distributing the crop sheets would significantly increase the cost of
this option.
    Based on the experience of states that have attempted to implement
crop sheet distribution programs, EPA does not believe that workers and
handlers would benefit sufficiently to justify the cost of developing,
compiling, translating, and distributing specific crop sheets.
    Second, EPA considered requiring pesticide-specific hazard
communication materials to be made available in a language that workers
and handlers can understand. This would mean translating a copy of the
SDS and labeling into each language understood by a worker or handler
on the establishment and maintaining copies of the original and
translated SDS and labeling, rather than providing the information in
English and putting the burden of translation on the worker or handler.
    The NAWS estimates that the majority of agricultural workers (83%)
are non-English speakers (Ref. 65). Additionally, NAWS data show that
85% of workers ``would have difficulty obtaining information from
printed materials in any language'' (Ref. 61, p. 16). Additionally,
workers and handlers speak a large number of languages and dialects,
and the Agency believes it would be impractical to translate and
present complex information into so many different languages. This
requirement would be complicated further by the fact that some
indigenous worker and handler populations do not have a written
language. EPA assumes that a majority of requests for the SDS will be
made related to a health care incident, which means that either the
health care practitioner or a worker advocacy support group would
likely receive the information. These groups are more likely to have
staff that speak English and are capable of translating the information
for the worker or handler if necessary.
    All other industries--including the construction, janitorial, and
maintenance industries where there are traditionally significant
numbers of workers with limited skills reading or understanding
English--use SDSs in English to meet OSHA's Hazard Communication
Standard requirements to make chemical hazard information available to
employees (29 CFR 1910.120(g)). Most readily available sources of
pesticide-specific hazard information, such as SDS and pesticide
labeling, are in English. EPA did not estimate the cost of translating
the SDS and labeling into each language spoken by workers and handlers,
but expects that the burden would be extremely high. The burden of
producing SDSs in multiple languages would probably fall on
registrants, but agricultural and handler employers would bear the
burden of obtaining and maintaining a copy of this information in every
language spoken by their workers and handlers.
    Based on this information, EPA does not believe that the risk
reductions expected to result from providing SDSs to workers in their
native languages would justify the significant costs of doing so.
Medical and legal personnel who would provide assistance to workers in
the event of a suspected exposure are proficient in English and could
use the SDSs as already developed by the pesticide registrant.
    Finally, EPA considered requiring the employer to maintain only
labeling for pesticides that require WPS compliance that are applied on
their establishments, rather than both the product's labeling and SDS.
Pesticide labeling must accompany the product; therefore, employers
generally already have a copy of the labeling for products applied on
their establishment. When a pesticide is applied by a commercial
applicator or someone other than the agricultural employer, he or she
can easily request a copy of the pesticide labeling from the person who
made the application. The SDS, on the other hand, does not accompany
the product and may require more time to locate, increasing the burden
on the agricultural employer. Limiting the requirement to the pesticide
labeling could reduce the burden on agricultural employers.
    EPA believes that the burden associated with retrieving a pesticide
SDS is, however, not substantial because the SDS is readily available
online and can be requested from and provided by the pesticide
manufacturer and sometimes the pesticide dealer. The SDS contains
information necessary for the diagnosis and treatment of certain
pesticide-related illnesses. In some instances of pesticide-related
illnesses, time is of the essence in determining the course of
treatment. In these instances, having the SDS readily available for the
worker, handler, and/or treating medical personnel could be essential
to ensuring proper treatment. The cost for requiring the employer to
collect and make available only the labeling would be about $1.6
million, or about $4 per establishment. EPA believes that the
additional burden associated with retrieving the SDS for each product
is justified by the potential benefit to workers and handlers from
having the SDS available in the event of a pesticide-related illness.
    7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following questions:
     What would be the burden on employers to maintain the SDS
and pesticide label for 2 vs. 5 years?
     Do agricultural employers already collect SDSs? If so, how
do they obtain them and what burden is associated with retrieving the
SDS for one or more products?
     What are the benefits and drawbacks of requiring employers
to maintain and provide access to employees and others the proposed
pesticide-specific hazard information?
     Are there other approaches for providing workers and
handlers with understandable, readily accessible, and relevant
information on the symptoms, short-term health effects, and long-term
health effects of exposure (including prenatal exposure) to specific
pesticides? If so, please describe these approaches, their
implementation, and the advantages they provide in comparison to the
proposed approach.
     Are there other data on the benefit to workers and
handlers from receiving

pesticide-specific information before every entry into a pesticide
treated area?
     Does opening access to pesticide-specific information to
authorized representatives raise any problems? If so, please describe
the potential issues with particularity and provide supporting
information where available.

B. Pesticide Application Information--Content and Timing

    1. Overview. The existing WPS contains requirements for
agricultural employers to record and display information about
pesticide applications and to make that information accessible to
workers and handlers. However, the existing requirements do not include
some key information about pesticide applications that could help
workers and handlers better identify treated areas on the establishment
and avoid pesticide exposure. EPA proposes to require additional
information about pesticide applications to be recorded. EPA also
proposes to change the timing of when employers must record the
information. EPA believes the additional information would better
inform workers and handlers of relevant information about pesticide
applications. The more flexible timing requirements for recording
application information would reduce burden on employers. [See Unit
IX.C. for proposed revisions to requirements for displaying information
about pesticide applications.]
    2. Existing WPS regulations. The existing WPS requires agricultural
employers to record and display certain information about pesticide
applications at a central location on the establishment. Employers must
comply with this requirement when workers or handlers will be on the
establishment and an application of a pesticide requiring WPS
compliance has been made or an REI has been effect within the last 30
days (40 CFR 170.122 and 170.222). The purpose of this requirement is
to communicate information to workers and handlers about the locations
of potential pesticide hazards on the establishment, for example, entry
restricted areas or areas under an REI. The WPS requires employers to
record and display the following information about pesticide
applications:
     Location and description of the treated area,
     Product name,
     EPA registration number,
     Active ingredient(s) of the pesticide product,
     Time and date the pesticide is to be applied, and
     REI for the pesticide.
    The existing WPS requires the application information to be
accurate and to be displayed before application takes place if workers
are present on the establishment. If no workers or handlers are on the
establishment at the time of application, the information must be
posted before the first work period when workers or handlers are on the
establishment. If warning signs are posted for the treated area before
an application, the specific application information for that
application must be displayed at the same time or earlier, in
accordance with the display requirements. When workers or handlers are
present on the establishment, the employer must display the application
information for at least 30 days after the end of the REI. Employers
may discontinue the information display prior to 30 days after the end
of the REI when workers or handlers are no longer on the establishment.
    3. Summary of the issues. During the National Assessment and SBREFA
consultation process, employers and pesticide applicators noted that
they had difficulty recording and displaying application information
before the application occurs (Ref. 17) (Ref. 18). They cited changes
in pesticide application plans, usually to accommodate changing weather
conditions, as a primary reason for not being able to accurately record
the pesticide application information.
    State regulatory agencies noted that the current requirement for
providing information about pesticide applications lacked specific
information necessary to enable state inspectors to accurately
determine the start and end times of the REIs (Ref. 17). As a result of
a high-profile pesticide enforcement case and the aforementioned
difficulty determining REI start and end times, North Carolina informed
EPA that it has taken steps to amend the state pesticide laws. The
amended laws would require the end times of pesticide applications to
be recorded as part of state pesticide recordkeeping so inspectors
could calculate precise REIs (Ref. 66).
    4. Details of the proposal/rationale. In addition to the pesticide
application information currently required to be recorded, the Agency
proposes to require agricultural employers to record further specific
information about pesticide applications. The proposed information
would include the specific crop or site treated, the start and end
dates and times of the application, and the end date and duration for
the REI. EPA also proposes to revise the requirement for when
information must be recorded to allow flexibility for agricultural
employers to record the pesticide application information no later than
the end of the day of the application.
    An agricultural establishment can grow a variety of crops in
specific areas. EPA believes that adding the type of crop site to the
record would help workers, handlers, and pesticide inspectors to
distinguish the particular treated area to which the information
pertains. EPA also believes that including the specific start and end
times for the pesticide application, in addition to the date of
application, would assist workers, handlers, and inspectors in
accurately calculating the date and time the REI ends. The requirement
for employers to note the specific date and time when the REI ends
would clarify when workers may enter the treated area. The proposed
revisions would require agricultural employers to make the pesticide
application information (as well as the proposed pesticide-specific
hazard information [see Unit IX.A.]) available no later than the end of
the day of the pesticide application when workers are on the
agricultural establishment that day. By ``make available,'' the Agency
means that the agricultural employer must, at a minimum, have the
materials in a place where the workers, upon request, can have access
to view them. If workers are not on the establishment on the day of
application, the information must be made available at the beginning of
the first work period following application. Changing when the
application information must be made available allows flexibility if
the application schedule changes. Making these changes would allow more
realistic timeframes for recording application information and would
take into account the realities of fluctuations in application timing.
The change also would accommodate the requests to record the end time
of the application and timing of REI. Information would be more
accurate and the burden of correcting the information would be reduced.
    EPA does not believe that allowing the application information to
be made available by the end of the day would put workers and handlers
at risk because notification of treated areas to workers and handlers
must occur before the treatment commences by either oral notification
or by the posting of warning signs. Therefore, EPA believes that
workers would be protected during application and immediately post-
application by the WPS notification provisions.
    The proposed regulatory text concerning the timing and content of

pesticide application information required to be displayed appears in
Sec.  170.11(b) of the proposed rule.
    5. Costs. Because the information required in this proposal is
linked to the retention of the pesticide labeling and SDS, the costs
were calculated together. Therefore, the estimated costs for this
proposal are included in the cost discussed in Unit IX.A. For a
complete discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see
the ``Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection
Standard,'' Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1).
    6. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following questions:
     Would the additional pesticide application information
proposed by EPA impose undue burden on the applicator or the employer?
     Are there benefits or drawbacks to requiring this
additional information that EPA has not considered? If so, please
describe.

