
between the representative and the worker or handler, and the
definition narrows the information that is required to be provided by
the employer to the designated representative. In the final rule,
``designated representative'' means ``any persons designated in writing
by a worker or handler to exercise a right of access on behalf of the
worker or handler to request and obtain a copy of the pesticide
application and hazard information required by Sec.  170.309(h) in
accordance with Sec.  170.311(b) of this part.''
    iii. Comments and responses.
    Comments. EPA received many comments from states, growers,
agricultural associations and pesticide manufacturer associations
objecting to the definition of ``authorized representative.'' Most
commenters objected to the proposed requirement for employers to make
certain pesticide information available to an ``authorized
representative'' of their workers or handlers rather than the actual
definition of authorized representative. Several farm bureau commenters
and grower groups stated that oral designation of the representative
could result in abuse, and would be unenforceable. One comment from a
farmworker advocacy organization stated that EPA should keep the
definition for authorized representative and clarify the range of
representatives that could legitimately be asked to receive information
on behalf of a worker or handler (e.g., medical care provider, legal
advocate, family member, etc.).
    EPA Response. EPA has been convinced by comments that designation
of the representative must be in written form to protect employers from
fraudulent claims. A written request that identifies the worker or
handler can be verified against employment records, and information
about the dates of their employ can be used to narrow the information
needed to be provided. The final rule requires employers to respond to
written requests.
    EPA disagrees with the recommendation to limit the definition to
certain persons that could be asked to request the information on
behalf of the worker or handler. EPA believes that specifying classes
of persons permitted to serve as designated representative would
unnecessarily limit worker and handler access to needed information.
The final rule requires employers to respond to such requests within 15
days. However, to ensure that medical personnel treating a worker or
handler have timely access to information necessary for purposes of
diagnosis or treatment, EPA has included a separate requirement for
employers to promptly provide the information to treating medical
personnel or those working under their direction, at 170.311(b)(8).
    iv. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates that including the definition
of authorized representative will not change the cost of the final
rule. Costs associated with the requirement for employers to respond to
written requests for pesticide application and hazard information are
included in the discussion in Unit VII.A.
    3. Closed System. i. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS
defines the term ``closed system'' as ``a system that encloses the
pesticide to prevent it from contacting handlers or other persons.''
EPA proposed to move the definition of closed system to the definition
section of the rule and to redefine a closed system as ``a system for
mixing or loading pesticides that encloses the pesticide during removal
of the pesticide from its original container and transfer, mixing, or
loading of the pesticide product, mixtures or dilutions, and any rinse
solution, if applicable, into a new container or application equipment,
in such a manner that prevents the pesticide and any pesticide mixture
or use dilution from contacting handlers or other persons before,
during and after the transfer, except for negligible release associated
with normal operation of the system.''
    ii. Final rule. In the final rule, EPA has defined ``closed
system'' as ``an engineering control used to protect handlers from
pesticide exposure hazards when mixing and loading pesticides.'' The
final regulatory text for this definition is available at 40 CFR
170.305.
    iii. Comments and responses.
    Comments. EPA did not receive any specific comments on the
definition of closed system. However, EPA received a number of comments
related to EPA's proposal on closed systems that indicated the proposed
requirements may be too prescriptive or limiting, could eliminate
desired flexibility for growers, and could discourage innovation and
the adoption of closed systems.
    EPA Response. EPA agreed with the comments that the proposed
requirements related to closed systems may be too prescriptive or
limiting, could eliminate desired flexibility for growers, and could
discourage

innovation and the adoption of closed systems. Although the comments
did not specifically mention the closed system definition, EPA
reconsidered the proposed definition of closed system in light of the
overall comments on closed system requirements. EPA believes that a
broader definition of ``closed system'' will encourage industry
innovation better than the proposed prescriptive definition, and will
retain flexibility for handler employers to design systems specific to
their needs. In the final rule, EPA has adopted a new definition of
closed system that more accurately defines the nature and intent of a
closed system without inadvertently prescribing specific requirements
and operational components for such closed systems.
    iv. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates that revising the definition
of closed system will not change the cost of the final rule.
    4. Enclosed space production and outdoor production. i. Current
rule and proposal. The existing WPS does not contain definitions for
the terms ``enclosed space production'' or ``outdoor production.''
Instead, the existing WPS defines the term ``greenhouse'' to describe
the type of WPS-covered agricultural establishments that produce
agricultural plants inside enclosed structures. The existing rule uses
the terms ``farm,'' ``forest'' and ``nursery'' for WPS-covered
agricultural establishments that produce agricultural plants outdoors.
Greenhouse is defined in the existing WPS as ``any operation engaged in
the production of agricultural plants inside any structure or space
that is enclosed with nonporous covering and that is of sufficient size
to permit worker entry. This term includes, but is not limited to,
polyhouses, mushroom houses, rhubarb houses, and similar structures. It
does not include such structures as malls, atriums, conservatories,
arboretums, or office buildings where agricultural plants are present
primarily for aesthetic or climatic modification.'' EPA proposed to
delete the definition of ``greenhouse'' because it would no longer be
necessary as a result of the proposed addition of a new definition for
``enclosed space production.'' EPA proposed to define enclosed space
production as ``production of an agricultural plant in a structure or
space that is covered in whole or in part and that is large enough to
permit a person to enter.'' EPA also proposed to add a new definition
for the term ``outdoor production'' and defined it as ``production of
an agricultural plant in an outside open space or area that is not
enclosed or covered in any way.''
    ii. Final rule. In the final rule, EPA has deleted the definition
of the term ``greenhouse'' as proposed, and has adopted the definitions
for ``enclosed space production'' and ``outdoor production'' with
modifications. The final rule defines ``enclosed space production'' as
``production of an agricultural plant indoors or in a structure or
space that is covered in whole or in part by any nonporous covering and
that is large enough to permit a person to enter,'' and defines
``outdoor production'' as ``production of an agricultural plant in an
outside area that is not enclosed or covered in any way that would
obstruct the natural air flow.'' The final regulatory text for these
definitions is available at 40 CFR 170.305.
    iii. Comments and responses.
    Comments. EPA received several comments from states and their
organizations opposing the definition of ``enclosed space production''
as written. A few other commenters also expressed concerns with the
definition of ``outdoor production.'' A state association noted that
the proposed definition could greatly expand areas covered under
certain entry restrictions to include any covered area such as fields
or groves with shade covers and/or screen houses. The commenter
expressed concerns that entry restrictions currently applicable to
greenhouses would be extended to these establishments, and is not aware
of any need for such an extension of these restrictions. States
generally echoed these comments. One state requested clarification of
whether the term ``spaces covered in part'' includes structures such as
``hoop houses,'' and another state noted that the proposed rule did not
define or reference high tunnels and requested clarification of whether
``high tunnels'' are considered a greenhouse for the purposes of WPS
(i.e., would ``high tunnels'' be considered a type of enclosed space
production?). One state commented that the proposed definition expands
areas covered under certain entry restrictions to include shade houses
and screen houses and this would have a major impact in on the state's
nursery industry. Another state also expressed concerns that the
proposed definition of enclosed space production would expand
restrictions beyond greenhouses, and suggested that EPA add the phase
``where the production of agricultural plants for research or
commercial purposes occurs'' to the definitions of enclosed space
production and outdoor production so that only those operations engaged
in the production of agricultural plants for commercial purposes would
be covered by the WPS. Another state commented that the term ``outdoor
production'' is too broad and by misinterpretation, could encompass a
number of non-farm activities.
    During USDA's FIFRA section 25 review of the final rule, USDA
commented that the inclusion of the term ``natural forest'' in the
definition of ``outdoor production'' creates confusion since there is
no explanation of what the term ``natural forest'' means and therefore
the term is not needed (Ref. 15).
    EPA Response. EPA considered the comments submitted and agrees with
the comments that said the proposed definition of ``enclosed space
production'' could expand areas covered under certain entry
restrictions to include any covered area such as fields or groves with
porous shade covers and/or screen houses where such restrictions are
not necessary. EPA noted the potential impact of the proposed
definition on the nursery industry as raised by commenters. EPA also
agrees that the proposed definition of ``outdoor production'' could
lead to some outdoor production being considered enclosed space
production because of the phrase ``that is not enclosed or covered in
any way.'' EPA is convinced that the definition of enclosed space
production and outdoor production should be revised so that operations
that use non-porous coverings in their plant production operations,
such as screen houses and shade houses, are not covered by the entry
restrictions deemed necessary for the protection of workers and
handlers that are working with pesticides or in pesticide treated areas
in enclosed space production operations. Therefore, EPA revised the
definitions of enclosed space production and outdoor production to
clarify that enclosed space production only includes areas covered in
whole or in part ``by any nonporous covering,'' rather than ``any
covering'' as in the proposed definition; and that outdoor production
will include areas that are covered only with coverings that are
sufficiently porous that they do not obstruct the natural air flow
typical of open fields or forests. It is intended that these
definitions of enclosed space production and outdoor production be
complementary, such that all production agriculture is either enclosed
space production or outdoor production.
    EPA does not agree with the request to add the phrase ``where the
production of agricultural plants for research or commercial purposes
occurs'' to the definitions of enclosed space production and outdoor

production so that only those operations engaged in the production of
agricultural plants for commercial purposes would be covered by the
WPS. EPA believes other definitions and language in the rule already
clearly limit the scope of the WPS to establishments where the
production of agricultural plants for research or commercial purposes
occurs, so the addition of such language to these definitions would be
redundant and would not serve to further limit the scope of the rule in
any way not already accomplished through other means.
    Some commenters requested clarification of whether structures such
as ``hoop houses,'' and ``high tunnels'' are considered a type of
enclosed space production. The term ``greenhouse'' in the WPS has
resulted in enforcement problems, because of the extreme variability in
the types of structures that might be considered greenhouses. This
problem is compounded when considering the many greenhouse-type
structures (e.g., polyhouses, mushroom houses, hoop houses, high
tunnels and similar structures) that have come into use. This is why
EPA has replaced the term greenhouse with enclosed space production.
EPA believes the new terms correspond more accurately to the nature of
the risk that EPA is concerned about mitigating (i.e., use of
pesticides in enclosed spaces that could affect pesticide inhalation
exposure potential). Therefore, if a structure or space is covered in
whole or in part by any nonporous covering and is large enough to
permit a person to enter, then the structure or space would fall under
the definition of enclosed space production in the final rule. EPA
anticipates that most greenhouses, hoop houses, high tunnels and
similar structures will fall within the definition of enclosed space
production, but a final determination will be made on a case-by-case
basis applying the parameters of the definition to each situation.
    EPA agrees with USDA that the inclusion of the term ``natural
forest'' in the definition of ``outdoor production'' creates confusion
and is not needed. In response, EPA has revised the final definition of
outdoor production accordingly (Ref. 15).
    iv. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates adding and changing the
definition of enclosed space production and outdoor production will not
substantially change the cost of the final rule.
    5. Entry-restricted area and application exclusion zone. i. Current
rule and proposal. The existing WPS does not contain a definition for
the terms ``entry-restricted area'' or ``application exclusion zone.''
Under the existing rule, the term ``entry-restricted area'' is used to
refer to areas on an establishment from which workers and other persons
must be excluded during, and/or immediately after, an ongoing pesticide
application to protect the workers or other persons from being
contacted by the pesticide (either directly or through drift). EPA
proposed to define the term ``entry-restricted area'' as ``the area
from which workers or other persons must be excluded during and after
the pesticide application.''
    ii. Final rule. In the final rule, EPA has added the term
``application exclusion zone'' instead of the proposed term ``entry-
restricted area.'' EPA has defined the term ``application exclusion
zone'' as ``the area surrounding the application equipment which must
be free of all persons, other than appropriately trained and equipped
handlers, during pesticide applications.'' The final regulatory text
for this definition is available at 40 CFR 170.305.
    iii. Comments and responses.
    Comments. EPA received several comments from states regarding the
term ``entry-restricted area.'' One commenter said the term was
linguistically awkward and said EPA should instead use the term
``restricted area buffer.''
    EPA Response. EPA considered the comments submitted and agrees with
the comments that the term ``entry-restricted area'' was not clear and
would be likely to cause confusion. In the final rule, EPA has
eliminated the use of that term and has therefore deleted the proposed
definition. The final rule adopts the term ``application exclusion
zone'' to refer to the area from which persons must be excluded during
applications. See Unit IX. for EPA's response to the comments on the
WPS requirements related to entry-restricted areas.
    iv. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates that not including the
proposed definition of the term ``entry-restricted area'' in the final
rule and adding the new definition for ``application exclusion zone''
will not substantially change the cost of the final rule.
    6. Hand labor. i. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS
defines hand labor as ``any agricultural activity performed by hand or
with hand tools that causes a worker to have substantial contact with
surfaces (such as plants, plant parts, or soil) that may contain
pesticide residues. These activities include, but are not limited to,
harvesting, detasseling, thinning, weeding, topping, planting, sucker
removal, pruning, disbudding, roguing, and packing produce into
containers in the field. Hand labor does not include operating, moving,
or repairing irrigation or watering equipment or performing the tasks
of crop advisors.'' In the proposal, EPA intended to revise the
definition by deleting the following sentence from the existing
definition, ``These activities include, but are not limited to,
harvesting, detasseling, thinning, weeding, topping, planting, sucker
removal, pruning, disbudding, roguing, and packing produce into
containers in the field.'' In the proposed regulatory text for the
definition of term ``hand labor,'' EPA inadvertently deleted the phrase
``except that hand labor does not include operating, moving, or
repairing irrigation or watering equipment or performing crop advisor
tasks'' from the end of the definition. The erroneously proposed
definition for the term ``hand labor'' was ``any agricultural activity
performed by hand or with hand tools that cause a worker to have
substantial contact with plants, plant parts, or soil and other
surfaces that may contain pesticide residues.''
    ii. Final rule. EPA has corrected the unintentional omission from
the proposed definition of ``hand labor.'' The final rule defines
``hand labor'' as ``any agricultural activity performed by hand or with
hand tools that cause a worker to have substantial contact with plants,
plant parts, or soil and other surfaces that may contain pesticide
residues, except that hand labor does not include operating, moving, or
repairing irrigation or watering equipment or performing crop advisor
tasks.'' The final regulatory text for this definition is available at
40 CFR 170.305 for the final regulatory language for definitions.
    iii. Comments and responses.
    Comments. One commenter objected to the proposed change to the
definition of hand labor that deleted the phrase ``except that hand
labor does not include operating, moving, or repairing irrigation or
watering equipment or performing crop advisor tasks'' from the end of
the definition. The commenter indicated that removing this exception
from the definition of hand labor would make the irrigation exception
for early entry unworkable and would disrupt irrigation operations.
    EPA Response. EPA agrees with the comment on the definition of
``hand labor.'' In the final, rule EPA has deleted the sentence listing
hand labor activities as proposed, but has retained the clause
excluding ``operating, moving, or repairing irrigation or watering
equipment or performing crop advisor

tasks'' from being considered hand labor tasks.
    iv. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates that revising the definition
of hand labor will not change the cost of the final rule.
    7. Immediate Family. See Unit XVII.A. for a complete discussion of
EPA's consideration of the definition of ``immediate family'' in
conjunction with the exemption from certain provisions of the WPS for
owners and members of their immediate families.
    8. Use. i. Existing definitions and proposal. The existing WPS
provides a definition of the term ``use'' (as in ``to use any
registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling'') for
the purposes of the rule at 40 CFR 170.9, ``Violations of this part.''
For the purposes of the WPS, EPA has interpreted the term ``use'' to
cover a broad range of pesticide-related activities that are listed at
40 CFR 170.9. EPA proposed to move the existing definition for ``use''
found at 40 CFR 170.9 into the definitions section of the rule.
    ii. Final rule. In the final rule, EPA has adopted the definition
for ``use'' as proposed. The final regulatory text for this definition
is available at 40 CFR 170.305.
    iii. Comments and responses.
    Comments. EPA received several comments from states, growers,
agricultural associations and pesticide manufacturer associations
objecting to the proposed definition of ``use.'' Most commenters
objected to the definition of use because they did not support
inclusion of ``arranging for application of the pesticide'' as part of
the definition of ``use.'' Some commenters said they believed that this
language would greatly expand the scope of the WPS and would be
unreasonable and unnecessary. Some commenters noted that they could not
see how ``arranging for application of the pesticide'' could be
considered use. During its review of the draft final rule under FIFRA
section 25(a), USDA noted that the term ``arranging for the application
of the pesticide'' as part of the definition of the term ``use'' could
lead to persons that call on or answer the telephone and ``arrange''
for pest management by scheduling the appointment on behalf of another
to be covered by the rule and possibly have WPS responsibilities.
    EPA Response. EPA disagrees with comments that say the proposed
definition for the term ``use'' could or will expand the scope of the
WPS because this interpretation has been in the WPS since the rule
first became effective. Moreover, EPA has not been made aware of any
instances where this interpretation of ``use'' has resulted in an
unreasonable or inappropriate outcome. EPA believes that ``arranging
for application of the pesticide'' is appropriately part of the
definition of ``use'' for the purposes of the WPS because in production
agriculture, the individual who physically ``uses'' a pesticide almost
always does so at the direction of another person who has substantially
greater control over the circumstances of the use. Thus the WPS is
designed so that when an agricultural or handler employer arranges for
the application of a pesticide by a handler employee, it triggers
certain WPS duties that are properly the responsibility of the
agricultural or handler employer. For instance, once the agricultural
employer arranges for a pesticide application by a commercial pesticide
handling establishment, the commercial pesticide handler employer must
provide the agricultural employer with certain information about the
intended application before the application takes place (so the
employer will be able to fulfill WPS notification requirements and
protect workers during application, etc.). In such circumstances, it is
reasonable and appropriate that the handler employer should be held
responsible for the pre-application information exchange even though
the application has not commenced and even though the handler employer
personally never physically ``uses'' the pesticide.
    EPA interprets ``arranging for application of the pesticide'' as
used in Sec.  170.9(a) and Sec.  170.305 as a means of assuring that
the entities (generally the agricultural employer or handler employer)
with the most authority and control over WPS compliance would be
legally responsible for WPS compliance. EPA does not interpret
``arranging for application of the pesticide'' as making subordinate
persons who merely perform the clerical functions of arranging for
application of the pesticide liable for WPS compliance. Therefore,
since EPA has not been made aware of any instances where the existing
interpretation of the term use has resulted in any problems for
growers, states or the agricultural industry, EPA has moved the
definition for the term ``use'' into the definitions section of the
rule without any change from the proposal.
    iv. Costs and benefits. Moving the definition of use will not
change the cost of the final rule.

D. Restructuring 40 CFR Part 170

    1. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS is organized into
three subparts: ``General Provisions,'' ``Standard for Workers,'' and
``Standard for Handlers.'' Content that applies to both workers and
handlers is repeated creating redundancy throughout the rule.
    EPA discussed renaming the regulation ``Requirements for Protection
of Agricultural Workers and Pesticide Handlers'' in the preamble of the
proposal and proposed reorganizing the rule into four subparts:
``General Provisions,'' ``Requirements for Protection of Agricultural
Workers,'' ``Requirements for Protection of Pesticide Handlers,'' and
``Exemptions and Exceptions.'' EPA proposed creating the ``General
Provisions'' subpart to describe certain obligations for agricultural
employers, handler employers, and those requirements that apply to
both. The proposal included subparts ``Requirements for Protection of
Agricultural Workers'' and ``Requirements for Protection of Pesticide
Handlers'' to provide information that supplements the general duties
and obligations for employers and to outline the content of the
training and decontamination supplies that the employer must provide
for workers and handlers respectively. EPA proposed to consolidate most
of the exceptions and exemptions into a separate subpart titled
``Exemptions and Exceptions'' to make them easier to find and
reference.
    2. Final Rule. In the final rule, EPA has retained the existing
name of the regulation, ``Worker Protection Standard,'' and has adopted
the proposed restructuring of the rule with minor modifications.
    EPA has determined that it is appropriate to allow one year for
employers, trainers, and state and tribal regulators to prepare for the
changes to the WPS. See Unit XIX. In order to allow the existing WPS to
remain in effect for one year and to make available the revised
regulatory language in advance of the implementation date, both the
existing WPS and the revised WPS must appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations. Thus the final rule provides that Subparts A, B and C of
part 170 will remain in effect until one year after the effective date
of this final rule. Subparts D, E, F and G of part 170 contain the full
text of the revised WPS; however, these subparts will not be
implemented until one year after the effective date of this final rule.
Some provisions of subparts D, E, F and G, such as pesticide safety
training and the pesticide information display, will not be implemented
until two years after the effective date of this final rule. One year
after the effective date of this final rule, subparts A, B and C will
no longer be effective. At that time, EPA intends to