C. Pesticide Application Information--Location and Accessibility

    1. Overview. The WPS contains requirements for agricultural
employers to record and display information about pesticide
applications made on the establishment at a central location on the
establishment from the time of the application until 30 days after the
REI expires. EPA proposes to replace the current requirement with a
requirement for employers to make pesticide application information
available on request by a worker, handler, or his or her
representative. The proposal would also increase the time employers
must maintain the application information on the establishment from 30
days after the REI expires to 2 years. The employer would maintain the
pesticide application information in the same location as the SDS and
labeling (pesticide-specific hazard communication; see Unit IX.A.). EPA
believes this proposal would reduce the overall burden on agricultural
employers while still providing workers and handlers with reasonable
access to information regarding pesticide applications and pesticide-
specific hazard information.
    2. Existing WPS regulations. As described in Unit IX.B., the WPS
requires agricultural employers to record and display certain
information about WPS-covered pesticide applications at a central
location on the establishment when workers or handlers will be on the
establishment and an application of a WPS-covered pesticide has been
made or an REI has been in effect within the past 30 days (40 CFR
170.122 and 170.222).
    3. Summary of the issues. During the National Assessment meetings,
stakeholders, particularly employers, noted the difficulty in
maintaining the pesticide application information at a central posting
site (Ref. 17). Pesticide application plans frequently change, and
keeping a notice board at a central location, which, in some cases, may
be a significant distance from the treated area, up to date with those
changes presents a challenge to the employer, especially prior to the
application.
    Agricultural employer stakeholders noted that weathering of the
posted information quickly impacts legibility, making it difficult to
meet the legibility requirements for the information (Ref. 67). Some
states, including Florida, recognize the difficulty facing employers
and have developed a portable central location display. Florida's
display includes a laminated metal sign and weatherproof box to contain
the necessary WPS information. Florida developed this display to
increase compliance, to increase durability of the poster and
information, and to provide a solution to the problems noted with
maintaining the legibility of information required to be displayed at a
central location on large establishments (Ref. 67).
    Keeping the information current at the central location has been
problematic for agricultural employers, as records of frequent
pesticide applications on an establishment with multiple crops can be
difficult to maintain accurately during the growing season (Ref. 17).
Employers argued that keeping the application information at a central
location essentially requires them to maintain two copies of pesticide
application records because they cannot rely on the WPS central posting
site to be the only copy of application records, imposing a double
recordkeeping burden. Keeping two separate sets of application
information records with the same information on a busy establishment
can be difficult.
    4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to require the
employer to maintain pesticide application information and make it
accessible to workers, handlers, or authorized representatives of
workers or handlers upon request, and to eliminate the requirement for
agricultural employers to display the pesticide application information
at a central location. The proposed requirement does not specify a
particular location on the establishment where the employer must store
records, but does require that pesticide application records must be
maintained on the establishment and must be made available upon request
to workers, handlers, or their representative during normal business
hours. The application information must be maintained in addition to
the pesticide-specific hazard information. [See Unit IX.A.]
    The requirement for display of pesticide application information at
a central posting site has been the most frequently cited area for non-
compliance and violations. Between 2006 and 2008, there was an annual
average of 770 WPS violations related to central posting reported by
states to EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (Ref.
68) (Ref. 69) (Ref. 70). EPA has concerns about the difficulties
expressed by stakeholders such as regulators and agricultural employers
in maintaining this information at the central posting area, and it is
reflected in the violation records. EPA has concerns about the
usefulness of the central display to workers and handlers, especially
on large establishments, because the worker or handler may be assigned
to work miles from the central display and would not encounter it on a
routine basis. Moreover, if the information is not accurate or
correctly maintained, workers and handlers could be deprived of
receiving accurate information about pesticide applications on the
establishments. Rather than continue a requirement that burdens
employers without clear benefits to workers and handlers, EPA has
decided to revise the requirement related to displaying information
about pesticide applications.
    The proposed requirement for maintaining and making pesticide
application information (and the related pesticide-specific hazard
communication information as discussed in Unit IX.A) available to
workers and handlers upon request parallels OSHA's requirement for
employers to provide hazard information. EPA recognizes that OSHA's HCS
has been successfully implemented in all other industries, and that
employers covered by the WPS struggle with maintaining the central
display according to current requirements. The intent of the
requirement is to give the workers and handlers access to accurate and
legible pesticide application and hazard information. EPA believes that
a requirement that allows employers to keep records in a location other
than on display at a central location will significantly reduce burden
on the employers without sacrificing the

amount or type of information to which workers or handlers have access.
    The proposed regulatory text concerning the accessibility of
application information appears in Sec.  170.11(b) of the proposed
rule.
    5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost of requiring
employers to make pesticide application information available upon
request and eliminating the requirement for central posting would be
$1.1 million annually, or about $3 per WPS establishment. This
estimated cost does not include any additional copies of the pesticide
application information necessary because time and weather render the
display illegible. The cost estimate includes an assumption that 25% of
workers and handlers would request access to the materials, which EPA
recognizes is a conservative estimate and drives the cost of the
requirement higher. The anticipated benefits of this proposal were
discussed in the section above. For a complete discussion of the costs
of the proposals and alternatives, see the ``Economic Analysis of
Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,'' Chapter 3 Cost
Analysis (Ref. 1).
    EPA believes that this proposal would reduce the burden on
employers by allowing them to maintain the records in a location that
is not subject to weathering and would not substantially increase the
burden on workers and handlers seeking this information. EPA believes
that most workers do not routinely pass the central posting area
because their workplace is at a different part of the establishment.
The proposed change would continue to make available at a designated
location pesticide application information for workers and handlers.
    6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. EPA considered
requiring that employers post specific pesticide application
information on the signs used to post each treated area. Under this
option, specific information about the pesticide used, date of
application, and REI would be included on the bottom of each warning
sign posted around a treated area. [See Unit VIII.C. for a discussion
of the proposals related to notifications to workers and handlers.]
This option would allow early-entry workers to access information about
the specific pesticides used in areas where they may be working at the
time they enter the treated area. However, this alternative option
would substantially increase the burden associated with posting treated
areas because employers would have to copy the pesticide and
application information onto each warning sign. In addition, when
treated areas are posted for multiple days, the sign could become
weathered and illegible, imposing the additional burden on the grower
to update the legibility of the sign or negating the intended
protection associated with providing the information at the treated
area. This option could also reduce information available to workers
and handlers because pesticide application information would not be
available when the treated area does not require a posted warning sign.
    EPA believes that the proposed options to post a general warning
sign at pesticide treated areas [see Unit VIII] and to require the
employer to maintain and make accessible pesticide-specific application
information balance the need for workers and handlers to have access to
pesticide hazard information and the burden on agricultural employers.
Therefore, EPA decided not to propose this option.

D. Pesticide Application Information and Pesticide-Specific Hazard
Communication Materials--Retention of Records

    1. Overview. The current WPS requires employers to maintain
information about pesticide applications from the time of application
until 30 days after the REI expires. The Agency proposes to require
employers to retain the pesticide application and related pesticide-
specific hazard communication information for 2 years from the date of
the end of the REI for each product applied. EPA believes the extended
recordkeeping period would ensure that state, tribal and federal
agencies, workers, handlers, and health care workers have access to the
information when necessary to investigate a health-related pesticide
incident or potentially unlawful pesticide application.
    2. Existing WPS regulations. The existing WPS requires agricultural
employers to display information about pesticide applications from the
time of application until 30 days after the REI has expired (40 CFR
170.122(b) and 170.222(b)).
    3. Details of the proposal/rationale. The Agency proposes to
require employers to retain and make available for 2 years from the
date of the end of the last applicable REI pesticide application
information and related pesticide-specific hazard communication
information that includes the SDSs and product labeling for pesticides
that require WPS compliance. EPA expects the extended recordkeeping
period would ensure that application information is maintained for a
sufficient period of time to allow for follow-up in the event of health
problems that might be related to pesticide exposure or for
investigation of a suspected pesticide misuse. EPA recognizes that some
employers may maintain electronic copies of their application records
and other documents such as SDS and pesticide labeling. Under the
proposed option, an employer could maintain a copy of the application
information, the pesticide labeling used for the application, and the
corresponding SDS in either paper or electronic form. The employer
would need to be able to provide access to the electronic format of the
materials or make available a paper copy of the materials upon request.
Employers would need to ensure that the copy of the pesticide label on
file is the same as the label for the pesticide product at the time it
was applied on the establishment. Employers would not need to update
the pesticide labeling or SDS on file each time a new version is
released; however, if the product used in a subsequent application
bears a different version of the labeling, the employer would need to
keep both versions of the labeling on file, in a manner identifying
which version was used on which occasion.
    EPA believes the current 30-day timeframe for retention of the
application information is not adequate for workers or handlers to
access the information, especially if there has been a delayed health
impact from the exposure. It is possible for latent health effects from
a pesticide exposure to occur after the 30-day window, necessitating
access to information about the potential source of exposure and the
types of pesticides that may have been involved. In 2004 and 2005,
farmworker women who had worked in Florida, North Carolina, and New
Jersey gave birth to babies with birth defects. In 2006, EPA
investigated the incidents and sought information about pesticide
exposures several months after the women's employment ended (Ref. 71).
The ability to perform a full investigation into the serious health
effects was hampered by the 30-day limit for retention of the WPS-
required application information (Ref. 72).
    The proposed regulatory text concerning the 2-year recordkeeping
requirement appears in Sec.  170.11(b)(2) of the proposed rule.
    4. Costs. The costs of this proposal were discussed in Unit IX.A.
in conjunction with the requirement to retain and make available the
SDS and pesticide labeling. For a complete discussion of the costs of
the proposals and alternatives, see the ``Economic

Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,''
Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1).
    5. Alternative options considered but not proposed. EPA considered
requiring application records and hazard information to be maintained
for 5 years. The incremental cost between the 2-year and 5-year period
is negligible because the principal costs of recordkeeping occur when
the record is created. Several states, including California, have
required employers to retain WPS records for 2 years. Based on their
experience, 2 years is a sufficient time to allow the state to
investigate complaints. Therefore, it is not clear that the increased
burden associated with requiring employers to maintain records for 5
years would be justified.
    6. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following questions:
     Should EPA consider a different timeframe for
recordkeeping for this requirement? If so, what period and why?
     What burdens would be imposed on agricultural employers as
a consequence of the proposed two-year record retention requirement?
     How would the burden of the proposal to maintain
application records compare with the current requirement to maintain a
central display?

X. Information Exchange Between Handler and Agricultural Employers

    1. Overview. The current WPS requires handler and agricultural
employers to exchange information about pesticide applications. EPA
proposes to add to the existing requirement information about the
location of the ``entry-restricted areas'' and the start and end times
of pesticide applications. EPA also proposes to require the handler
employer to provide any changes to pesticide application plans to the
agricultural employer within 2 hours of the end of the application
rather than before the application. Changes to the estimated
application end time of less than one hour would not require
notification. EPA expects these changes to reduce worker pesticide
exposure by providing accurate, timely information about applications
to the agricultural employer.
    2. Existing WPS regulations. When handlers are employed by an
employer other than the agricultural employer, the existing WPS
requires the agricultural employer to provide the handler employer with
information about treated areas on the agricultural establishment,
including specific location and description of any such areas and
restrictions on entering those areas (40 CFR 170.124).
    The WPS requires handler employers to provide agricultural
employers with the following information prior to the pesticide
application:
     Location and description of the area to be treated,
     Time and date of application,
     Product name, active ingredient(s), and EPA Registration
Number for the product,
     REI,
     Whether posting and/or oral notification are required, and
     Any other product-specific requirements on the product
labeling concerning protection of workers or other persons during or
after application.
    Handler employers are currently required to inform agricultural
employers when there will be changes to scheduled pesticide
applications, such as to give notice of changes to scheduled pesticide
application times, locations, and subsequent REIs, before the
application takes place (40 CFR 170.224).
    3. Summary of the issues. State regulatory agencies participating
in the IGW raised concerns over the regulation's silence regarding
handler employers' responsibilities in the event a scheduled pesticide
application changes resulting in the original information no longer
being accurate (Ref. 14). IGW members questioned field implementation
of the provision because the agricultural employer could send a worker
into an area that is believed not to be treated while the handler
employer changes the application schedule. As a result, the worker
would be at risk of being directly or indirectly exposed to pesticides.
    4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes two additions to
the information currently required to be exchanged between agricultural
and handler employers: the location of the ``entry-restricted area''
and the start and end times of the pesticide application. This
information should help clarify the current rule and assist with field
implementation.
    First, EPA proposes to expand the agricultural employer's required
information exchange with the handler employer to include the location
of the proposed ``entry-restricted area,'' which EPA proposes to define
as the area surrounding a treated area during pesticide application
from which workers or other persons must be excluded during the
pesticide application.
    Second, to clarify and improve handler employer requirements for
providing information to the agricultural employer, EPA proposes to
require the handler employer to include the proposed start and
estimated end times for the application, which are needed to accurately
calculate the REI end date and time. EPA proposes to require the
handler employer to provide changes to pesticide application plans to
the agricultural employer within 2 hours of the end of the application
rather than before the application. Changes to the estimated
application end time of less than one hour would not require
notification. These changes would allow more flexibility for handler
employers by reducing the number of times they would have to
communicate with the agricultural employer while maintaining
communication of important application and safety information.
Currently, the handler employer or handler must inform the agricultural
employer of all changes to pesticide application timing before the
application takes place. For example, if a rain storm delayed the
application, this could mean multiple exchanges of information before
the application takes place.
    EPA expects these changes would make the required information
exchange easier for agricultural and handler employers to understand
and follow. Providing more accurate information about the timing of
applications and subsequent REI would assist employers in ensuring that
workers and handlers are kept out of areas being treated or under an
REI unless properly protected. Overall, the proposal should reduce the
number of incidents resulting from workers or handlers entering treated
areas unaware of an ongoing application or existing REI.
    The proposed regulatory text concerning the information exchange
between agricultural employers and handlers appears in Sec. Sec.
170.9(k) and 170.13(i)-(j).
    5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the proposed revisions to the
information exchange requirements would have no or negligible cost
because they clarify the rule and codify existing guidance. For a
complete discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see
the ``Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection
Standard,'' Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1).
    6. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following questions:
     Is it reasonable to require the handler employer to notify
the agricultural employer of changes to

scheduled pesticide applications within 2 hours of the end of the
application?
     What are the benefits to expanding the information to be
exchanged between handler and agricultural employers? Are there any
drawbacks?
     Would this impose additional burden on employers? If so,
what burden and how could it be reduced?