delete subparts A, B and C from part 170.
    In addition to finalizing the proposed structuring of the rule, EPA
has added a new section providing a process for allowing states and
tribes to request equivalency determinations from EPA for existing
state or tribal laws or regulations that may provide protections
equivalent to the WPS. EPA has added this to a retitled subpart:
``Exemptions, Exceptions and Equivalency.''
    3. Comments and responses.
    Comments. EPA did not receive any comments opposed to the proposal
to restructure the WPS. One commenter noted that the proposed
restructuring of the rule increased the clarity of the rule and the
relationship among the components. Another commenter asserted that
there was no need to change the name of the regulation, and noted that
if EPA was going to change the name of the rule, it should more
accurately represent the full scope of the rule and the impacted
establishments.
    EPA Response. EPA agrees with the comment that it is unnecessary to
change the name of the rule. ``Worker Protection Standard'' and the
abbreviation WPS are commonly used and associated with the rule. Upon
further consideration, EPA agrees that the existing name of the rule is
very widely recognized and that it will facilitate more effective
communications on the rule to retain the current name of the rule.
    EPA also agrees with the commenter that the proposed restructuring
of the rule increases the clarity of the rule and the relationship
among the components. EPA is adopting the proposed restructuring of the
WPS in the final rule with the minor modifications noted. EPA expects
the revised part 170 will be easier to read and understand, thereby
improving compliance by worker and handler employers.
    4. Costs and benefits. EPA does not estimate any costs associated
with the restructuring of the rule. The benefits of the restructuring
will be increased clarity and understanding of the rule which should
result in improved compliance and more consistent enforcement.

E. Equivalency Provisions

    1. Current rule and proposal. The current WPS does not contain
equivalency provisions that would permit EPA to potentially recognize,
through a WPS-established regulatory mechanism, state or tribal worker
protection laws and/or regulations that may provide equivalent or
significantly greater protection in comparison to the provisions of the
existing WPS, or provide equivalent protection at a significantly lower
cost. EPA did not propose to add equivalency provisions to the rule
because it did not receive information from states or tribes that such
provisions were necessary, and had not been informed by growers that
WPS requirements conflicted with existing state or tribal worker
protection laws or regulations.
    2. Final rule. In the final rule, EPA has included a section on
equivalency because of comments received that indicate provisions may
be needed to address certain issues with the WPS potentially
conflicting with existing state and tribal worker protection laws or
regulations. EPA recognizes that some states and tribes have existing
worker protection provisions in their own laws and regulations that may
be equivalent to the provisions of the existing WPS, that may provide
significantly greater protection, or may provide equivalent protection
at a significantly lower cost, and decided it would be more practical
and efficient to establish a mechanism to evaluate specific state or
tribal requirements and to make equivalency determinations rather than
relying on other EPA enforcement mechanisms or policies to be able to
allow such determinations. The final regulatory text for this
requirement is available at 40 CFR 170.609.
    3. Comments and responses.
    Comments. Although EPA did not propose equivalency provisions, EPA
received comments from the California Department of Pesticide
Regulation (CDPR) that indicated it would be beneficial if states could
be granted `equivalency' as was done for the current WPS. The CDPR
comment refers to an independent enforcement discretion decision that
was granted under the current WPS to recognize CDPR's requirement for
the content of their field posting sign to be equivalent to the
existing requirement at 40 CFR 170.120. Comments from some other state
pesticide regulatory agencies indicate there may be issues of
equivalency between their regulations and the final WPS requirements.
Although these commenters did not specifically raise the need for
equivalency provision, they indicated a need for EPA to be aware of the
issue and potentially identify solutions.
    EPA Response. Based on the comments received and EPA's experience
with the current WPS and requests from CDPR for equivalency on certain
regulatory requirements, EPA agrees that there are potential situations
where states or tribes may request EPA to consider equivalency under
the WPS for their laws or regulations. Therefore, EPA believes it is
prudent to consider an equivalency process under the WPS, and feels
strongly that it is more efficient and advantageous to establish a
mechanism for considering equivalency in the WPS rule rather than
relying on other mechanisms. EPA has provided a general equivalency
process in the rule that is modeled on the provisions that were
developed and implemented for substantially the same reason and purpose
under the pesticide containment regulations in 40 CFR 165.97. (71 FR
47330, August 16, 2006).
    4. Costs and benefits. EPA does not estimate any costs associated
with adding the equivalency provisions to the rule. The benefits of
allowing equivalency under the provisions being included in the final
rule will be that EPA will be able to more easily consider and permit
equivalency for some states that have provisions in their own laws and
regulations equivalent to the provisions of the WPS or that may provide
significantly greater protections or equivalent protection at a lower
cost.

F. Clarifications

    1. Scope and Purpose. In the final rule, EPA has clarified who the
rule protects and that agricultural and commercial pesticide handler
employers are responsible for carrying out the requirements of the
rule. EPA has also clarified that handlers have responsibilities under
the rule to protect workers and other persons during pesticide
applications. Refer to 40 CFR 170.301 for the revised language.
    2. Applicability. In the final rule, EPA has clarified in 40 CFR
170.303(c) that users must comply with product labeling requirements
where the labeling requirements differ from the rule, except as
provided in 40 CFR 170.601, 170.603, and 170.607, where the WPS
provides exceptions to label-required PPE and REIs.
    3. Prohibited Actions. In the proposed rule EPA proposed
modifications to the retaliation provisions of the rule to clarify the
actions that are prohibited under the rule. In the final rule EPA has
further modified the retaliation provisions based on comments provided
from DOL on how EPA could improve its retaliation provisions by
modeling it after language used in similar provisions in DOL
regulations. Moreover, we note that this rule does not preempt the
general anti-retaliation provision in the DOL-administered Occupational
Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. 660(c). Refer to 40 CFR 170.315 for
the regulatory text.

XIX. Implementation

A. Proposal

    EPA proposed to make the final rule effective 60 days after the
date of publication in the Federal Register; however, compliance with
certain provisions, including the additional content of pesticide
safety training and pesticide safety information, and new signs for
posting, would not be required until 2 years after the effective date
of the final rule. EPA proposed the 2-year delay between effective date
of the final rule and the implementation date to allow time for new
training materials to be developed and made available, and to give
employers, trainers, and other affected stakeholders time to make the
necessary changes to their practices and operations to comply with the
new training and pesticide safety information requirements. EPA also
linked the implementation date for the revised pesticide safety
training requirements for workers and handlers to the availability of
new revised training materials that satisfy the new rule requirements.
Under the proposal, if EPA announced the availability of such materials
sooner than 18 months after the effective date of the final rule, then
the new training requirements would go into effect 2 years after the
effective date of the final rule. If EPA announced the availability of
materials that comply with the requirements more than 18 months after
the effective date of the final rule, then the new training
requirements would not take effect until 180 days after the
announcement of availability of complying training materials published
in the Federal Register.

B. Final Rule

    EPA has included in the final rule a one-year delay from the
effective date of the final rule before employers must comply with any
of the new WPS requirements. Thus, on January 2, 2017, employers will
be required to comply with almost all of the new and revised WPS
requirements. However, employers will not be required to comply with
certain new WPS provisions until two years after the effective date of
the final rule. This two year delay applies to the new requirements for
pesticide safety training for workers and handlers, pesticide safety
information and handlers to suspend applications when workers or other
persons are in the application exclusion zone. As proposed, the final
rule provides that compliance with certain new training requirements
will not be required until the later of two years after the effective
date of the final rule, or 180 days after EPA publishes in the Federal
Register a notice of availability of new revised training materials
that satisfy the new rule requirements.
    The final regulatory text for these provisions is available at 40
CFR 170.2, 170.311(a)(3), 170.401(c)(3), 170.501(c)(3) and 170.505(b).

C. Comments and Responses

    Comments. Most comments that addressed implementation focused on
three main areas: (1) The need for better and more effective
enforcement of the revised rule once the new requirements are
effective; (2) the need for appropriate supporting communication,
education, training and compliance assistance materials to facilitate
effective implementation; and (3) the need for additional time before
the final rule becomes effective to give regulators and the regulated
community time to prepare for compliance with new requirements.
    Many comments from states, pesticide safety educators, trainers,
grower associations and pesticide manufacturer associations pointed out
a need for appropriate training and compliance assistance materials to
support effective implementation. Commenters indicated that it was
essential for EPA to have updated communications and compliance
assistance materials, such as fact sheets and the ``WPS How to Comply''
manual, developed and available to all affected parties in order for
the regulated community to be able to learn and understand new
requirements. Several states, grower associations and pesticide
manufacturer associations commented that EPA should provide more time
before the new rule requirements become effective so that regulators
and the regulated community can more adequately prepare for compliance
with new requirements. However, several farmworker advocacy
organizations urged EPA to implement the proposed training requirements
for workers and handlers sooner than the proposal of 2 years from the
effective date of the final rule.
    EPA Response. EPA considered the comments submitted and agrees that
after publication of the final rule, some time is needed before the new
WPS requirements are implemented. EPA understands that State, tribal
and federal regulators need time to become familiar with the new
regulation, provide training to pesticide inspectors, develop the
capacity for enforcing the new rule requirements, establish appropriate
WPS inspection and enforcement policies, and conduct outreach to the
regulated and protected communities. In addition, agricultural
employers will need time to become familiar with the new requirements
and implement any necessary changes. In the final rule, EPA has delayed
the implementation of the new WPS requirements for one year so that EPA
can work with state and tribal pesticide regulators and the regulated
community to better prepare for compliance with new rule requirements.
The existing rule will remain in effect and be enforced during this
time, as provided in 40 CFR 170.2.
    EPA disagrees with comments that the compliance dates for the new
worker and handler training requirements should be implemented sooner
than 2 years from the effective date of the final rule as outlined in
the proposal. EPA believes that up to 18 months could be needed in
order to develop and disseminate new, high quality, multi-lingual
worker and handler training materials in multimedia formats that comply
with the new requirements. Additionally trainers will have to obtain
the new training materials, become familiar with the new training
content and ensure that they continue to meet any eligibility
requirements to train. Therefore, EPA has decided to retain the
proposed requirement to delay the new training requirements for 2 years
from the effective date of the final rule (or 180 days after the
announcement that training materials are available, whichever is later)
to allow adequate time for development and widespread distribution of
the materials to trainers and employers. While EPA agrees that it is
important for workers and handlers to have the new safety training
information as soon as possible, time will be needed to create and
distribute new training materials and to allow existing trainers to
familiarize themselves with those new materials. In order to maximize
compliance with the final rule, and in the interests of consistency and
efficiency, EPA intends to develop and make available suitable training
materials. EPA intends to have new training materials developed and
disseminated as soon as practical and will encourage employers to begin
using the new materials as soon as they become available so that many
workers and handlers will begin receiving the benefits of the new
training before the required date.
    EPA is committed to a robust outreach, communications and training
effort to communicate the new rule requirements to affected WPS
stakeholders. To facilitate implementation, EPA plans to issue plain
language ``how to comply'' fact sheets and guidance materials once the

final rule is published. EPA plans to develop compliance assistance
materials that are targeted to specific agricultural sectors and rule
requirements such as respirator requirements or the WPS exemptions and
exceptions. EPA also intends to develop and disseminate new worker and
handler training materials, conduct outreach to potentially affected
parties, and provide assistance and resources to States and Tribes for
WPS implementation. EPA plans to hold Pesticide Regulatory Education
Program courses for State and Tribal pesticide program staff that will
focus on WPS implementation, and Pesticide Inspector Residential
Training courses for State and Tribal pesticide inspectors that will
focus on WPS inspection requirements.

D. Costs and Benefits

    The discussion of the overall expected costs and benefits for
implementation are discussed in Unit II.C. EPA believes that delaying
the dates for compliance with the final rule for one year after the
effective date will allow regulators and the regulated community to
better prepare for compliance with the rule while delaying immediate
costs and allowing time for employers to explore ways to minimize
implementation costs.

XX. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even
if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. EPA. Economic Analysis of the Agricultural Worker Protection
Standard Revisions. Washington, DC 2015.
2. EPA. Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard
Revisions; Proposed Rule. Federal Register (79 FR 15444, March 19,
2014) (FRL-9395-8).
3. EPA. Final Report: Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on EPA
Planned Revisions to Two Related Rules: Worker Protection Standard
for Agricultural Pesticides (RIN 2070-AJ22); and Certification of
Pesticide Applicators (RIN 2070-AJ20). November 3, 2008.
4. EPA. Response to Comments on Proposed Changes to the Worker
Protection Standard. 2015.
5. U.S. Senate. S. Rep. No. 92-883 (Part II), 92nd Congress, 2nd
Session at 43-46 (1972). U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative
News 1972, p. 4063.
6. DOL. 2011-2012 NAWS data--public set. http://www.doleta.gov/agworker/naws.cfm#d-files. Retrieved April 24 2015.
7. USDA Economic Research Service. Kandel, W. Profile of Hired
Farmworkers, A 2008 Update. Economic Research Report No. 60. U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. 2008.
8. EPA. Worker Protection Standard: A Summary of the Public's
Comments and the Agency's Response. 1992.
9. Burke, L., Hutchins, H. ``A Study of Best Practices in Training
Transfer and Proposed Model of Transfer.'' Human Resource
Development Quarterly. Vol. 19 no. 2, Summer 2008.
10. Calvert, et al, 2008. ``Acute pesticide poisoning among
agricultural workers in the United States, 1998-2005.''American J
Ind Med 51, no. 12: 883-898. December 2008.
11. Kasner, et al. ``Gender differences in acute pesticide-related
illnesses and injuries among farmworkers in the United States, 1998-
2007. American J Ind Med 55, no. 7: 571-583. July 2012. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajim.22052/full. Retrieved April
24, 2015.
12. Lee, S-J, Mehler, L, Beckman, J, Diebolt-Brown, B, Prado, J,
Lackovic, M, et al. ``Acute Pesticide Illnesses Associated with Off-
Target Pesticide Drift from Agricultural Applications.'' Environ
Health Perspect 119:1162-1169. 2011.
13. EPA. Response to ``Pesticides in the Air--Kids at Risk: Petition
to Protect Children from Pesticide Drift (2009).'' 2014.
14. EPA. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Agricultural Worker
Protection Standard Revisions. Washington, DC 2014.
15. EPA. USDA Comments on the Draft Final Agricultural Worker
Protection Standard Revision Rule and EPA Responses. 2015.
16. EPA. Pesticides; Procedural Regulations for Registration Review;
Final Rule. Federal Register (71 FR 45720, August 9, 2006) (FRL-
8080-4).
17. OSHA. Hazard Communication; Final Rule. Federal Register (77 FR
17574, March 26, 2012).
18. EPA. Worker Protection Standards for Agricultural Pesticides;
Proposed Rule. Federal Register (53 FR 25970, July 8, 1988) (FRL
3314-4).
19. OSHA. Hazard Communications Standard; Proposed Rule. Federal
Register (53 FR 29822, August 8, 1988).
20. EPA. Worker Protection Standard; Hazard Information; Proposed
Rule. Federal Register (57 FR 38167, August 21, 1992) (FRL-3793-1).
21. EPA. Pesticides; Final Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on
Web-Distributed Labeling; Notice of Availability. Federal Register
(79 FR 18908, April 4, 2014) (FRL-9905-60).
22. EPA. Pesticide Management and Disposal; Standards for Pesticide
Containers and Containment; Final Rule. Federal Register (71 FR
47330, August 16, 2006) (FRL-8076-2).
23. EPA. Information Collection Request Supporting Statement:
Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Training and Notification
(Final Rule). EPA ICR No. 2491.02 and OMB Control No. 2070-0190.
2015.

XXI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review; and,
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is a significant regulatory action because it may raise
novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Accordingly, EPA submitted the
action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under
Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January
21, 2011), and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have
been documented in the docket. EPA prepared an economic analysis of the
potential costs and benefits associated with this action, which is
available in the docket and summarized in Unit II.C. (Ref. 1).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this final rule have been
submitted to OMB for approval under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has
been assigned EPA ICR number 2491.02 and OMB Control No. 2070-0190
(Ref. 23). You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule,
and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection
requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The information collection activities related to the existing
Worker Protection Standard are already approved by OMB in an ICR titled
``Worker Protection Standard Training and Notification'' (EPA ICR No.
1759; OMB Control No. 2070-0148). The final rule ICR addresses
adjustments to the estimated number of respondents, time for
activities, and wage rates related to the current regulatory
requirements as approved under OMB Control No. 2070-0148. In addition,
the final rule ICR addresses program changes related to the amendments,
including modifications to restrictions in field entry activities
during REIs; increased hazard communications; increased training (for
both workers and handlers); provisions for information during emergency
assistance; and recordkeeping for respirator and training requirements.
    Respondents/affected entities: Agricultural establishments. The
number of agricultural establishments is based on the 2012 Census of
Agriculture data, special tabulation, by the USDA

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Based on that
information, there are about 870,000 crop producing establishments
covered by the rule.
    Commercial pesticide handling establishments. Based on information
from Hoover's Dun and Bradstreet, EPA estimates there are about 2,000
commercial pesticide handling establishments. Based on EPA's data on
certified applicators, there are more than 40,000 commercial
applicators in plant agriculture.
    Agricultural workers and handlers. EPA estimates that there are
about 1.9 million workers, based on the 2012 Census of Agriculture
data, special tabulation, by USDA's NASS.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (7 U.S.C. 136-136y,
particularly section 136w(a)).
    Estimated number of respondents: 985,000.
    Frequency of response: Rule familiarization will occur annually for
the first 3 years. Training of workers and handlers will occur
annually. Posting of the hazard communications information will occur,
on average, 20 times a year. Recordkeeping of training will occur 1.5
times per year.
    Total estimated burden: 10,448,160 hours (per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $ 424,166,295 annualized capital or operation
and maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and on
applicable collection instruments. When OMB approves this ICR, the
Agency will announce that approval in the Federal Register and publish
a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB control
number for the approved information collection activities contained in
this final rule

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under RFA, 5 U.S.C.
601 et seq. The small entities subject to the requirements of this
action are agricultural and handler employers, and commercial pesticide
handler employers. EPA expects the impacts to be less than 0.1% of the
annual value of sales or revenues for the average small entity. EPA
calculates the impact of the rule as the percent of sales revenue. Only
the very smallest farms, with average sales of less than $10,000 per
year, may face impacts above one percent of sales. The number of
entities that may be impacted in excess of one percent of sales could
be about 12,000 farms, nurseries, and greenhouses or about 6% of all
small farms impacted by the WPS with revenues less than $10,000 per
year. However, this is likely an overestimate of the number of farms
impacted as it does not account for the nearly 2,000 such farms in
California that would face impacts well below the national average.
Additionally, there are nearly 23,000 such farms that produce only oil
crops or forage whose employees are not likely to engage in hand labor
activities and would not be covered by worker requirements. Please
refer to the Economic Assessment, Table 5.4-3. ``Small Business
Impacts, WPS Farms making pesticide applications'' for further details
of the assessment.
    Although EPA was not required by the RFA to convene a Small
Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel because this rule would not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, EPA nevertheless convened a panel to obtain advice and
recommendations from small entity representatives potentially subject
to this rule's requirements. A copy of the SBAR Panel Report is
included in the docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 3).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The rule
requirements would primarily affect agricultural employers and handler
employers. The total estimated annualized cost of the final rule is
$60.2--66.9 million.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. However,
this action may be of significant interest to state governments,
because states provide enforcement for pesticide laws. EPA solicited
and received comments from state partners on the proposed revisions,
which are addressed in this final rule preamble and the response to
comments document.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The proposed
rule would not regulate tribal governments directly; agricultural
employers and pesticide handler employers are the directly affected
entities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not an economically significant
regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866. However, it is
reasonable to expect that the environmental health or safety risks
addressed in this rule may have a disproportionate effect on children.
As such, EPA considered the best available science in order to protect
children against environmental health risks and this final rule is
consistent with EPA's 1995 Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to
Children (http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-/documents/1995_childrens_health_policy_statement.pdf), reaffirmed in 2013 (http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-05/documents/reaffirmation_memorandum.pdf).
    Protections include improved training on reducing pesticide
residues brought from treated areas to the home on workers and
handlers' clothing and bodies and establishing a minimum age of 18 for
handlers and early entry workers. With regard to establishing an age
restriction, while studies have not demonstrated a clear cut off point
at which adolescents are fully developed, literature indicates that
their development may continue until they reach their early to mid-20s.
Additionally, research has shown that adolescents may take more risks,
be less aware of the potential consequences of their actions on
themselves and others, and be less likely to protect themselves from
known risks. All of this information supports establishing a minimum
age to allow those handling pesticides to develop more fully before
putting themselves, others, and the environment at risk, and to allow
those performing early-entry activities to develop more fully in order
to adequately protect themselves from the risks of entering a treated
area while an REI is in effect. The final rule will reduce the
potential for misuse by