XI. Handler Restrictions

A. Suspend Application

    1. Overview. EPA proposes to add a provision to the WPS stating
that the handler or applicator must ``immediately cease or suspend
application if any worker or other person, other than an appropriately
trained and equipped handler, is in the treated or entry restricted
area.'' This statement would help to ensure that handlers understand
their responsibility to protect workers from pesticide exposure through
direct contact or drift.
    2. Existing WPS regulations. The current rule requires handlers to
``assure that no pesticide is applied so as to contact, either,
directly or through drift, any worker or other person, other than an
appropriately trained and equipped handler.''
    3. Stakeholder information considered by EPA. WPS inspectors have
informed EPA that the current WPS language does not provide sufficient
directive for handlers to stop an application if a person, other than a
trained and properly equipped handler, enters the treated area and
entry-restricted area during application.
    4. Details of the proposal/rationale. The proposal would require
handlers to cease application if they observe any person other than a
trained and properly equipped handler to be present in the treated or
entry-restricted area. This clarifies and strengthens the current WPS
language which does not currently include a ``cease application''
statement but does require the handler to assure no pesticide is
applied so as to contact a worker. This additional ``cease
application'' statement is an important clarification considering the
SENSOR-Pesticides/California Department of Pesticide Regulation
publication that cites drift as the leading factor contributing to
reports of acute occupational pesticide poisoning cases in agricultural
workers (Ref. 11). Further, the Washington State Department of Health's
Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking Review Panel 2009 Annual
Report details an incident involving 54 workers exposed to drift from
an aerial application where 47 workers sought medical treatment for
multiple health symptoms. The adverse effects of this incident may have
been mitigated if the handler acted to cease application when he saw
the workers located in the treated or entry-restricted area (Ref. 73).
    The regulatory text concerning the suspension of an application
appears in Sec.  170.205(a) through (b) of the proposed rule.
    5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost of this proposal
would be negligible because it clarifies an existing requirement.
    6. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following questions:
     Will this proposal, in combination with the entry-
restricted area requirements proposed in Unit XIV., effectively reduce
worker exposure to spray drift? Please provide rationale and data to
substantiate your response.
     Are there alternatives to this proposal that would better
protect workers and others from spray drift, while reserving the
flexibility to use pesticides in agriculture? Please provide rationale
and data to support your response.

B. Establish Minimum Age of 16 for Handling Pesticides

    1. Overview. The current WPS does not establish any age
restrictions for handlers. EPA proposes to prohibit persons younger
than 16 years of age from handling pesticides, with an exception for
handlers working on an establishment owned by an immediate family
member. See Unit XVIII.A., for a complete discussion of the immediate
family exception. EPA expects this change will result in reduced risks
to children and improved competency in handling, resulting in reduced
exposure to workers, handlers, bystanders, and the environment.
    2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS does not establish a minimum
age for handlers.
    3. Summary of the issues. FLSA establishes a minimum age of 16
years for any person employed in agriculture to handle a pesticide
designated as toxicity category I or II. The FLSA's statutory parental
exemption in agricultural employment permits a youth under the age of
16 to perform any work if he or she is employed ``by his parent or by a
person standing in the place of his parent on a farm owned or operated
by such parent or person.'' 29 U.S.C. 213(c)(2). The CHPAC recommended
that EPA establish a minimum age of 16 for pesticide handlers of any
agricultural pesticide, based on a recommendation from NIOSH. (Ref.
74). Handlers, compared to workers, face exposure to pesticides at
higher levels as they mix, load, and apply pesticides (Ref. 75). A
report from NIOSH compiles studies that demonstrate ``[y]outh are at
increased risk of injury from lack of experience. Inexperienced workers
are unfamiliar with the requirements of work, are less likely to be
trained to recognize hazards, and are commonly unaware of their legal
rights on the job. Developmental factors--physical, cognitive, and
psychological--may also place them at increased risk.'' (Ref. 76)
    In addition, during the SBREFA consultation described in Unit
IV.B., the SERs recommended establishing a minimum age of 16 under the
certification of pesticide applicators rule (40 CFR 171), with an
exception to the minimum age on family farms (Ref. 42).
    4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to prohibit a
handler employer from allowing persons younger than 16 years old to
perform handling tasks. The minimum age would not apply to handlers
that fall under the WPS immediate family exception, i.e., working on a
farm owned by an immediate family member.
    As discussed above, the FLSA already establishes 16 as a minimum
age for persons using toxicity category I and II pesticides in
agricultural employment. This restriction does not extend protection to
all handlers under the WPS. Handlers may use pesticides in any toxicity
category, from I to IV. EPA recognizes that some states may have
additional requirements, such as requiring parental permission for the
employment of children ages 16 and 17 in agricultural operations. EPA
seeks to ensure that all adolescent handlers receive equal protection,
regardless of the toxicity of the pesticide used.
    OSHA asked NIOSH to evaluate the existing Hazardous Order
regulations and to make recommendations for strengthening the
protections provided by these requirements. Among other things, NIOSH
responded with rationale for changing the hazardous order related to
pesticide use in agriculture to establish 16 as the minimum age for
using all pesticides, not only those pesticides in toxicity categories
I and II. The NIOSH report cites data from a study which examined
pesticide poisoning among working children. A total of 531 children
under the age of 18 years were identified to have acute occupational
pesticide-related illness. It was estimated that 62% of the cases were
children employed in agricultural production and services. Of the 81%
of cases where the EPA acute toxicity category was available, 67% of
the illnesses were associated with toxicity category III pesticides,
which are not

currently prohibited under the hazardous order (Ref. 76, p. 93).
    Aside from any increased risks that children may suffer from
pesticide exposures, the Agency recognizes that children generally lack
the experience and judgment to avoid or prevent unnecessary exposure. A
study conducted by the National Institutes of Health also demonstrates
that because their brains are still developing, adolescents may have
trouble balancing risk-reward decision-making and goal-oriented
decision making (Ref. 77 p. 7). Although adolescents may understand the
possible consequences of their actions, they are more likely to make
decisions based upon their initial emotional responses, which will
often lead them to make suboptimal choices (Ref. 77, p. 7).
Additionally, younger persons are less likely to be aware of their
rights and how to recognize hazards in the workplace (Ref. 76).
    The proposed age restriction would include a requirement for the
handler employer to record the training and the birth date of all
persons trained. It would be possible for someone under 16 years old to
receive handler training; however, the trained individual would not be
permitted to perform handling tasks until they turn 16. The proposed
age restriction advances the Agency's commitment to protecting
children.
    EPA recognizes the independence of the family farm and believes
that farm family parents are in the best position to make decisions
about the types of activities in which their children can safely
engage. EPA believes that handlers working on an establishment covered
by the immediate family exception would be adequately prepared and
supervised by family members. Therefore, the minimum age requirement
for handlers would not apply to persons performing handling tasks when
covered by the immediate family exemption.
    The proposed regulatory text concerning the minimum age of 16 for
handlers appears in Sec. Sec.  170.9(c) and 170.13(c) of the proposed
rule. The exception for persons covered by the immediate family
exemption is found in Sec.  170.301(a)(1)(i).
    5. Costs. EPA estimates the cost of requiring handlers to be at
least 16 years old would be $466,000 annually, or about $2 per
agricultural establishment per year. It would impose no cost on
commercial pesticide handling establishments. The cost of maintaining
records of handlers' birth dates is included in the cost of retaining
records for handler training. EPA recognizes that the estimated cost of
this proposal is conservative because it does not reflect state
requirements for minimum age that exceed the FLSA. For a complete
discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the
``Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection
Standard,'' Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1).
    EPA cannot quantify the benefits associated with this proposal.
However, EPA believes this proposal would improve the health of
adolescent handlers, as well as other workers and handlers on the
establishment and the environment. As discussed above, adolescents'
judgment is not fully developed. EPA believes that restricting
adolescents' ability to handle pesticides would lead to less exposure
potential for the handlers themselves, and less potential for
misapplication that could cause negative impacts on other handlers or
workers on the establishment, as well as the environment.
    6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. As an
alternative, EPA considered proposing a minimum age of 18 for pesticide
handlers, which would also include an exception for persons performing
handler tasks on a farm owned by an immediate family member. Handlers
must exercise good judgment and responsible behavior to best protect
themselves and others as they work with these potentially toxic
materials. Research shows the differences in the decision-making of
adolescents and adults leads to the conclusion that handlers who are
adolescents may take more risks than those who are adults. The
Department of Labor has established a general rule, applicable to most
industries, except agriculture, that workers must be at least 18 years
old to perform hazardous jobs (29 CFR 570.120) (75 FR 28458; May 20,
2010). The use of agricultural pesticides presents demonstrable risks
of significant harm to the applicator, the public, and the environment,
and these risks are significantly influenced by the user's judgment and
decision-making skills. Requiring handlers to be 18 years of age or
older would prevent youth under 18 from being exposed while performing
handling activities and would reduce risks to other persons and the
environment from misapplication owing to users' poor judgment or
decision-making skills. This option would harmonize the age
requirements for pesticide handlers with the minimum age requirements
for workers performing hazardous jobs in other industries. This
alternative would also align with society's general trend toward
increasing the ages at which persons are eligible to do certain things
that present recognized risks, such as consuming alcohol or becoming a
licensed driver.
    EPA estimates that requiring handlers to be at least 18 years old
would cost about $3.1 million annually, or $11 per agricultural
establishment and $320 per commercial pesticide handling establishment
per year. EPA proposes to follow the existing framework of the FLSA and
DOL's rules to propose a minimum age of 16, based on the existing rules
and the higher cost of increasing the minimum age for handlers to 18.
    7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following questions:
     Are there alternatives that have not been considered that
would improve protections for adolescent handlers, either those under
16 or 18 years old, while allowing flexibility for pesticide use for
agriculture?
     What would be the impact on state programs of establishing
a minimum age of either 16 or 18 for handlers?
     Would establishing a minimum age of 16 for handlers have
an impact on state requirements for certified applicators to be a
minimum age? If so, please provide data to support this position.
     Would establishing a minimum age of 18 for handlers have
an impact on state requirements for certified applicators to be a
minimum age? If so, please provide data to support this position.
     Are there additional benefits or burdens with establishing
a minimum age of 16 or 18 for handlers? If so, please provide data to
support either position.