adolescent handlers who may less consistently exercise good judgment
when handling agricultural pesticides.
    Children face the risk of pesticide exposure from work in
pesticide-treated areas, from the use of pesticides near their homes,
and from residues of pesticides brought home by family members after a
day of working with pesticides or in pesticide-treated areas. The final
rule is expected to reduce these exposures and risks. By establishing a
minimum age for certain pesticide-related activities in agriculture,
children would receive less exposure to pesticides that may lead to
chronic or acute pesticide-related illness. Another requirement to
reduce risk to children is training for workers and handlers on the
risks presented by take-home pesticide exposure and how best to reduce
it.
    Like DOL's regulations that implement the FLSA, the rule regulates
the ages at which children can work in certain agricultural activities.
The rule establishes a minimum age of 18 for pesticide handlers and for
early-entry workers, except those working on an establishment owned by
an immediate family member. Since children in agriculture may face
elevated risks of pesticide exposure due to their immaturity, failure
to exercise good judgment, and developing bodies, EPA feels that they
warrant special consideration in light of the Executive Order on
children's health. EPA expects that the final rule will mitigate or
eliminate many agricultural pesticide risks faced by youths.
    Additional information on EPA's consideration of the risks to
children in development of this action can be found in the Economic
Analysis for this action (Ref. 1).

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of
energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards that would
require Agency consideration under NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EPA believes that this rule would not have disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-
income, or indigenous populations, as specified in Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), because it increases the level
of environmental protection for all affected populations without having
any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income
population. In fact, the population of agricultural workers and
handlers that the rule seeks to protect is comprised primarily of
minority and low-income individuals. As reviewed in Unit IV.B.3., the
farmworker community, due to occupation, economic status, health,
language and other sociodemographic characteristics, faces an increased
risk of pesticide exposure which this rulemaking seeks to reduce
through improving communication and protections.
    EPA engaged with stakeholders from affected communities extensively
in the development of this rulemaking, in order to obtain meaningful
involvement of all parties. EPA believes that the rule would improve
the health of agricultural workers and handlers by, among other things,
increasing the frequency of training, enhancing training content to
include ways to minimize pesticide exposure to children and in the
home, adding posting of treated areas near worker and handler housing
to prevent accidental entry, and establishing a minimum age for
pesticide handlers and early-entry workers.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and EPA
submitted a report containing this rule and other required information
to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the
Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the
rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 170

    Environmental protection, Agricultural worker, Employer, Farms,
Forests, Greenhouses, Nurseries, Pesticide handler, Pesticides, Worker
protection standard.

    Dated: September 28, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    Therefore, 40 CFR Chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 170--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 170 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 136w.

0
2. Section 170.2 is added to subpart A to read as follows:

Sec.  170.2  Implementation and expiration dates.

    (a) Implementation date. Beginning January 2, 2017, the
requirements of Sec.  170.301 through Sec.  170.609 of this part shall
apply to any pesticide product that bears the statement ``Use this
product only in accordance with its labeling and with the Worker
Protection Standard, 40 CFR part 170''.
    (b) Expiration date. Sections 170.1 through 170.260 of this part
shall expire on, and will no longer be effective after January 2, 2017.

0
3. In Sec.  170.135, revise paragraphs (b) and (c)(1) to read as
follows:

Sec.  170.135  Posted pesticide safety information.

* * * * *
    (b) Pesticide safety poster. A safety poster must be displayed that
conveys, at a minimum, the pesticide safety concepts listed in
paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (vii) and (b)(2) of this section. Displays
conforming to Sec.  170.311(a)(3) meet the requirements of this
paragraph.
    (c) * * *
    (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the nearest
emergency medical care facility shall be on the safety poster or
displayed close to the safety poster. Displays conforming to Sec.
170.311(a)(3)(ix) meet the requirements of this paragraph.
* * * * *

0
4. In Sec.  170.235, revise paragraphs (b) and (c)(1) to read as
follows:

Sec.  170.235  Posted pesticide safety information.

* * * * *
    (b) Pesticide safety poster. A safety poster must be displayed that
conveys, at a minimum, the pesticide safety concepts listed in
paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (vii) and (b)(2) of this section. Displays
conforming to Sec.  170.311(a)(3) meet the requirements of this
paragraph.
    (c) * * *
    (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the nearest
emergency medical care facility shall be on the safety poster or
displayed close to the

safety poster. Displays conforming to Sec.  170.311(a)(3)(ix) meet the
requirements of this paragraph.
* * * * *

0
5. Subpart D is added to part 170 to read as follows:

Subpart D--General Provisions

Sec.
Sec.  170.301 Scope and purpose.
Sec.  170.303 Applicability of this part.
Sec.  170.305 Definitions.
Sec.  170.309 Agricultural employer duties.
Sec.  170.311 Display requirements for pesticide safety information
and pesticide application and hazard information.
Sec.  170.313 Commercial pesticide handler employer duties.
Sec.  170.315 Prohibited actions.
Sec.  170.317 Violations of this part.

Sec.  170.301  Scope and purpose.

    This regulation is primarily intended to reduce the risks of
illness or injury to workers and handlers resulting from occupational
exposures to pesticides used in the production of agricultural plants
on agricultural establishments. It requires agricultural employers and
commercial pesticide handler employers to provide specific information
and protections to workers, handlers and other persons when pesticides
are used on agricultural establishments in the production of
agricultural plants. It also requires handlers to wear the labeling-
specified clothing and personal protective equipment when performing
handler activities, and to take measures to protect workers and other
persons during pesticide applications.

Sec.  170.303  Applicability of this part.

    (a) This regulation applies whenever a pesticide product bearing a
label requiring compliance with this part is used in the production of
agricultural plants on an agricultural establishment, except as
provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
    (b) This regulation does not apply when a pesticide product bearing
a label requiring compliance with this part is used on an agricultural
establishment in any of the following circumstances:
    (1) As part of government-sponsored public pest control programs
over which the owner, agricultural employer and handler employer have
no control, such as mosquito abatement and Mediterranean fruit fly
eradication programs.
    (2) On plants other than agricultural plants, which may include
plants in home fruit and vegetable gardens and home greenhouses, and
permanent plantings for ornamental purposes, such as plants that are in
ornamental gardens, parks, public or private landscaping, lawns or
other grounds that are intended only for aesthetic purposes or climatic
modification.
    (3) For control of vertebrate pests, unless directly related to the
production of an agricultural plant.
    (4) As attractants or repellents in traps.
    (5) On the harvested portions of agricultural plants or on
harvested timber.
    (6) For research uses of unregistered pesticides.
    (7) On pasture and rangeland where the forage will not be harvested
for hay.
    (8) In a manner not directly related to the production of
agricultural plants, including, but not limited to structural pest
control and control of vegetation in non-crop areas.
    (c) Where a pesticide product's labeling-specific directions for
use or other labeling requirements are inconsistent with requirements
of this part, users must comply with the pesticide product labeling,
except as provided for in Sec. Sec.  170.601, 170.603 and 170.607.

Sec.  170.305  Definitions.

    Terms used in this part have the same meanings they have in the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended. In
addition, the following terms, when used in this part, shall have the
following meanings:
    Agricultural employer means any person who is an owner of, or is
responsible for the management or condition of, an agricultural
establishment, and who employs any worker or handler.
    Agricultural establishment means any farm, forest operation, or
nursery engaged in the outdoor or enclosed space production of
agricultural plants. An establishment that is not primarily
agricultural is an agricultural establishment if it produces
agricultural plants for transplant or use (in part or their entirety)
in another location instead of purchasing the agricultural plants.
    Agricultural plant means any plant, or part thereof, grown,
maintained, or otherwise produced for commercial purposes, including
growing, maintaining or otherwise producing plants for sale or trade,
for research or experimental purposes, or for use in part or their
entirety in another location. Agricultural plant includes, but is not
limited to, grains, fruits and vegetables; wood fiber or timber
products; flowering and foliage plants and trees; seedlings and
transplants; and turf grass produced for sod. Agricultural plant does
not include pasture or rangeland used for grazing.
    Application exclusion zone means the area surrounding the
application equipment that must be free of all persons other than
appropriately trained and equipped handlers during pesticide
applications.
    Chemigation means the application of pesticides through irrigation
systems.
    Closed system means an engineering control used to protect handlers
from pesticide exposure hazards when mixing and loading pesticides.
    Commercial pesticide handler employer means any person, other than
an agricultural employer, who employs any handler to perform handler
activities on an agricultural establishment. A labor contractor who
does not provide pesticide application services or supervise the
performance of handler activities, but merely employs laborers who
perform handler activities at the direction of an agricultural or
handler employer, is not a commercial pesticide handler employer.
    Commercial pesticide handling establishment means any enterprise,
other than an agricultural establishment, that provides pesticide
handler or crop advising services to agricultural establishments.
    Crop advisor means any person who is assessing pest numbers,
damage, pesticide distribution, or the status or requirements of
agricultural plants.
    Designated representative means any persons designated in writing
by a worker or handler to exercise a right of access on behalf of the
worker or handler to request and obtain a copy of the pesticide
application and hazard information required by Sec.  170.309(h) in
accordance with Sec.  170.311(b) of this part.
    Early entry means entry by a worker into a treated area on the
agricultural establishment after a pesticide application is complete,
but before any restricted-entry interval for the pesticide has expired.
    Employ means to obtain, directly or through a labor contractor, the
services of a person in exchange for a salary or wages, including
piece-rate wages, without regard to who may pay or who may receive the
salary or wages. It includes obtaining the services of a self-employed
person, an independent contractor, or a person compensated by a third
party, except that it does not include an agricultural employer
obtaining the services of a handler through a commercial pesticide
handler employer or a commercial pesticide handling establishment.
    Enclosed cab means a cab with a nonporous barrier that totally
surrounds