XII. Restrictions for Worker Entry into Treated Areas

A. Establish Minimum Age of 16 for Workers Entering a Treated Area
under an REI

    1. Overview. The existing WPS does not establish age restrictions
for workers entering a treated area under an REI. EPA proposes to
prohibit any worker under 16 years old from entering a treated area
under an REI. This proposal would include an exemption for persons
entering a treated area under an REI covered by the immediate family
exemption [see Unit XVIII.A].
    2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS establishes conditions for
when a worker may enter into a treated area under an REI (40 CFR
170.112). The conditions are related to the type of work performed
(often referred to as ``early-entry'' work) and the length of time the
worker may be in the treated area. However, the WPS establishes no

minimum age for a worker sent into a treated area under an REI.
    3. Summary of the issues. In 2009, Earth Justice petitioned EPA to
expand the protections of children in agriculture (Ref. 78 p. 23). The
petition referenced several studies suggesting negative health impacts
on youth workers less than 18 years of age who had been exposed to
pesticides (Ref. 78). These references linked pesticide exposure to
childhood leukemia and delayed neurological development in youth (Ref.
78 p. 8). The CHPAC also recognized that ``growth and development of
many organ systems continues into late adolescence'' and recommended
that EPA enhance protection for workers in the 16-20 year old age group
(Ref. 74 pp. 2-3).
    4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to prohibit
employers from directing workers under 16 years old to enter a treated
area to perform early-entry activities while an REI is in effect. This
prohibition would not apply to persons entering a treated area to
perform early-entry activities while an REI is in effect on a farm
owned by an immediate family member. To verify compliance with this
requirement, EPA also proposes to require the agricultural employer to
keep a record of the birth date of each worker trained. [See Unit
VII.A.] While EPA believes that the proposed protections required for
entry into a treated area during an REI would mitigate risks to the
general worker population, concerns remain for children. Children may
be more susceptible to pesticides because their systems are developing,
so a level of exposure considered safe for an adult may not be safe for
a child (Ref. 79 p. 51). See discussion in Unit XI.B.
    Due to workers' low income, farmworker families may face more
pressure to have children working in pesticide treated areas. EPA has
particular concern for children working in a pesticide-treated area
before the REI expires. As discussed earlier, the potential risk for
pesticide exposure is elevated when a treated area is under an REI. EPA
considered this elevated risk in combination with children's
potentially greater susceptibility to pesticide exposure and developing
decision-making capabilities, as well as the demographics of workers
when developing this proposal. EPA believes this proposal is necessary
to prevent unreasonable risks to children, taking into account the
economic needs of farm worker families.
    As discussed above, protections already exist under the FLSA for
persons under 16 years old working with pesticides in agriculture.
Extending these protections to those who enter a treated area during an
REI could mitigate the potential effects of elevated pesticide exposure
to children under 16 while their systems are still developing.
    EPA recognizes that farm family parents are in the best position to
make decisions about the types of activities in which their children
can safely engage. EPA believes that persons performing early-entry
tasks who are on an establishment covered by the immediate family
exception would be adequately prepared and supervised by family
members. Therefore, the minimum age requirement for early-entry workers
would not apply to persons performing early-entry tasks when covered by
the WPS immediate family exemption.
    The proposed regulatory text concerning a minimum age of 16 for
entering a treated area under an REI appears in Sec.  170.303 of the
proposed rule. The exception for persons covered by the immediate
family exemption is found in Sec.  170.301(a)(1)(i).
    5. Costs/Benefits. EPA estimates the cost of requiring early-entry
workers to be at least 16 years old would be $156,000 annually, or less
than $1 per WPS establishment per year. For a complete discussion of
the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the ``Economic
Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,''
Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1).
    EPA cannot quantify the benefits associated with this proposal;
however, EPA is committed to protecting the health of children. EPA
believes that imposing this requirement would reduce the number of
children who suffer occupational pesticide-related illnesses, as well
as the chronic and developmental effects that may be associated with
children's exposure to pesticides.
    6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. EPA considered
a minimum age of 18 for workers to enter treated areas under an REI,
with an exception for persons covered by the immediate family
exception. Studies show that children's systems continue developing
until they reach adulthood, increasing the potential for adverse
outcomes from their exposure, as compared to adults. Additionally, data
show children's maturity and comprehension are still developing (Ref.
77 p. 2). Early entry workers are exposed to pesticides before the REI
has expired, meaning there may be higher levels of residues and more
potential for exposure and negative health impacts. Early entry workers
must use PPE properly and comply with additional measures to ensure
they are protected from the higher potential risks. Adolescents may be
less likely to comply with these measures and more likely to take risks
that put their health at risk because their maturity and comprehension
of risk are still developing.
    EPA estimates the cost of this option would be about $723,000
annually, or about $2 per agricultural establishment. EPA does not have
data to indicate that the anticipated additional protection for
children support increased costs of the higher minimum age.
    7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following question:
     Are there other ways EPA could protect children less than
16 years old from pesticide risks associated with entry into a treated
area during an REI? If so, please describe.
     What would be the impact on state programs of establishing
a minimum age for early entry workers?
     Would establishing a minimum age of 16 or 18 for early
entry workers have an adverse impact on state requirements for
certified applicators to be a minimum age, generally 16 or 18?
     Are there additional benefits or burdens with establishing
a minimum age of 16? If so, please provide data to support this
position.
     Are there additional benefits or burdens associated with
establishing a minimum age of 18? If so, please provide data to support
this position.

B. Requirements for Entry During an REI

    1. Overview. The WPS establishes specific exceptions to the
prohibition on sending workers into a treated area while an REI is in
effect. Workers who enter pesticide-treated areas during an REI (known
as ``early-entry workers'') without adequate protection may face an
elevated risk from pesticide exposure. EPA proposes to require
employers (1) to inform workers sent into a treated area while the REI
is in effect of the specific exception under which they would enter,
(2) to describe the tasks permitted and any limitations required under
that exception, and (3) to explain the personal protective equipment
required by the labeling. EPA also proposes to require the employer to
create a record of the oral notification, to obtain the signature of
each early-entry worker acknowledging the oral notification prior to
the early entry, and to maintain the record for 2 years.
    2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS prohibits employers from
directing workers to enter a treated area where an REI is in effect
except under specific

early entry exceptions (40 CFR 170.112(a)). Recognizing some
circumstances in which there may be a need to have work performed in a
treated area during the REI, EPA established exceptions to the general
prohibition for ``no-contact,'' ``short-term,'' and ``agricultural
emergency activities'' (40 CFR 170.112). EPA later established two
administrative exceptions that are not in 40 CFR part 170, for
``limited contact'' and irrigation activities (60 FR 21955; May 3,
1995) (60 FR 21960; May 3, 1995). Each exception requires specific
protective measures or limitations on work to protect early-entry
workers from unreasonable adverse effects from pesticide exposure. [For
a complete discussion of the exceptions and proposed revisions, see
Unit XII.D.] The WPS requires employers to provide workers with PPE, to
assure that early-entry workers follow precautions listed on the label,
and to provide water and decontamination supplies nearby for when the
worker exits the treated area.
    3. Summary of the issues. Farmworker Justice suggested that workers
may not recognize the elevated risk from early entry or understand the
requirements of the exceptions, and therefore may fail to appreciate
the particular importance of complying with the terms of the early-
entry exception. Farmworker Justice recommended that workers receive
information about the health effects associated with the pesticides
they may encounter while working (Ref. 35 p. 7).
    4. Details of the proposal/rationale. In addition to what the WPS
currently requires, EPA proposes to require that agricultural
employers:
     Provide oral notification to early-entry workers prior to
each entry into an area under an REI;
     Provide information (in addition to the current
requirement to follow product labeling instruction) about the pesticide
application, the specific task to be performed, and the amount of time
that the worker is allowed to remain in the treated area;
     Collect written acknowledgement of receipt of the oral
notification, including the date of birth, printed name and signature
of each worker, prior to his or her entry; and
     Retain for 2 years the worker-signed record of this
notification.
    When entering a treated area during an REI, the worker faces risk
of exposure to pesticides at concentrations with the potential for
adverse health effects that are of specific concern. Evaluation of
incident reports has demonstrated that workers who enter a treated area
prior to the expiration of the REI are more adversely affected than
those workers who enter the treated area after the REI has expired,
suffering from respiratory issues, rashes, and other illness (Ref. 11).
Results from a recent SENSOR-Pesticides/California Department of
Pesticide Regulation analysis of the most common factors contributing
to incidents of pesticide poisoning indicate that ``early reentry into
a recently treated area'' was the second most common factor (Ref. 11).
The report cites early reentry as contributing to 17% (336) of all
acute pesticide poisoning cases for which a cause was identified in the
agricultural industry between 1998 and 2005 (Ref. 11, p. 891).
    EPA expects the proposed requirements to provide early-entry
workers information about the pesticide application, the specific task
to be performed, and the amount of time that the worker is allowed to
remain in the treated area, and to obtain the early-entry worker's
signature to increase the likelihood of those workers understanding and
following the applicable risk mitigation measures and assure that
workers have information about what early-entry activities they
performed in the event they suffer a pesticide-related illness. Sending
a worker into a treated area under an REI to perform specific tasks
with the appropriate knowledge and equipment to protect him or herself
decreases the likelihood that the worker would experience pesticide
poisoning. Further, the proposed requirement to create and maintain a
record to verify the oral notification would serve as a tool for
inspectors to verify rule compliance.
    This proposal would work in concert with two other proposed
changes: requiring posting of treated areas [Unit VIII.] and enhancing
the content of worker training [Unit VII.]. The Agency believes that
training early-entry workers on what they should expect if the
agricultural employer requests that they enter a treated area under an
REI, as well as posting all areas treated with a product that has an
REI of 48 hours or longer, would better prepare workers to protect
themselves while performing early-entry tasks.
    EPA is proposing to require recordkeeping of oral notification to
early-entry workers, but not recordkeeping of oral notification of
treated areas (discussed above in Unit VIII.A.6.ii.) based on the
elevated risks facing early-entry workers and importance of ensuring
they have the information necessary to protect themselves during the
higher-risk early entry activities. Workers receiving general
notification of treated areas do not need to know how long they may be
in the area, types of exposure, or how best to protect themselves; they
are instructed to keep out of specific treated areas. EPA believes that
the burden on employers to create and maintain a record of the early-
entry worker notification is balanced by the increased flexibility to
employers, while ensuring sufficient protection for early-entry
workers. As discussed above, EPA does not believe that the cost of
creating and maintaining records of oral notification of pesticide-
treated areas is outweighed by the potential benefits.
    Additionally, the cost of creating and maintaining a record of oral
notification for early entry workers is substantially lower than the
cost of creating and maintaining a record of oral notification when the
REI has expired.
    The proposed regulatory text concerning early-entry requirements
appears in Sec.  170.305 of the proposed rule.
    5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost of requiring
employers to provide early-entry workers with oral notification would
be about $700,000 annually, or about $2 per establishment per year.
    EPA estimates the cost of requiring employers to maintain records
of oral notifications provided to early-entry workers would be $470,000
annually, or about $1 per establishment per year.
    For a complete discussion of the costs of the proposals and
alternatives, see the ``Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the
Worker Protection Standard,'' Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1).
    EPA cannot quantify the benefits associated with this proposal;
however, EPA recognizes that entering a treated area during an REI is
one of the primary identified sources of pesticide-related illness in
workers. EPA believes this proposal would provide workers with more
information about the risks they may face and how to protect themselves
from pesticide exposure, and would ultimately lead to a reduction in
the number of pesticide-related illnesses associated with early entry
into a pesticide-treated area.
    6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. Many of the
alternative options considered are more fully discussed in other areas
of this preamble. EPA considered the option of eliminating early entry
for no-contact, limited contact, irrigation and short-term exceptions
as recommended by worker advocacy organizations. [See Unit XII.D.] EPA
also considered requiring agricultural employers to distribute
pesticide hazard information to each worker upon entry into any treated
area. [See Unit IX.A.]

    EPA also considered requiring employers to keep records of the
conditions of the exception claimed and notification to workers for 5
years instead of the proposed requirement of 2 years. Because most of
the costs associated with recordkeeping are incurred upon creating the
record, the incremental costs of retaining the records for a longer
period are minimal. However, as discussed earlier, it is not clear that
the potential benefits associated with retaining the records for a
longer period justify the increased cost and burden on employers.
    7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following questions:
     Is there other information related to entry into a treated
area under an REI that EPA should require employers to document? If so,
what information and why?
     Are there other ways EPA could verify that workers
received notification and the proper equipment to work in a treated
area under an REI without the proposed recordkeeping?

C. Clarify Requirement for Decontamination Supplies for Workers
Entering a Treated Area Under an REI

    1. Overview. The existing WPS requires employers to provide early-
entry workers with ``a sufficient amount of water'' for
decontamination. EPA proposes to clarify the meaning of ``a sufficient
amount of water'' for decontamination of workers entering a treated
area under an REI. EPA expects that the clarification would facilitate
compliance and that adequate decontamination supplies would reduce the
likelihood that workers would suffer an illness from the exposure
during early-entry work and would protect worker families from take-
home exposure.
    2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS requires the agricultural
employers to provide ``soap, clean towels, and a sufficient amount of
water so that the workers may wash thoroughly'' when workers perform
tasks in a treated area while the REI is in effect (40 CFR 170.112(d)).
    3. Summary of the issues. Farmworker Justice and state regulators
have requested that EPA clarify what amount of water would be
sufficient.
    4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to require that
agricultural employers provide at least 3 gallons of water per worker
for decontamination after a worker has performed tasks in a treated
area under an REI. This amount is based on the 1993 EPA guidance
document, ``How to Comply with the Worker Protection Standard for
Agricultural Pesticides: What Employers Need to Know.'' (Ref. 80 p. 25)
EPA believes this amount of water would be sufficient for a worker to
wash exposed areas. This is the same amount of water being proposed for
handler decontamination. [See Unit XIV.A.]
    The proposed regulatory text concerning the required amount of
water appears in Sec.  170.305(j) of the proposed rule.
    5. Costs/Benefits. EPA estimates the cost of the proposal to
increase the quantity of water available for early-entry worker
decontamination would be $2,500 annually, or less than $0.01 per WPS
establishment per year. For a complete discussion of the costs of the
proposals and alternatives, see the ``Economic Analysis of Proposed
Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,'' Chapter 3 Cost Analysis
(Ref. 1).
    EPA expects that adequate decontamination supplies would reduce
instances where workers fail to wash after performing WPS tasks owing
to insufficient supplies, thereby reducing the likelihood that workers
would suffer an illness from the exposure during early-entry work and
would protect worker families from take-home exposure. EPA also expects
that the clarification would make it easier for employers to understand
and comply with the WPS decontamination supply requirements.
    6. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following questions:
     Is 3 gallons for decontamination a reasonable amount of
water for an early-entry worker who has been exposed to a pesticide? If
not, why?
     What amount of water would be reasonable, or what other
alternative is there?

D. Exception to the General Prohibition Against Sending Workers Into a
Treated Area Under an REI

    1. Overview. The existing WPS includes specific exceptions to the
employer prohibition against sending workers into a treated area during
an REI. EPA proposes to clarify these exceptions to make them more
understandable and easier for employers to follow.
    2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS prohibits employers from
directing workers into a treated area while an REI is in effect (40 CFR
170.112(a)). The regulation also provides for exceptions to the entry
restrictions so that certain activities considered critical to
successful agricultural production can take place during an REI. The
exceptions to the entry restrictions allow entry into an area under an
REI for activities with no-contact, certain short-term activities, and
certain activities associated with agricultural emergencies (40 CFR
170.112(b)-(d)). EPA added the exception provisions to the 1992 WPS to
minimize potential adverse impacts on agriculture that could occur
because of the restrictions on entering treated areas while an REI is
in effect. The exceptions allow early-entry activities only under very
limited circumstances. The exception provisions include specific
requirements and limitations intended to ensure that workers are
adequately protected during any allowed early-entry activities.
    In addition, the WPS includes an administrative process to allow
additional exceptions to the prohibition on early entry for activities
critical to agricultural production that were not addressed in the
existing exceptions (40 CFR 170.112(e)). In 1995, the Agency granted
administrative exceptions for irrigation and limited contact
activities. The rationale for and terms and conditions of these
administrative exceptions were included in the final Federal Register
notice announcing the Agency's approval of the request for the
exceptions (60 FR 21955; May 3, 1995) (60 FR 21960; May 3, 1995).
    3. Summary of the issues. In general, USDA has indicated support
for revising the regulation to clarify the requirements of the
exception to enable worker reentry without compromising human health.
USDA said growers need maximum flexibility to direct workers to reenter
treated areas to perform tasks in a timely manner (Ref. 81).
    EPA received a letter signed by a broad coalition of farmworker
organizations that opposed the inclusion of any exception to the
prohibition on directing workers to enter a treated area while an REI
is in effect (Ref. 35). They suggested that REIs should protect post-
application workers by reducing their exposure to pesticides at a time
when the residues are hazardous. Farmworker advocates noted that
creating exceptions to the REIs substantially weakens this protection
and increases the risk of injury to the workers, even if additional
personal protective equipment is required and provided. Farmworker
organizations asserted that many worker injuries occurred because
workers were put back in the treated area before the REI had expired.
They also indicated a belief that required PPE is often not worn
because it interferes with workers' ability to perform their tasks in
an efficient manner.

    4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA agrees that some of the
current exception provisions contain vague or unenforceable language
that may be confusing to agricultural employers and the regulated
community. Unclear regulations present compliance challenges for
employers and, if misunderstood, may place early-entry workers at risk
of being sent into treated areas to engage in tasks that should not
take place during the REI.
    Detailed descriptions of the proposed revisions and specifically
related stakeholder input are discussed below.
    i. Clarify conditions of ``No Contact'' exception.
    a. Existing WPS regulations. The no-contact exception permits entry
into a treated area under an REI for activities for which workers will
have no contact with treated surfaces (40 CFR 170.112(b)). Examples of
acceptable ``no contact'' activities include the following:
     Worker in an open-cab vehicle in a treated area where the
plants and other treated surfaces cannot brush against the worker and
cannot drop or drip pesticides onto the worker;
     After a pesticide is correctly incorporated or injected
into the soil, the worker is performing tasks that do not involve
touching or disrupting the soil surface other than walking with shoes
on the soil surface; and
     Worker in an enclosed cab vehicle in a treated area.
    b. Summary of the issues. States and employers requested
clarification from EPA on the conditions of the no-contact exception
and what tasks constituted no-contact activities. Specifically, they
suggested that wearing PPE to prevent contact with pesticide treated
surfaces does not constitute no-contact early entry.
    A coalition of farmworker advocate groups requested that EPA impose
greater restrictions on the no-contact exception (Ref. 35).
    c. Details of the proposal/rationale. The Agency proposes to
clarify that activities reasonably expected to involve contact with
treated surfaces cannot be no-contact activities, even if the contact
is limited or mediated through the use of personal protective
equipment. Wearing PPE reduces exposure to pesticide residues, but it
cannot be relied upon to reduce exposure to the same level expected of
a no-contact activity. Even with PPE, workers engaged in activities
involving treated surfaces still face a risk of greater exposure than
they would if they did not contact treated surfaces.
    The proposed regulatory text concerning the no-contact exception
appears in Sec.  170.303(a) of the proposed rule.
    d. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates there are no costs associated
with this proposal since it is merely a clarification of the existing
regulations.
    ii. Limit ``agricultural emergency'' exception.
    a. Existing WPS regulations. The current WPS permits early entry
into a treated area during an REI in the event of an agricultural
emergency. The emergency exception provision applies only where a
state, tribal or federal agency having jurisdiction has declared the
existence of circumstances that could cause an agricultural emergency
to exist on the establishment. The existing exception allows early
entry for an unlimited duration and does not prohibit hand labor
activities. The agricultural emergency exception requires the employer
to provide required PPE to all workers who engage in early entry
activities.
    b. Summary of the issues. State regulators, farmworker groups, and
agricultural employers raised several concerns about the exception for
agricultural emergencies (Ref. 82, p. 6). The primary issues concerned
what constitutes an agricultural emergency, whether the state or
tribe's lead agency for pesticide regulation is the only agency that
can declare an agricultural emergency, which types of other agencies
may be authorized to declare an agricultural emergency, and whether the
lead agency may declare in advance conditions that would constitute an
agricultural emergency.
    EPA has provided guidance through the IGW policy document that any
federal agency or state or tribal government may declare an
agricultural emergency (Ref. 14). For example, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) may do so indirectly by declaring
that specific weather conditions could constitute an agricultural
emergency. However, there are no recordkeeping or reporting
requirements, so EPA has no data available regarding the number of
times agricultural emergencies have been declared by states, tribes, or
federal agencies.
    A coalition of farmworker advocate groups requested that EPA impose
greater restrictions on the agricultural emergency exception (Ref. 35).
    c. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to limit the
organizations that can declare an agricultural emergency and to limit
the time a worker can be in the treated area in an agricultural
emergency exception when a product requiring double notification has
been used.
    Since issuing the IGW policy document, the Agency has come to doubt
that agencies other than EPA and state or tribal pesticide regulatory
agencies have the background and technical expertise to adequately
assess the potential risks and benefits of early entry into pesticide
treated areas during REIs, or that they fully understand FIFRA's
statutory requirements to balance risks and benefits when establishing
conditions for workers to enter treated areas while an REI is in
effect. EPA therefore proposes to narrow the agricultural emergency
exception so that only EPA, a state department of agriculture, or the
state or tribal lead agency may declare an agricultural emergency under
the WPS to allow early entry into pesticide treated areas during the
REI. The Agency has particular concerns about the potential risks to
workers entering areas under the agricultural emergency exception when
the areas have been treated with a pesticide requiring double
notification (i.e., products whose labeling requires both oral and
posted notification of pesticide treatments because it presents a
heightened risk to worker health). This is especially the case when, as
noted above, the current agricultural emergency exception provides no
time limits for worker entry and permits hand labor. EPA believes that,
when such high toxicity double-notification products are used, the
potential pesticide exposure and risk to workers engaging in hand labor
activities during an REI is unreasonable.
    EPA therefore proposes to limit the amount of time a worker is
permitted to spend in an area treated with a double-notification
product to no more than 4 hours in any 24-hour period during an
agricultural emergency exception situation. EPA believes this change
would preserve the needed flexibility for agriculture to address the
conditions of the agricultural emergency while offering increased
protections for workers potentially exposed to the most highly toxic
pesticides. Even though an individual worker is limited to 4 hours of
early entry under such a situation, an agricultural employer could
rotate workers after each 4-hour interval.
    The revised text for the agricultural emergency exception appears
in Sec.  170.303(c) of the proposed rule.
    d. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost for limiting the
organizations that can declare an emergency and establishing a 4-hour
time limit (in a 24-hour period) for entry into an area treated with a
double-notification chemical under an agricultural emergency would be
negligible.