the occupant(s) of the cab and prevents dermal contact with pesticides
that are being applied outside of the cab.
    Enclosed space production means production of an agricultural plant
indoors or in a structure or space that is covered in whole or in part
by any nonporous covering and that is large enough to permit a person
to enter.
    Fumigant means any pesticide product that is a vapor or gas, or
forms a vapor or gas upon application, and whose pesticidal action is
achieved through the gaseous or vapor state.
    Hand labor means any agricultural activity performed by hand or
with hand tools that causes a worker to have substantial contact with
plants, plant parts, or soil and other surfaces that may contain
pesticide residues, except that hand labor does not include operating,
moving, or repairing irrigation or watering equipment or performing
crop advisor tasks.
    Handler means any person, including a self-employed person, who is
employed by an agricultural employer or commercial pesticide handler
employer and performs any of the following activities:
    (1) Mixing, loading, or applying pesticides.
    (2) Disposing of pesticides.
    (3) Handling opened containers of pesticides, emptying, triple-
rinsing, or cleaning pesticide containers according to pesticide
product labeling instructions, or disposing of pesticide containers
that have not been cleaned. The term does not include any person who is
only handling unopened pesticide containers or pesticide containers
that have been emptied or cleaned according to pesticide product
labeling instructions.
    (4) Acting as a flagger.
    (5) Cleaning, adjusting, handling, or repairing the parts of
mixing, loading, or application equipment that may contain pesticide
residues.
    (6) Assisting with the application of pesticides.
    (7) Entering an enclosed space after the application of a pesticide
and before the inhalation exposure level listed in the labeling has
been reached or one of the ventilation criteria established by Sec.
170.405(b)(3) or the labeling has been met to operate ventilation
equipment, monitor air levels, or adjust or remove coverings used in
fumigation.
    (8) Entering a treated area outdoors after application of any soil
fumigant during the labeling-specified entry-restricted period to
adjust or remove coverings used in fumigation.
    (9) Performing tasks as a crop advisor during any pesticide
application or restricted-entry interval, or before the inhalation
exposure level listed in the pesticide product labeling has been
reached or one of the ventilation criteria established by Sec.
170.405(b)(3) or the pesticide product labeling has been met.
    Handler employer means any person who is self-employed as a handler
or who employs any handler.
    Immediate family is limited to the spouse, parents, stepparents,
foster parents, father-in-law, mother-in-law, children, stepchildren,
foster children, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law, grandparents,
grandchildren, brothers, sisters, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law,
aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and first cousins. ``First cousin''
means the child of a parent's sibling, i.e., the child of an aunt or
uncle.
    Labor contractor means a person, other than a commercial pesticide
handler employer, who employs workers or handlers to perform tasks on
an agricultural establishment for an agricultural employer or a
commercial pesticide handler employer.
    Outdoor production means production of an agricultural plant in an
outside area that is not enclosed or covered in any way that would
obstruct the natural air flow.
    Owner means any person who has a present possessory interest (e.g.,
fee, leasehold, rental, or other) in an agricultural establishment. A
person who has both leased such agricultural establishment to another
person and granted that same person the right and full authority to
manage and govern the use of such agricultural establishment is not an
owner for purposes of this part.
    Personal protective equipment means devices and apparel that are
worn to protect the body from contact with pesticides or pesticide
residues, including, but not limited to, coveralls, chemical-resistant
suits, chemical-resistant gloves, chemical-resistant footwear,
respirators, chemical-resistant aprons, chemical-resistant headgear,
and protective eyewear.
    Restricted-entry interval means the time after the end of a
pesticide application during which entry into the treated area is
restricted.
    Safety data sheet has the same meaning as the definition at 29 CFR
1900.1200(c).
    Treated area means any area to which a pesticide is being directed
or has been directed.
    Use, as in ``to use a pesticide'' means any of the following:
    (1) Pre-application activities, including, but not limited to:
    (i) Arranging for the application of the pesticide.
    (ii) Mixing and loading the pesticide.
    (iii) Making necessary preparations for the application of the
pesticide, including responsibilities related to worker notification,
training of workers or handlers, providing decontamination supplies,
providing pesticide safety information and pesticide application and
hazard information, use and care of personal protective equipment,
providing emergency assistance, and heat stress management.
    (2) Application of the pesticide.
    (3) Post-application activities intended to reduce the risks of
illness and injury resulting from handlers' and workers' occupational
exposures to pesticide residues during and after the restricted-entry
interval, including responsibilities related to worker notification,
training of workers or early-entry workers, providing decontamination
supplies, providing pesticide safety information and pesticide
application and hazard information, use and care of personal protective
equipment, providing emergency assistance, and heat stress management.
    (4) Other pesticide-related activities, including, but not limited
to, transporting or storing pesticides that have been opened, cleaning
equipment, and disposing of excess pesticides, spray mix, equipment
wash waters, pesticide containers, and other pesticide-containing
materials.
    Worker means any person, including a self-employed person, who is
employed and performs activities directly relating to the production of
agricultural plants on an agricultural establishment.
    Worker housing area means any place or area of land on or near an
agricultural establishment where housing or space for housing is
provided for workers or handlers by an agricultural employer, owner,
labor contractor, or any other person responsible for the recruitment
or employment of agricultural workers.

Sec.  170.309  Agricultural employer duties.

    Agricultural employers must:
    (a) Ensure that any pesticide is used in a manner consistent with
the pesticide product labeling, including the requirements of this
part, when applied on the agricultural establishment.
    (b) Ensure that each worker and handler subject to this part
receives the protections required by this part.
    (c) Ensure that any handler and any early entry worker is at least
18 years old.
    (d) Provide to each person, including labor contractors, who
supervises any workers or handlers information and directions
sufficient to ensure that each

worker and handler receives the protections required by this part. Such
information and directions must specify the tasks for which the
supervisor is responsible in order to comply with the provisions of
this part.
    (e) Require each person, including labor contractors, who
supervises any workers or handlers to provide sufficient information
and directions to each worker and handler to ensure that they can
comply with the provisions of this part.
    (f) Provide emergency assistance in accordance with this paragraph.
If there is reason to believe that a worker or handler has experienced
a potential pesticide exposure during his or her employment on the
agricultural establishment or shows symptoms similar to those
associated with acute exposure to pesticides during or within 72 hours
after his or her employment on the agricultural establishment, and
needs emergency medical treatment, the agricultural employer must do
all of the following promptly after learning of the possible poisoning
or injury:
    (1) Make available to that person transportation from the
agricultural establishment, including any worker housing area on the
establishment, to an operating medical care facility capable of
providing emergency medical treatment to a person exposed to
pesticides.
    (2) Provide all of the following information to the treating
medical personnel:
    (i) Copies of the applicable safety data sheet(s) and the product
name(s), EPA registration number(s) and active ingredient(s) for each
pesticide product to which the person may have been exposed.
    (ii) The circumstances of application or use of the pesticide on
the agricultural establishment.
    (iii) The circumstances that could have resulted in exposure to the
pesticide.
    (g) Ensure that workers or other persons employed by the
agricultural establishment do not clean, repair, or adjust pesticide
application equipment, unless trained as a handler under Sec.  170.501.
Before allowing any person not directly employed by the agricultural
establishment to clean, repair, or adjust equipment that has been used
to mix, load, transfer, or apply pesticides, the agricultural employer
must provide all of the following information to such person:
    (1) Pesticide application equipment may be contaminated with
pesticides.
    (2) The potentially harmful effects of exposure to pesticides.
    (3) Procedures for handling pesticide application equipment and for
limiting exposure to pesticide residues.
    (4) Personal hygiene practices and decontamination procedures for
preventing pesticide exposures and removing pesticide residues.
    (h) Display, maintain, and provide access to pesticide safety
information and pesticide application and hazard information in
accordance with Sec.  170.311 if workers or handlers are on the
establishment and within the last 30 days a pesticide product has been
used or a restricted-entry interval for such pesticide has been in
effect on the establishment.
    (i) Ensure that before a handler uses any equipment for mixing,
loading, transferring, or applying pesticides, the handler is
instructed in the safe operation of such equipment.
    (j) Ensure that before each day of use, equipment used for mixing,
loading, transferring, or applying pesticides is inspected for leaks,
clogging, and worn or damaged parts, and any damaged equipment is
repaired or replaced.
    (k) Ensure that whenever handlers employed by a commercial
pesticide handling establishment will be on an agricultural
establishment, the handler employer is provided information about, or
is aware of, the specific location and description of any treated areas
on the agricultural establishment where a restricted-entry interval is
in effect that the handler may be in (or may walk within \1/4\ mile
of), and any restrictions on entering those areas.
    (l) Ensure that workers do not enter any area on the agricultural
establishment where a pesticide has been applied until the applicable
pesticide application and hazard information for each pesticide product
applied to that area is displayed in accordance with Sec.  170.311(b),
and until after the restricted-entry interval has expired and all
treated area warning signs have been removed or covered, except for
entry permitted by Sec.  170.603 of this part.
    (m) Provide any records or other information required by this part
for inspection and copying upon request by an employee of EPA or any
duly authorized representative of a Federal, State or Tribal government
agency responsible for pesticide enforcement.

Sec.  170.311  Display requirements for pesticide safety information
and pesticide application and hazard information.

    (a) Display of Pesticide Safety Information. Whenever pesticide
safety information and pesticide application and hazard information are
required to be provided under Sec.  170.309(h), pesticide safety
information must be displayed in accordance with this paragraph.
    (1) General. The pesticide safety information must be conveyed in a
manner that workers and handlers can understand.
    (2) Content prior to January 1, 2018. Prior to January 1, 2018, the
safety information must include all of the following points:
    (i) Help keep pesticides from entering your body. Avoid getting on
your skin or into your body any pesticides that may be on plants and
soil, in irrigation water, or drifting from nearby applications.
    (ii) Wash before eating, drinking, using chewing gum or tobacco, or
using the toilet.
    (iii) Wear work clothing that protects the body from pesticide
residues (long-sleeved shirts, long pants, shoes and socks, and a hat
or scarf).
    (iv) Wash or shower with soap and water, shampoo hair, and put on
clean clothes after work.
    (v) Wash work clothes separately from other clothes before wearing
them again.
    (vi) Wash immediately in the nearest clean water if pesticides are
spilled or sprayed on the body. As soon as possible, shower, shampoo,
and change into clean clothes.
    (vii) Follow directions about keeping out of treated or restricted
areas.
    (viii) The name, address, and telephone number of a nearby
operating medical care facility capable of providing emergency medical
treatment. This information must be clearly identified as emergency
medical contact information on the display.
    (ix) There are Federal rules to protect workers and handlers,
including a requirement for safety training.
    (3) Content after January 1, 2018. After January 1, 2018, the
pesticide safety information must include all of the points in Sec.
170.311(a)(3)(i)-(x) instead of the points listed in Sec.
170.311(a)(2)(i)-(ix).
    (i) Avoid getting on the skin or into the body any pesticides that
may be on or in plants, soil, irrigation water, tractors, and other
equipment, on used personal protective equipment, or drifting from
nearby applications.
    (ii) Wash before eating, drinking, using chewing gum or tobacco, or
using the toilet.
    (iii) Wear work clothing that protects the body from pesticide
residues (long-sleeved shirts, long pants, shoes and socks, and a hat
or scarf).
    (iv) Wash or shower with soap and water, shampoo hair, and put on
clean clothes after work.
    (v) Wash work clothes separately from other clothes before wearing
them again.