    e. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following questions:
     Are there reasons EPA should consider eliminating the
agricultural emergency exception?
     What benefits and drawbacks are associated with limiting
the agencies that can declare an agricultural emergency?
     Please share any data on the use of the agricultural
emergency exception, establishing a time limit, or other restrictions
associated with exceptions.
     Should EPA develop guidance on the criteria for declaring
an agricultural emergency and/or how a person or organization could
request an eligible agency to declare an agricultural emergency?
    iii. Codify ``Limited Contact'' and ``Irrigation'' exceptions.
    a. Existing WPS Regulations. EPA established two administrative
exceptions to the WPS prohibition against entry into treated areas
during an REI for ``limited contact'' and ``irrigation'' activities.
(60 FR 21955; May 3, 1995) (60 FR 21960; May 3, 1995) However, these
administrative exceptions, including the terms and conditions of the
exceptions, do not appear in part 170. The language in the existing
administrative exception for irrigation activities states that the task
must be unforeseen to meet the criteria for early entry.
    b. Summary of the issues. Stakeholders, primarily state regulatory
agencies, have raised concerns about the use of the term ``unforeseen''
in the exception (Ref. 36 p. 27). Irrigation is rarely an unforeseen
event in most agricultural areas and it must take place to ensure crop
survival. During the National Assessment meetings, state regulatory
officials and other stakeholders noted that the need to irrigate is
almost always foreseen, so the requirement for the need for irrigation
to be unforeseen limits the legitimate use of the exception.
    A coalition of farmworker organizations recommended that EPA
eliminate the irrigation and limited contact exceptions (Ref. 35).
Their recommendation was based on coalition members' belief that EPA
underestimated the level of contact workers would have with treated
surfaces and the potential for pesticide exposure through contact with
treated surfaces.
    EPA's FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel said that data generated by
the Agricultural Reentry Task Force and peer-reviewed by EPA have shown
which activities may be classified as no and low contact activities
that do not jeopardize the well-being of workers (Ref. 83).
    c. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to revise part
170 to codify the two current administrative exceptions for ``limited
contact'' and ``irrigation'' activities. In addition, EPA proposes to
remove the term ``unforeseen'' from the irrigation exception to make
the text more accurately reflect field practices. Finally, EPA proposes
to prohibit early entry under the limited contact and irrigation
exceptions into areas treated with a pesticide requiring double
notification (i.e., products whose labeling requires both oral and
posted notification of pesticide treatments), owing to the higher
potential for risks to workers' health.
    EPA believes that incorporating these exceptions into the rule,
rather than having them in separate Federal Register notices that
employers may not be aware of, would increase the regulated community's
awareness and understanding of the exceptions.
    The proposed regulatory text concerning the ``limited contact'' and
the ``irrigation'' exceptions appear in Sec.  170.303(d) of the
proposed rule.
    d. Costs. EPA estimates there would be no costs associated with
this proposal.
    iv. Eliminate provision for exceptions requiring Agency approval.
    a. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS permits persons or
organizations to request the Agency to grant an administrative
exception to entry restrictions specific to certain crops and
activities and pesticide products (40 CFR 170.112(e)). This same type
of process was used to develop the ``limited contact'' and
``irrigation'' exceptions discussed above.
    b. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to eliminate the
administrative exception process. When the WPS was first promulgated,
REIs for most pesticides subject to the WPS were established
generically through the WPS labeling provision in 40 CFR part 156, and
the administrative exception process was included in order to provide
product-specific REIs. However, as a result of the Agency's pesticide
reregistration efforts under section 4 of FIFRA, REIs are now
established for each individual pesticide product through the
registration or re-evaluation processes. Through these processes, the
specific needs of crop production are considered in setting REIs for
specific products and cropping practices. Accordingly, the Agency
believes it is more appropriate that such requests for adjusted REIs be
addressed through amendments to the registration of each specific
pesticide product than as administrative exceptions to the WPS.
    Additionally, by proposing to codify the existing administrative
exceptions as permanent exceptions, the Agency believes that the
current suite of available exceptions to the entry restrictions would
provide agriculture with the needed flexibility to address the range of
potential agricultural production problems that would warrant the need
for an exception to the current entry restrictions. The Agency has not
received any requests for new administrative exceptions in the last 15
years.
    There is no proposed regulatory text associated with the removal of
this provision.
    c. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates there would be no costs
associated with this proposal.
    5. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following questions:
     Do you have factual information about the current
frequency of use of any of the exceptions? If so, please provide it to
the Agency.
     What are the benefits and challenges of the proposed
amendments to each of the exceptions?
     Are there other reasonable alternatives that EPA did not
consider? If so, please describe and provide a rationale for their
consideration.
     Should EPA consider a different time limit for the
agricultural emergency exception? For other exceptions?
     Are there any drawbacks to adding the irrigation and
limited contact exceptions into the rule?
     For all comments, please provide factual information in
support of your assertions.

E. Expansion of Entry-Restricted Areas

    1. Overview. The existing WPS establishes entry-restricted areas
adjacent to the treated areas (i.e., adjacent to the areas where
pesticides are actually applied) only in nurseries and greenhouses. EPA
proposes to establish similar entry-restricted areas during
applications on farms and in forests. EPA expects this change would
result in reduced incidents of pesticide exposure to workers and other
persons from unintentional contact during application.
    2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS requires agricultural
employers to restrict nursery and greenhouse workers and other persons
on those establishments from entry-restricted areas, defined as
specific areas adjacent to those targeted for pesticide application (40
CFR 170.110). The size of the entry-restricted area depends on

the type of product applied and the application method. For example, if
a pesticide is applied as a mist in a nursery, the rule prohibits the
employer from directing any worker or other person from entering the
area being treated and within 100 feet of the treated area in all
directions from the nursery. The entry-restricted area applies only
during application and is distinct from the REI, which limits entry
into a treated area for a specific period of time after the application
ceases.
    Entry-restricted areas are also relevant to handlers and handler
employers since the WPS prohibits handlers from applying pesticides in
a manner that results in contact with workers or other persons (40 CFR
170.210(a)). The handler and the handler employer are responsible for
ensuring that the pesticide application does not contact any person,
which effectively requires the handler to cease or suspend application
if any persons are in areas where contact is possible.
    3. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to apply to
farms and forests the entry-restricted area requirements currently
applicable to nurseries so that all production applications are subject
to similar requirements. The proposed entry-restricted areas for farms
and forests would range from the treated area alone to 100 feet beyond
the treated area, depending on the type of product applied and the
application method. Fumigation is one of the application methods
covered by the entry-restricted area requirements. The proposed WPS
entry-restricted areas would still be limited by the boundary of the
establishment owner's property, as the establishment owner is subject
to the current rule. For example, if the WPS requires the entry-
restricted area to extend 100 feet in all directions from the treated
area, but there is only 50 feet between the treated areas and the
boundary of the owner's property, then the property line would be the
extent of the entry-restricted area under the WPS. WPS entry-restricted
areas are limited by the boundaries of the agricultural establishment
to limit the employer's responsibility under the WPS to the people on
his or her establishment. The Agency believes that the proposed
creation of entry-restricted areas for all farm and forest applications
would reduce risk to workers and other persons from pesticide exposure
when they may be working in or nearby an area adjacent to an ongoing
pesticide application. The proposed revisions would also provide more
consistent protection across all establishments covered by the WPS.
    The existing part 170 does not require entry-restricted areas
beyond the actual treated area for farms and forests. A worker may be
assigned to work in an area immediately adjacent to an area being
treated with pesticides. Many incidents of drift and off-target
application have resulted in reported worker illnesses. A recent study
cited off-target drift as the leading cause of reported agricultural
worker exposure incidents, with 1,216 individual worker pesticide
exposures reported from 1998-2005 (Ref. 11 p. 891).
    The proposed changes do not cover applications of soil fumigants or
any other pesticides that have buffer zones intended to protect human
health included on the product labeling. Where EPA has established
entry-restricted areas for a specific pesticide or group of pesticides
through labeling, the labeling-specific restrictions supersede the
generic requirements of the WPS.
    The proposed entry-restricted areas would complement the existing
WPS requirement that prohibits handlers from applying pesticides in a
way that results in contact with workers or other persons and the
proposal that would require handlers performing an application to cease
or suspend the application if workers or any persons are in the entry-
restricted areas during application. The proposal also works in concert
with the prohibition on the agricultural employer allowing or directing
any worker or other person, other than an appropriately trained and
equipped handler, to enter or remain in the treated area or any
applicable entry-restricted area during application.
    The proposed regulatory text concerning entry-restricted areas
during applications on farms and in forests and outdoor nurseries
appears in Sec.  170.105(a) of the proposed rule.
    4. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost for restricting entry
to areas adjacent to an area being treated would be negligible. There
may be instances where worker tasks in these adjacent areas must be
stopped until the application is complete, but EPA believes employers
can generally reassign workers to other tasks for the duration of the
pesticide application.
    5. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following questions:
     Is it reasonable for EPA to assume that workers can be
reassigned for the duration of the pesticide application?
     Are there any burdens to applying an entry-restricted area
on farms and in forests? Are there any other benefits?

XIII. Display of Basic Pesticide Safety Information

A. Location of Basic Pesticide Safety Information Display

    1. Overview. The existing WPS requires employers to post a poster
displaying basic safety information in a single location on the
establishment. EPA proposes to require that the pesticide safety
information also be displayed at the decontamination site(s).
    2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS requires agricultural and
handler employers to display the pesticide safety poster at a central
location on the establishment (40 CFR 170.135(d) and 170.235(d)).
    3. Summary of the issues. Farmworker organizations recommended
additional posting locations with the posted warning signs [see Unit
VIII.] or at worker changing areas (Ref. 35) (Ref. 74). They noted that
having the pesticide safety poster in multiple places where workers are
likely to see it increases the chances for workers to absorb the
messages and to know how to contact emergency personnel.
    4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to require that
employers display pesticide safety information at decontamination sites
in addition to a place on the agricultural establishment where workers
and handlers are likely to pass by or congregate and can be readily
seen and read. Adding the display of pesticide safety information to
decontamination sites improves workers' and handlers' access to the
self-protective and decontamination information. EPA believes that
providing the pesticide safety information at the decontamination sites
will not only remind workers and handlers about self protection but
will also ensure that emergency contact information is immediately
accessible at each decontamination site. It is likely that an exposed
worker or a colleague providing assistance would visit the nearest
decontamination site.
    Agricultural employers have told EPA that they generally have a set
of materials, sometimes on the back of a truck or on a mobile cart, for
decontamination. Displaying the pesticide safety information on such an
apparatus would not seem to impose significant additional burden. The
current WPS requires employers to move the decontamination supplies to
locations where workers or handlers are engaged in WPS activities. Once
added, the pesticide safety information would move along with the
decontamination supplies, imposing minimal additional burden on the
employer.