    (vi) If pesticides are spilled or sprayed on the body 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.
    (vii) Follow directions about keeping out of treated areas and
application exclusion zones.
    (viii) Instructions to employees to seek medical attention as soon
as possible if they believe they have been poisoned, injured or made
ill by pesticides.
    (ix) The name, address, and telephone number of a nearby operating
medical care facility capable of providing emergency medical treatment.
This information must be clearly identified as emergency medical
contact information on the display.
    (x) The name, address and telephone number of the State or Tribal
pesticide regulatory agency.
    (4) Changes to pesticide safety information. The agricultural
employer must update the pesticide safety information display within 24
hours of notice of any changes to the information required in
Sec. Sec.  170.311(a)(2)(viii) or 170.311(a)(3)(ix).
    (5) Location. The pesticide safety information must be displayed at
each of the following sites on the agricultural establishment:
    (i) The site selected pursuant to Sec.  170.311(b)(2) for display
of pesticide application and hazard information.
    (ii) Anywhere that decontamination supplies must be provided on the
agricultural establishment pursuant to Sec. Sec.  170.411, 170.509 or
170.605, but only when the decontamination supplies are located at
permanent sites or being provided at locations and in quantities to
meet the requirements for 11 or more workers or handlers.
    (6) Accessibility. When pesticide safety information is required to
be displayed, workers and handlers must be allowed access to the
pesticide safety information at all times during normal work hours.
    (7) Legibility. The pesticide safety information must remain
legible at all times when the information is required to be displayed.
    (b) Keeping and displaying pesticide application and hazard
information. Whenever pesticide safety information and pesticide
application and hazard information is required to be provided under
Sec.  170.309(h), pesticide application and hazard information for any
pesticides that are used on the agricultural establishment must be
displayed, retained, and made accessible in accordance with this
paragraph.
    (1) Content. The pesticide application and hazard information must
include all of the following information for each pesticide product
applied:
    (i) A copy of the safety data sheet.
    (ii) The name, EPA registration number, and active ingredient(s) of
the pesticide product.
    (iii) The crop or site treated and the location and description of
the treated area.
    (iv) The date(s) and times the application started and ended.
    (v) The duration of the applicable labeling-specified restricted-
entry interval for that application.
    (2) Location. The pesticide application and hazard information must
be displayed at a place on the agricultural establishment where workers
and handlers are likely to pass by or congregate and where it can be
readily seen and read.
    (3) Accessibility. When the pesticide application and hazard
information is required to be displayed, workers and handlers must be
allowed access to the location of the information at all times during
normal work hours.
    (4) Legibility. The pesticide application and hazard information
must remain legible at all times when the information is required to be
displayed.
    (5) Timing. The pesticide application and hazard information for
each pesticide product applied must be displayed no later than 24 hours
after the end of the application of the pesticide. The pesticide
application and hazard information must be displayed continuously from
the beginning of the display period until at least 30 days after the
end of the last applicable restricted-entry interval, or until workers
or handlers are no longer on the establishment, whichever is earlier.
    (6) Record retention. Whenever pesticide safety information and
pesticide application and hazard information is required to be
displayed in accordance with this paragraph (b), the agricultural
employer must retain the pesticide application and hazard information
described in Sec.  170.311(b)(1) on the agricultural establishment for
two years after the date of expiration of the restricted-entry interval
applicable to the pesticide application conducted.
    (7) Access to pesticide application and hazard information by a
worker or handler.
    (i) If a person is or was employed as a worker or handler by an
establishment during the period that particular pesticide application
and hazard information was required to be displayed and retained for
two years in accordance with Sec. Sec.  170.311(b)(5) and
170.311(b)(6), and the person requests a copy of such application and/
or hazard information, or requests access to such application and/or
hazard information after it is no longer required to be displayed, the
agricultural employer must provide the worker or handler with a copy of
or access to all of the requested information within 15 days of the
receipt of any such request. The worker or handler may make the request
orally or in writing.
    (ii) Whenever a record has been previously provided without cost to
a worker or 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 record.
    (8) Access to pesticide application and hazard information by
treating medical personnel. Any treating medical personnel, or any
person acting under the supervision of treating medical personnel, may
request, orally or in writing, access to or a copy of any information
required to be retained for two years by Sec.  170.311(b)(6) in order
to inform diagnosis or treatment of a worker or handler who was
employed on the establishment during the period that the information
was required to be displayed. The agricultural employer must promptly
provide a copy of or access to all of the requested information
applicable to the worker's or handler's time of employment on the
establishment after receipt of the request.
    (9) Access to pesticide application and hazard information by a
designated representative.
    (i) Any worker's or handler's designated representative may request
access to or a copy of any information required to be retained for two
years by Sec.  170.311(b)(6) on behalf of a worker or handler employed
on the establishment during the period that the information was
required to be displayed. The agricultural employer must provide access
to or a copy of the requested information applicable to the worker's or
handler's time of employment on the establishment within 15 days after
receiving any such request, provided the request meets the requirements
specified in Sec.  170.311(b)(9)(ii).
    (ii) A request by a designated representative for access to or a
copy of any pesticide application and/or hazard

information must be in writing and must contain all of the following:
    (A) The name of the worker or handler being represented.
    (B) A description of the specific information being requested. The
description should include the dates of employment of the worker or
handler, the date or dates for which the records are requested, type of
work conducted by the worker or handler (e.g., planting, harvesting,
applying pesticides, mixing or loading pesticides) during the period
for which the records are requested, and the specific application and/
or hazard information requested.
    (C) A written statement clearly designating the representative to
request pesticide application and hazard information on the worker's or
handler's behalf, bearing the worker's or handler's printed name and
signature, the date of the designation, and the printed name and
contact information for the designated representative.
    (D) If the worker or handler requests that the pesticide
application and/or the hazard information be sent, direction for where
to send the information (e.g., mailing address or email address).
    (iii) If the written request from a designated representative
contains all of the necessary information specified in Sec.
170.313(b)(9)(ii), the employer must provide a copy of or access to all
of the requested information applicable to the worker's or handler's
time of employment on the establishment to the designated
representative within 15 days of receiving the request.
    (iv) Whenever a record has been previously provided without cost to
a worker or 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 designated
representative for additional copies of the record.

Sec.  170.313  Commercial pesticide handler employer duties.

    Commercial pesticide handler employers must:
    (a) Ensure that any pesticide is used in a manner consistent with
the pesticide product labeling, including the requirements of this
part, when applied on an agricultural establishment by a handler
employed by the commercial pesticide handling establishment.
    (b) Ensure each handler employed by the commercial pesticide
handling establishment and subject to this part receives the
protections required by this part.
    (c) Ensure that any handler employed by the commercial pesticide
handling establishment is at least 18 years old.
    (d) Provide to each person, including labor contractors, who
supervises any handlers employed by the commercial pesticide handling
establishment, information and directions sufficient to ensure that
each handler receives the protections required by this part. Such
information and directions must specify the tasks for which the
supervisor is responsible in order to comply with the provisions of
this part.
    (e) Require each person, including labor contractors, who
supervises any handlers employed by the commercial pesticide handling
establishment, to provide sufficient information and directions to each
handler to ensure that the handler can comply with the provisions of
this part.
    (f) Ensure that before any handler employed by the commercial
pesticide handling establishment uses any equipment for mixing,
loading, transferring, or applying pesticides, the handler is
instructed in the safe operation of such equipment.
    (g) Ensure that, before each day of use, equipment used by their
employees for mixing, loading, transferring, or applying pesticides is
inspected for leaks, obstructions, and worn or damaged parts, and any
damaged equipment is repaired or is replaced.
    (h) Ensure that whenever a handler who is employed by a commercial
pesticide handling establishment will be on an agricultural
establishment, the handler is provided information about, or is aware
of, the specific location and description of any treated areas where a
restricted-entry interval is in effect, and the restrictions on
entering those areas.
    (i) Provide the agricultural employer all of the following
information before the application of any pesticide on an agricultural
establishment:
    (1) Specific location(s) and description of the area(s) to be
treated.
    (2) The date(s) and start and estimated end times of application.
    (3) Product name, EPA registration number, and active
ingredient(s).
    (4) The labeling-specified restricted-entry interval applicable for
the application.
    (5) Whether posting, oral notification or both are required under
Sec.  170.409.
    (6) Any restrictions or use directions on the pesticide product
labeling that must be followed for protection of workers, handlers, or
other persons during or after application.
    (j) If there are any changes to the information provided in Sec.
170.313(i)(1), Sec.  170.313(i)(4), Sec.  170.313(i)(5), Sec.
170.313(i)(6) or if the start time for the application will be earlier
than originally forecasted or scheduled, ensure that the agricultural
employer is provided updated information prior to the application. If
there are any changes to any other information provided pursuant to
Sec.  170.313(i), the commercial pesticide handler employer must
provide updated information to the agricultural employer within two
hours after completing the application. Changes to the estimated
application end time of less than one hour need not be reported to the
agricultural employer.
    (k) Provide emergency assistance in accordance with this paragraph.
If there is reason to believe that a handler employed by the commercial
pesticide handling establishment has experienced a potential pesticide
exposure during his or her employment by the commercial pesticide
handling establishment or shows symptoms similar to those associated
with acute exposure to pesticides during or within 72 hours after his
or her employment by the commercial pesticide handling establishment,
and needs emergency medical treatment, the commercial pesticide handler
employer must do all of the following promptly after learning of the
possible poisoning or injury:
    (1) Make available to that person transportation from the
commercial pesticide handling establishment, or any agricultural
establishment on which that handler may be working on behalf of the
commercial pesticide handling establishment, to an operating medical
care facility capable of providing emergency medical treatment to a
person exposed to pesticides.
    (2) Provide all of the following information to the treating
medical personnel:
    (i) Copies of the applicable safety data sheet(s) and the product
name(s), EPA registration number(s) and active ingredient(s) for each
pesticide product to which the person may have been exposed.
    (ii) The circumstances of application or use of the pesticide.
    (iii) The circumstances that could have resulted in exposure to the
pesticide.
    (l) Ensure that persons directly employed by the commercial
pesticide handling establishment do not clean, repair, or adjust
pesticide application equipment, unless trained as a handler under
Sec.  170.501. Before allowing any person not directly employed by the
commercial pesticide handling establishment to clean, repair, or adjust
equipment that has been used to mix, load, transfer, or apply
pesticides, the commercial pesticide handler employer

must provide all of the following information to such persons:
    (1) Notice that the pesticide application equipment may be
contaminated with pesticides.
    (2) The potentially harmful effects of exposure to pesticides.
    (3) Procedures for handling pesticide application equipment and for
limiting exposure to pesticide residues.
    (4) Personal hygiene practices and decontamination procedures for
preventing pesticide exposures and removing pesticide residues.
    (m) Provide any records or other information required by this part
for inspection and copying upon request by an employee of EPA or any
duly authorized representative of a Federal, State or Tribal government
agency responsible for pesticide enforcement.