    The proposed regulatory text concerning the locations to display
pesticide safety information appears in Sec.  170.11(a)(3) of the
proposed rule.
    5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost of requiring the
basic pesticide information display at decontamination sites for
workers would be $2 million, or about $5 per agricultural establishment
per year. EPA estimates the cost of requiring the basic pesticide
information display at decontamination sites for handlers would be
$780,000, or about $2 per agricultural establishment per year. For a
complete discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see
the ``Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection
Standard,'' Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1).
    EPA cannot quantify the benefits associated with this proposal.
However, EPA believes that providing a reminder of basic hygiene
principles at places where workers and handlers wash before leaving the
treated area to eat and use the bathroom would increase the number of
workers and handlers following proper decontamination principles.
Emergency response information would have the maximum benefit if it is
immediately available where workers and handlers would go for
decontamination supplies. EPA believes that displaying pesticide safety
information at decontamination sites would reduce the number of
occupational pesticide-related illnesses.
    6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. Farmworker
organizations recommended two alternate options in addition to the
current requirements for posting the pesticide safety poster: requiring
the pesticide safety poster with all posted warning signs or requiring
the pesticide safety poster at worker changing sites. Requiring that
the pesticide safety poster be displayed wherever a warning sign is
posted would impose significant burden on employers. The pesticide
safety poster is much larger than the warning sign, so it would be
difficult for employers to put up and take down the pesticide safety
poster with the same ease as they handle the warning sign. In addition,
because the poster is much less durable than the warning sign, EPA
believes that employers would have to replace the poster periodically
when the treated area has to be posted for more than a few days. EPA
expects that employers would need to obtain multiple copies of the
poster and would have to replace them frequently.
    The WPS does not require employers to provide facilities for
workers to change clothes. A requirement to place the pesticide safety
poster at a site that may not exist at all establishments would not be
practical or feasible.
    For the reasons described above, EPA decided not to propose
requirements for employers to display the pesticide safety poster with
all posted warning signs or at worker changing sites. EPA believes that
it is more important and practical for workers to review the pesticide
safety poster at the site of the decontamination supplies, where they
can be reminded of safety and hygiene principles while cleaning
themselves after working in a treated area.
    7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following questions:
     What additional burden would employers face if the
proposed option to require pesticide safety information to be displayed
at decontamination sites is implemented? Would there be benefits to
employers?
     Do data exist that show that access to information such as
that on the pesticide safety poster at the same location as
decontamination supplies leads to more workers adopting hygiene
practices, thereby reducing the number of workplace illnesses?

B. Content of Basic Pesticide Safety Information Display

    1. Overview. The existing WPS mandates specific content for the
pesticide safety poster. EPA proposes to require additional information
so workers and handlers can contact the state or tribal enforcement
agency.
    2. Existing WPS regulations. Under 40 CFR 170.135(b)(1) through (2)
and 170.235(b)(1) through (2), the pesticide safety poster must include
the following content:
     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.
     Wash before eating, drinking, using chewing gum or
tobacco, or using the toilet.
     Wear work clothing that protects the body from pesticide
residues (long-sleeved shirts, long pants, shoes and socks, and a hat
or scarf).
     Wash/shower with soap and water, shampoo hair, and put on
clean clothes after work.
     Wash work clothes separately from other clothes before
wearing them again.
     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.
     Follow directions about keeping out of treated or
restricted areas.
     There are federal rules to protect workers and
handlers, including a requirement for safety training.
    The WPS also requires the employer to provide contact information
for the nearest emergency medical care facility and to update workers
and handlers if the information changes. EPA has developed a poster
that complies with the requirements of the regulation (except for the
site-specific information requirements) and makes it available to
agricultural employers free of charge.
    3. Details of the proposal/rationale. The Agency proposes to amend
the basic pesticide safety content required to be displayed on an
agricultural establishment to clarify the emergency medical information
section, and to include contact information for contacting the state or
tribal regulatory agency. The proposal no longer refers to a
``pesticide safety poster.'' Instead, the proposed regulatory text
refers to ``pesticide safety information'' to allow some flexibility in
how all the required information is displayed. EPA believes that most
agricultural establishments will choose to use EPA's free pesticide
safety poster to comply with the WPS pesticide safety information; EPA
would update the poster to include the proposed changes to the
information. However, the information does not have to be displayed as
a poster as long as the display includes the required information and
meets the requirements of the section.
    Finally, the Agency proposes to require that the pesticide safety
information display contain contact information for the state or tribal
regulatory agency for pesticide enforcement. EPA believes that workers
and handlers should have the opportunity to ask questions about
protections offered by the WPS and to report pesticide exposure
incidents or suspected non-compliance that may endanger them.
    The proposed regulatory text concerning the additional required
content of the pesticide safety information display appears in Sec.
170.11(a)(1) of the proposed rule. The text concerning requirements
when there are changes to the pesticide safety information appears in
Sec.  170.11(a)(2).
    4. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost to revise the
contents of the basic pesticide safety information display would be
$108,000 annually, or about $0.30 per WPS establishment per year. EPA
included in this estimate the cost for employers to purchase the
poster. However, EPA believes that many would obtain the updated poster
free of charge from the Agency; as a result the actual cost of this
requirement

may be lower. For a complete discussion of the costs of the proposals
and alternatives, see the ``Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to
the Worker Protection Standard,'' Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1).
    5. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following questions:
     What additional burden would employers face if the
proposed option to require pesticide safety information to be displayed
at decontamination sites is implemented? Would there be benefits to
employers?
     Should EPA consider other changes to content of the
pesticide safety information display? If so, what changes and why?

XIV. Decontamination

    Unit XII discussed proposed decontamination requirements
specifically for workers who enter a treated area in which an REI is in
effect as part of a suite of proposed changes to the protections for
early entry workers. This Unit discusses routine and emergency
decontamination for workers and handlers. The proposals in this Unit
would cover handlers and workers who are not entering a treated area in
which an REI is in effect.

A. Clarify the Quantity of Water Required for Decontamination

    1. Overview. The existing WPS requires employers to provide water
for decontamination. EPA proposes to clarify the quantity of water
required for decontamination from ``enough water for routine washing
and emergency eyeflush'' to a specific quantity.
    2. Current WPS regulations. The WPS requires agricultural employers
to provide decontamination supplies, including ``enough water for
routine washing and emergency eyeflush,'' when workers are performing
activities in areas where a pesticide was applied or an REI was in
effect at any point in the last 30 days and come in contact with
anything that has been treated with a pesticide (40 CFR 170.150). The
WPS also requires handler employers to provide decontamination
supplies, again including ``enough water for routine washing, for
emergency eyeflushing and for washing the entire body in case of an
emergency,'' for handlers (40 CFR 170.250). Part 170 does not specify
how much would constitute enough water to meet the decontamination
supplies requirement.
    3. Summary of the issues. Agricultural employers have reported
difficulty in ensuring that they provide an adequate amount of water
because the amount of water needed for each worker or handler is not
stated in the current regulation. When EPA implemented the WPS, state
regulatory agencies requested that the EPA clarify the quantity of
water necessary to satisfy the decontamination requirement. In guidance
published in 1993, ``How to Comply with the Worker Protection Standard
for Agricultural Pesticides: What Employers Need to Know,'' EPA
recommended that employers provide 1 gallon of water per worker for
routine decontamination and 3 gallons per handler for routine washing
and emergency decontamination (Ref. 80, p. 25). This guidance was
developed by experts from EPA's program and enforcement offices and
state regulatory agencies. Further discussion about the amount of water
required can be found in ``How to Comply with the Worker Protection
Standard for Agricultural Pesticides: What Employers Need to Know.''
    4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to require that
employers must provide 1 gallon of water per worker for routine
decontamination and 3 gallons of water per handler for routine washing
and emergency decontamination. By codifying the guidance discussed
above, EPA believes that employers would have no difficulty in
determining the amount of water for routine and emergency
decontamination required for their workers and handlers. This
specificity would assist in providing workers and handlers with the
amount of water necessary for routine washing and provide handlers with
a sufficient amount of water should a pesticide emergency occur.
Employers could be confident that they are complying with the
regulation and keeping their workers and handlers safe in the event of
an exposure by providing adequate supplies.
    The proposed regulatory text concerning the required quantities of
decontamination water appears in the proposed rule Sec.  170.111(b) for
workers and Sec.  170.209(b) for handlers.
    5. Cost. EPA estimates the cost of this proposal would be
negligible because it is a codification of existing EPA policy
interpretations of the WPS.
    6. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following questions:
     Is 1 gallon for routine washing for workers and 3 gallons
for handler emergency decontamination, reasonable amounts of water for
workers or handlers who have been exposed to pesticides? If not, why?
     What amount of water would be reasonable, or what other
alternative is there?
     Would waterless cleansing agents used in lieu of soap,
water, and towels effectively remove pesticide residues from workers'
and handlers' hands? Should EPA consider allowing the employer to
substitute waterless cleansing agents for the currently required
decontamination supplies? If so, why? Please provide data on the
efficacy of waterless cleansing agents for removing pesticide residues.

B. Eliminate the Substitution of Natural Waters for Decontamination
Supplies

    1. Overview. The existing WPS permits employers to substitute
clean, natural waters from springs, streams, lakes or other sources for
contained water supplies at decontamination sites in specific
circumstances. EPA proposes to eliminate the option to substitute
clean, natural waters for the potable water required for
decontamination. The proposal would allow the employer to supplement
the required water supplies with clean, natural waters if necessary.
    2. Current WPS regulations. The WPS allows employers to substitute
clean waters from springs, streams, lakes, or other sources for
decontamination at remote work sites if such water is more accessible
than the water located at the nearest place of vehicular access (40 CFR
170.150 and 170.250). Generally, the WPS requires agricultural and
handler employers to provide decontamination supplies no farther than
one quarter mile away from where workers are working or from where
handlers are performing handling activities. One exception to this
requirement is that if worker and handler activities occur more than
one quarter mile from the nearest point of vehicular access, soap,
single-use towels, and water may be located at the nearest point of
vehicular access, but the employer may allow workers or handlers to use
clean water from springs, streams, lakes, or other sources if more
accessible than the decontamination supplies.
    3. Details of the proposal/rationale. The Agency proposes to
eliminate the exemption that allows agricultural and handler employers
to use clean, natural bodies of water in lieu of the required
decontamination supplies. Employers would need to ensure that workers
and handlers have access to sufficient quantities of potable water for
decontamination; however, employers would be permitted to supplement
the required quantities of potable water with natural waters in the
event of an emergency. The Agency believes that vehicular access to
worker and handler sites is common and not likely more than a quarter
mile distance from the worker location. Modern agriculture is highly
mechanized, and the Agency

believes that workers and handlers are routinely transported close to
their work areas by vehicles.
    EPA believes that workers and handlers would be better protected by
ensuring access to the required amount of potable water for routine and
emergency decontamination, and allowing the option to supplement those
supplies with clean, natural waters in the event of an emergency.
    4. Costs and benefits. EPA did not estimate the cost for this
proposal because EPA believes that a negligible number, if any,
employers would be impacted by this proposal. However, EPA has no data
on the number of employers that may use this option and is seeking data
below.
    5. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following:
     Please provide information on situations, if any, in which
the proposed change would significantly increase the burden on
agricultural employers and offer alternative proposals.
     Please provide any information on the cost associated with
the current situation and proposed change.
     Would using natural waters for decontamination worsen a
worker's or handler's situation after pesticide exposure?
     Would it be beneficial to use any water in the event of a
pesticide emergency or when decontamination supplies cannot be located
within one quarter mile because of limited vehicular access?

C. Requirements for Ocular Decontamination in Case of Exposed Pesticide
Handlers

    1. Overview. The existing WPS requires employers to provide a
specific amount of water to handlers that they can carry for use in the
event of an ocular pesticide exposure. EPA proposes to require
employers to provide clean, running water at permanent (i.e., plumbed
and not portable) mixing and loading sites for handlers to use in the
event of an ocular pesticide exposure.
    2. Current WPS regulations. The WPS requires handlers to carry
water for eyewashing to use in case of an ocular exposure if the
pesticide label mandates the use of eye protection (40 CFR 170.250).
The handler employer must assure that 1 pint of water is available for
each handler who is performing the tasks for which the pesticide label
requires protective eyewear.
    As discussed in Unit XIV.A., the WPS requires employers to provide
water sufficient for handlers to perform routine decontamination in
addition to the requirement discussed in this section to provide water
for handlers' eye washing in case of an ocular exposure.
    3. Summary of the issues. Farmworker Justice provided the Agency
with information about several incidents of accidental ocular exposure
(Ref. 36). They noted that even when handlers use the PPE required on
the label, they may be accidentally exposed to the pesticide. For
example, a pesticide may splash into a handler's eye even if he or she
wears proper PPE. The eyes can suffer serious damage if exposed to
certain pesticides. Farmworker Justice noted that the WPS requirement
for 1 pint of water would not satisfy EPA's own current recommendations
in the Label Review Manual, which calls for a person who suffers ocular
pesticide exposure to ``hold eye open and rinse slowly and gently with
water for 15-20 minutes'' (Ref. 84, pp. 7-12). In addition, the
American National Standards Institute standard for eyeflushing calls
for a sufficient quantity to rinse eyes continuously for 15 minutes
(ANSI Z358.1-2009). Therefore, Farmworker Justice recommended that EPA
adopt a standard for ocular decontamination more protective than the
WPS's current one pint requirement.
    4. Details of the proposal/rationale. In addition to the 1 pint of
water already required to be carried by the handler, the Agency
proposes to require that at permanent mixing and loading sites handler
employers provide clean, running water sufficient to provide at a
minimum of 1.5 liters (0.4 gallons) per minute for 15 minutes for
handlers to use for eye flush purposes in the event of an ocular
pesticide exposure. EPA expects that adopting this standard would
improve the ability of handlers to mitigate damage to their eyes from
accidental exposure. EPA expects that most permanent mixing sites are
plumbed to facilitate the dilution of concentrated pesticides and to
load application equipment and have the potential to provide clean
water flowing at the appropriate rate to comply with this requirement.
For those handlers who may be exposed while not working at the
permanent mixing loading site, EPA believes the 3 gallons of water
required for routine decontamination would provide 7.5 minutes of
rinsing, sufficient to clear the eyes immediately at which point the
handler can continue rinsing his or her eyes for the full 15 minutes at
a permanent site.
    The Agency based the proposed requirement on OSHA's standard for
ocular decontamination. OSHA's requirement for general industry states,
``where the eyes or body of any person may be exposed to injurious
corrosive materials, suitable facilities for quick drenching or
flushing of the eyes and body shall be provided within the work area
for immediate emergency use'' (29 CFR 1910.151(c)). Based on the OSHA
standard, the American National Standards Institute developed a water
flow standard to address minimum operating requirements for an eye
flush. These operating standards establish a minimum of 1.5 liter (0.4
gallons) per minute of flushing fluid, such as water, for 15 minutes
(ANSI Z358.1-2009) (Ref. 85). Some states have required handler
employers to provide ocular decontamination conforming to the OSHA
standard. For example, Oregon implemented the same requirement proposed
here in 2006 (OSHA<PHONE_NUMBER> K(5)). In FY 2007, Oregon reported 23
instances of non-compliance. By FY 2010, only 5 establishments were
cited for non-compliance (Ref. 86, p. 6).
    The proposed regulatory text concerning ocular decontamination for
handlers appears in Sec.  170.209(d) of the proposed rule.
    5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates that the cost of this proposal
would be minimal because mixing pesticides at a permanent site
generally involves substantial quantities of water and EPA believes
that plumbed water is almost always available at those sites. EPA's
proposal would not require employers to purchase a metered eyewash
station; any water supply that meets the proposed standards would
comply.
    6. Alternative options considered. EPA considered requiring
portable eyewash stations at all mixing or loading sites as an
alternative to the proposed option. EPA believes that most
establishments mix and load at various sites and may move from day to
day. The cost of equipping each potential mixing or loading site
(permanent and non-permanent) with a portable eye wash station would be
about $14 million per year for agricultural establishments and
commercial pesticide handling establishments.
    As discussed above and in Unit XIV.A., handler employers are
required to provide 3 gallons of water per handler for decontamination.
EPA believes that if necessary, handlers could use this decontamination
water for about 7 minutes at the recommended rate of 1.5 liter (0.4
gallons) per minute, which would give them time to get to a location
with sufficient water to rinse their eyes for the recommended amount of
time. EPA does not intend for the routine decontamination water to be
used for emergency eyeflush on a regular basis. However, the Agency

believes that it is appropriate to consider the existing availability
of clean water where the handler may be exposed as well as new
requirements when considering alternatives to the current eyewash
requirement. EPA believes that most handlers will have access to either
a permanent mixing or loading site or to the routine decontamination
water. EPA believes the benefits associated with a requirement to have
a portable eyewash station at each mixing or loading site is not
reasonable in comparison with the cost and alternatives available.
Therefore, EPA decided not to propose a requirement for portable
eyewash stations at all mixing or loading sites.
    7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following questions:
     Is it reasonable to require that clean, running water be
present and flowing at a minimum of 1.5 liter (0.4 gallons) per minute
for 15 minutes at permanent mixing and loading stations? If not, why?
     Should EPA consider other ways to provide ocular
decontamination for handlers? If so, please provide specific details,
including rationale and cost.
     Do data exist on the relative number of mixing and loading
activities that occur at permanent sites and away from permanent sites?
     Are there other ways in which ocular decontamination might
reasonably be improved at temporary mixing and loading sites?

D. Showers for Handler Decontamination

    1. Overview. The existing WPS establishes specific requirements for
routine and emergency handler decontamination supplies, but these
requirements do not include shower facilities. EPA considered but is
not proposing adding a requirement for handler employers to provide
shower facilities.
    2. Current WPS regulations. As discussed above in Unit XIV.A., the
WPS specifies the types and amounts of supplies handler employers must
provide. The WPS does not require handler employers to provide shower
facilities.
    3. Summary of the issues. Farmworker organizations have requested
that EPA require employers to provide showers for handlers to
facilitate decontamination at the end of the work day. They suggest
that the use of showers after pesticide handling activities could
decrease pesticide exposure to handlers. Representatives of
agricultural employers, the agricultural employers, and others from the
SBAR panel process, noted that in their experience even when showers
are available, handlers do not use them (Ref. 18, p. 21) (Ref. 87).
Some stakeholders reported that many workers may be reluctant to shower
at the workplace because they believe that showering immediately after
work is detrimental to their health (Ref. 88).
    As an alternative to imposing a requirement to provide showers, the
SBREFA SERs suggested that EPA expand training for pesticide handlers
to include how to minimize take-home exposure and how to use additional
personal protective equipment (Ref. 18).
    4. Rationale for not proposing. The Agency considered requiring
showers but decided to not propose it because EPA believes that the
additional training content for handlers (Unit VII.E.) and clarified
decontamination provisions in Unit XIV.A., provide handlers with
adequate information on how to reduce take-home exposure and sufficient
supplies for routine washing.
    5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates that installing a shower on a
single establishment would cost about $105,000. Nationally, this would
cost about $22.7 billion dollars for construction. This estimate does
not include future costs of maintenance. For a complete discussion of
the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the ``Economic
Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,''
Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1).
    6. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the
following questions:
     Is it reasonable to assume a significant percentage of
handlers would not use a permanent shower facility at a worksite?
     Would increased handler training, clarified amounts of
water for routine decontamination, and/or the use of additional PPE for
handlers be sufficient to protect handlers and their families from
occupational and take-home pesticide exposure? If not, why?
     Are there other preventative measures that would provide
comparable protection to handlers and their families without incurring
the same cost as requiring installation of shower facilities? If so,
please describe the preventative measures, estimated cost, and
implementation.
     What other alternatives exist?

XV. Emergency Assistance

    A. Overview. The existing WPS requires employers to provide
``prompt'' transportation to an emergency medical facility to workers
or handlers who may have been exposed to pesticides. EPA proposes to
require employers to make transportation to a medical facility
available to workers and handlers within thirty (30) minutes of
learning of the exposure. EPA also proposes to require the employer to
provide to the worker or handler or to treating medical personnel the
SDS and pesticide label, or all of the pertinent information in an
alternate form.
    B. Existing WPS Regulations. The WPS requires employers to make
transportation available promptly to workers or handlers that have been
``poisoned or injured by exposure to pesticides'' (40 CFR 170.160 and
170.260). Employers must provide the following information, if
available, to the exposed person or the treating medical personnel:
name of the product, EPA registration number, active ingredient,
medical information from the label, circumstances of the pesticide
application (or the handling of the pesticide), and circumstances of
the pesticide exposure.
    C. Summary of the issues. State enforcement agents have reported to
EPA that the vague timeframe has prevented them from verifying whether
a worker was provided transportation to the medical facility in
conformance with the WPS, and recommended that EPA adopt a more
specific timeframe for transportation. They contend that the existing
requirement is vague and leads to various interpretations of the
timeframe. Without a formal definition of ``prompt,'' compliance and
enforcement become more difficult for inspectors. In addition, varying
interpretations of ``prompt'' could lead to conflict between employers,
agricultural workers and handlers, and medical personnel about how
quickly necessary information and transportation must be provided in an
emergency situation.
    Farmworker advocacy organizations have noted the difficulty in
obtaining proper medical treatment for workers and handlers without all
of the relevant information from the label and circumstances of the
incident. Given the difficulty of diagnosing an illness or injury
related to a pesticide exposure, treating physicians need information
related to the pesticide products potentially involved and
circumstances of the incident to initiate proper treatment. In
addition, the sooner a person exposed to pesticides is transported for,
and thus receives, treatment, the more likely the diagnosis and
treatment will lead to a successful medical outcome. Farmworker
advocacy organizations recommended that EPA require the employer to
provide the information whether requested or not.

They also recommended adding an option for the employer to satisfy the
requirement by providing the information in the current regulations, a
copy of the label, or a copy of the SDS.
    D. Details of the Proposal/Rationale. EPA proposes to require
agricultural employers and handler employers to provide emergency
medical assistance within thirty (30) minutes after learning that an
employee has been poisoned or injured by exposure to pesticides as a
result of his or her employment, replacing the current standard of
``prompt.'' The emergency medical assistance includes both providing
the required information and making transportation to a medical
facility available to the affected worker or handler. Although the
intent of the proposal is for the injured party to receive medical
attention as soon as possible, this requirement does not establish a
timeframe for reaching the medical facility.
    The proposal would require employers to provide to the worker,
handler, or treating medical personnel information on each pesticide to
which the worker or handler might have been exposed. The employer could
satisfy this requirement by providing copies of both the SDS and the
pesticide labeling. Alternatively, the employer could provide all of
the following information: product name, EPA registration number,
active ingredient(s), antidote, first aid, and any other medical
treatment information from the label or the SDS. The employer would
also be required to provide to the worker, handler, or treating medical
personnel the circumstances of the pesticide application(s) or use(s)
and the circumstances of the pesticide exposure.
    Pesticide workers and handlers are instructed to wash their bodies
and clothing immediately if they come into contact with a pesticide.
The existing regulation requires agricultural employers and commercial
pesticide handler employers to provide sufficient water and soap to
workers and handlers for routine and emergency decontamination. In the
event of a more serious illness or injury that requires immediate
medical attention, however, it is critical for the worker or handler to
be evaluated and treated quickly. When medical treatment is provided
soon after the illness or injury, the effects of the pesticide exposure
can be minimized. The longer the illness- or injury-causing exposure
persists, the more likely the worker or handler will suffer more severe
effects. EPA believes that requiring transportation and information
about the pesticide(s) and circumstances of the exposure to be provided
within thirty minutes after learning of the exposure would reduce the