Sec.  170.315  Prohibited actions.

    No agricultural employer, commercial pesticide handler employer, or
other person involved in the use of a pesticide to which this part
applies, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or discriminate against
any worker or handler for complying with or attempting to comply with
this part, or because the worker or handler provided, caused to be
provided or is about to provide information to the employer or the EPA
or any duly authorized representative of a Federal, State or Tribal
government regarding conduct that the worker or handler reasonably
believes violates this part, has made a complaint, testified, assisted,
or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or
hearing concerning compliance with this part, or has objected to, or
refused to participate in, any activity, policy, practice, or assigned
task that the worker or handler reasonably believed to be in violation
of this part. Any such intimidation, threat, coercion, or
discrimination violates FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(G), 7 U.S.C.
136j(a)(2)(G).

Sec.  170.317  Violations of this part.

    (a) Under FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(G), it is unlawful for any person
``to use any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its
labeling.'' When this part is referenced on a label, users must comply
with all of its requirements, except those that are inconsistent with
product-specific instructions on the pesticide product labeling, except
as provided for in Sec. Sec.  170.601, 170.603 and 170.607.
    (b) A person who has a duty under this part, as referenced on the
pesticide product labeling, and who fails to perform that duty,
violates FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(G) and is subject to a civil penalty
under section 14. A person who knowingly violates section 12(a)(2)(G)
is subject to section 14 criminal sanctions.
    (c) FIFRA section 14(b)(4) provides that a person is liable for a
penalty under FIFRA if another person employed by or acting for that
person violates any provision of FIFRA. The term ``acting for''
includes both employment and contractual relationships, including, but
not limited to, labor contractors.
    (d) The requirements of this part, including the decontamination
requirements, must not, for the purposes of section 653(b)(1) of Title
29 of the U.S. Code, be deemed to be the exercise of statutory
authority to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations affecting
the general sanitary hazards addressed by the OSHA Field Sanitation
Standard, 29 CFR 1928.110, or other agricultural non-pesticide hazards.

0
6. Subpart E is added to part 170 to read as follows:

Subpart E--Requirements for Protection of Agricultural Workers

Sec.
Sec.  170.401 Training requirements for workers.
Sec.  170.403 Establishment-specific information for workers.
Sec.  170.405 Entry restrictions associated with pesticide
applications.
Sec.  170.407 Worker entry restrictions after pesticide
applications.
Sec.  170.409 Oral and posted notification of worker entry
restrictions.
Sec.  170.411 Decontamination supplies for workers.

Sec.  170.401  Training requirements for workers.

    (a) General requirement. Before any worker performs any task in a
treated area on an agricultural establishment where within the last 30
days a pesticide product has been used or a restricted-entry interval
for such pesticide has been in effect, the agricultural employer must
ensure that each worker has been trained in accordance with this
section within the last 12 months, except as provided in paragraph (b)
of this section.
    (b) Exceptions. The following workers need not be trained under
this section:
    (1) A worker who is currently certified as an applicator of
restricted use pesticides under part 171 of this chapter.
    (2) A worker who has satisfied the handler training requirements in
Sec.  170.501.
    (3) A worker who is certified or licensed as a crop advisor by a
program acknowledged as appropriate in writing by EPA or the State or
Tribal agency responsible for pesticide enforcement, provided that such
certification or licensing requires pesticide safety training that
includes all the topics in Sec.  170.501(c)(2) or Sec.  170.501(c)(3)
as applicable depending on the date of training.
    (c) Training programs. (1) Pesticide safety training must be
presented to workers either orally from written materials or audio-
visually, at a location that is reasonably free from distraction and
conducive to training. All training materials must be EPA-approved. The
training must be presented in a manner that the workers can understand,
such as through a translator. The training must be conducted by a
person who meets the worker trainer requirements of paragraph (c)(4) of
this section, and who must be present during the entire training
program and must respond to workers' questions.
    (2) The training must include, at a minimum, all of the following
topics:
    (i) Where and in what form pesticides may be encountered during
work activities.
    (ii) Hazards of pesticides resulting from toxicity and exposure,
including acute and chronic effects, delayed effects, and
sensitization.
    (iii) Routes through which pesticides can enter the body.
    (iv) Signs and symptoms of common types of pesticide poisoning.
    (v) Emergency first aid for pesticide injuries or poisonings.
    (vi) How to obtain emergency medical care.
    (vii) Routine and emergency decontamination procedures, including
emergency eye flushing techniques.
    (viii) Hazards from chemigation and drift.
    (ix) Hazards from pesticide residues on clothing.
    (x) Warnings about taking pesticides or pesticide containers home.
    (xi) Requirements of this subpart 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.
    (3) EPA intends to make available to the public training materials
that may be used to conduct training conforming to the requirements of
this section. Within 180 days after a notice of availability of such
training materials appears in the Federal Register, but no earlier than
January 1, 2018, training programs required under this section must
include, at a minimum, all of the topics

listed in Sec.  170.401(c)(3)(i)-(xxiii) instead of the topics listed
in Sec.  170.401(c)(2)(i)-(xi).
    (i) 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 and hazard 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.
    (ii) How to recognize and understand the meaning of the posted
warning signs used for notifying workers of restrictions on entering
pesticide treated areas on the establishment.
    (iii) How to follow directions and/or signs about keeping out of
pesticide treated areas subject to a restricted-entry interval and
application exclusion zones.
    (iv) Where and in what forms 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 personal protective equipment, and that
pesticides may drift through the air from nearby applications or be in
irrigation water.
    (v) Potential hazards from toxicity and exposure that pesticides
present to workers and their families, including acute and chronic
effects, delayed effects, and sensitization.
    (vi) Routes through which pesticides can enter the body.
    (vii) Signs and symptoms of common types of pesticide poisoning.
    (viii) Emergency first aid for pesticide injuries or poisonings.
    (ix) 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.
    (x) How and when to obtain emergency medical care.
    (xi) 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.
    (xii) Wash or shower with soap and water, shampoo hair, and change
into clean clothes as soon as possible after working in pesticide
treated areas.
    (xiii) Potential hazards from pesticide residues on clothing.
    (xiv) Wash work clothes before wearing them again and wash them
separately from other clothes.
    (xv) Do not take pesticides or pesticide containers used at work to
your home.
    (xvi) 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:
    (A) Display safety data sheets for all pesticides used on the
establishment.
    (B) Provide workers and handlers information about the location of
the safety data sheets on the establishment.
    (C) Provide workers and handlers unimpeded access to safety data
sheets during normal work hours.
    (xvii) 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.
    (xviii) 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.
    (xix) Potential hazards to children and pregnant women from
pesticide exposure.
    (xx) Keep children and nonworking family members away from
pesticide treated areas.
    (xxi) 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.
    (xxii) How to report suspected pesticide use violations to the
State or Tribal agency responsible for pesticide enforcement.
    (xxiii) 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 provided,
caused to be provided or is about to provide information to the
employer or the EPA or its agents regarding conduct that the employee
reasonably believes violates this part, and/or made a complaint,
testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation,
proceeding, or hearing concerning compliance with this rule.
    (4) The person who conducts the training must meet one of the
following criteria:
    (i) Be designated as a trainer of certified applicators, handlers
or workers by EPA or the State or Tribal agency responsible for
pesticide enforcement.
    (ii) Have completed an EPA-approved pesticide safety train-the-
trainer program for trainers of workers.
    (iii) Be currently certified as an applicator of restricted use
pesticides under part 171 of this chapter.
    (d) Recordkeeping. (1) For each worker required to be trained under
paragraph (a), the agricultural employer must maintain on the
agricultural establishment, for two years from the date of the
training, a record documenting each worker's training including all of
the following:
    (i) The trained worker's printed name and signature.
    (ii) The date of the training.
    (iii) Information identifying which EPA-approved training materials
were used.
    (iv) The trainer's name and documentation showing that the trainer
met the requirements of Sec.  170.401(c)(4) at the time of training.
    (v) The agricultural employer's name.
    (2) An agricultural employer who provides, directly or indirectly,
training required under paragraph (a) must provide to the worker upon
request a copy of the record of the training that contains the
information required under Sec.  170.401(d)(1).

Sec.  170.403  Establishment-specific information for workers.

    Before any worker performs any activity in a treated area on an
agricultural establishment where within the last 30 days a pesticide
product has been used, or a restricted-entry interval for such
pesticide has been in effect, the agricultural employer must ensure
that the worker has been informed of, in a manner the worker can
understand, all of the following establishment-specific information:
    (a) The location of pesticide safety information required by Sec.
170.311(a).
    (b) The location of pesticide application and hazard information
required by Sec.  170.311(b).
    (c) The location of decontamination supplies required by Sec.
170.411.

Sec.  170.405  Entry restrictions associated with pesticide
applications.

    (a) Outdoor production pesticide applications. (1) The application
exclusion zone is defined as follows:
    (i) The application exclusion zone is the area that extends 100
feet horizontally from the application equipment in all directions
during application when the pesticide is applied by any of the
following methods:
    (A) Aerially.
    (B) Air blast application.
    (C) As a spray using a spray quality (droplet spectrum) of smaller
than medium (volume median diameter of less than 294 microns).
    (D) As a fumigant, smoke, mist, or fog.