95-585. Exceptions to Worker Protection Standard Early Entry Restrictions; Irrigation Activities

[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2830-2842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-585]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 170

[OPP-250098; FRL-4917-7]


Exceptions to Worker Protection Standard Early Entry 
Restrictions; Irrigation Activities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed exceptions to rule; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is considering exceptions to the Worker Protection 
Standard for Agricultural Pesticides (WPS), published at 57 FR 38102 
(August 21, 1992), that would allow, under specified conditions, 
workers to perform early entry irrigation tasks for more than 1 hour 
per day during a restricted entry interval (REI). Early entry is entry 
to a pesticide-treated area before expiration of the REI.
DATES: Comments, data, or evidence should be submitted on or before 
February 27, 1995. EPA does not intend to extend this comment period.

ADDRESSES: Comments identified by the document control OPP-250098 
should be submitted in triplicate by mail to: Public Response and 
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of 
Pesticide Programs, Environment Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., 
Washington, DC 20460. All written comments filed pursuant to this 
notice will be available for public inspection in Room 1132, Crystal 
Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, [phone], 
from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday thru Friday except legal holidays.
    Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by any of 
three different mechanisms: by sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: 
[email protected]; by sending a ``Subscribe'' message to 
[e-mail] and once subscribed, send your 
comments to RIN-2070-AC69; or through the EPA Electronic Bulletin Board 
by dialing 202-488-3671, enter selection ``DMAIL,'' user name ``BB--
USER'' or 919-541-4642, enter selection ``MAIL,'' user name ``BB--
USER.'' Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding 
the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Comments and 
data will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1 file format 
or ASCII file format. All comments and data in electronic form must be 
identified by the docket number OPP-250098 since all five documents in 
this separate part provide the same electronic address. No CBI should 
be submitted through e-mail. Electronic comments on this proposed rule, 
but not the record, may be viewed or new comments filed online at many 
Federal Depository Libraries. Additional information on electronic 
submissions can be found in unit VI. of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeanne Heying, Certification, Training 
and Occupational Safety Branch (7506C), Environmental Protection 
Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, [phone], or your 
regional or State official as noted in the List of Worker Protection 
Contact below.


[[Page 2831]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    This proposed WPS rule amendment is one of a series of Agency 
actions in response to concerns raised since publication of the final 
rule in August 1992 by those interested in and affected by the rule. In 
addition to this proposed amendment, EPA is publishing four other 
notices soliciting public comment on concerns raised by various 
affected parties. Other actions EPA is considering include: (1) 
modification to the worker training requirements; (2) requirements for 
crop advisors; (3) reduced restricted entry intervals (REIs) for low 
risk pesticides; and (4) reduced early entry restrictions for 
activities involving limited contact with treated surfaces. The Agency 
is interested in receiving comments on all options and questions 
presented.
    Section 170.112(e) of the Worker Protection Standard for 
Agricultural Pesticides (WPS) (40 CFR part 170), published at 57 FR 
38102 (August 21, 1992), provides a mechanism for considering 
exceptions to the WPS provision that limits early entry during a 
restricted-entry interval (REI) to perform agricultural tasks, 
including irrigation tasks. The Agency has received requests for 
exceptions to the early entry limitations for performing irrigation 
tasks from parties in the States of California and Hawaii. The 
California parties also requested an indefinite entry period for frost-
prevention tasks; this request has been returned to the requesters for 
additional supporting information and may be considered later. The 
Agency is proposing for consideration a national exception to the WPS 
early entry restrictions for performing irrigation tasks. The purpose 
of this notice is to solicit further information and comment on the 
proposal to assist the Agency in determining whether the conditions of 
entry under any of the proposed exceptions would pose unreasonable 
risks to workers performing the permitted irrigation tasks during a 
restricted-entry interval.
In addition, EPA solicits further information about the economic impact 
of granting or not granting the proposed exceptions. For further 
information please contact the person list under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT above, or your regional or State official as noted 
in the following List:

List of Worker Protection Contacts

EPA Regional Contacts

    Ms. Pam Ringhoff
    U.S. EPA, Region I
    Pesticides Section (APP)
    John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg.
    Boston, MA 02203
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]

    Ms. Theresa Yaegel-Souffront
    U.S. EPA, Region II, (MS-240)
    Pesticides, & Asbestos Section
    2890 Woodridge Avenue, Bldg. 209
    Edison, NJ 08837
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]

    Ms. Magda Rodriguez
    U.S. EPA, Region III
    Pesticides Section (3AT-32)
    841 Chestnut Bldg.
    Philadelphia, PA 19107
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]




    Ms. Jane Horton
    U.S. EPA, Region IV
    Pesticides Section (4APT)
    345 Courtland Street, NE
    Atlanta, GA 30365
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]

    Mr. Don Baumgartner
    Mr. John Forwalter
    Ms. Irene Miranda
    U.S. EPA, Region V
    Pesticides Section (SP-14J)
    77 West Jackson Boulevard
    Chicago, IL 60604-3507
    Phone: [phone] (Don)
     886-7834 (John)
    353-9686 (Irene)
    FAX: [phone]

    Mr. Jerry Oglesby
    U.S. EPA, Region VI
    Pesticides Section (6T-PP)
    1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
    Dallas, TX 75202-2733
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]

    Ms. Kathleen Fenton
    U.S. EPA, Region VII
    Pesticides Section (TOPE)
    726 Minnesota Avenue
    Kansas City, KS 66101
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]

    Mr. Ed Stearns
    U.S. EPA, Region VIII
    Pesticides Section (8ART-TS)
    999 18th Street, Suite 500
    Denver, CO 80202-2405
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]

    Ms. Katherine H. Rudolph
    U.S. EPA, Region IX
    Pesticides Section (A-4-5)
    75 Hawthrone Street
    San Francisco, CA 94105
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]

    Mr. Allan Welch
    U.S. EPA, Region X
    Pesticides Section (AT-083)
    1200 Sixth Avenue
    Seattle, WA 98101
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]

National Contacts



REGION I

Connecticut

    Ms. Debra Cattucio
    Pesticides/PCB Management Division
    Dept. of Environmental Protection
    165 Capitol Avenue
    Hartford, CT 06106-1600
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]



Maine

    Ms. Tammy Gould
    Board of Pesticide Control
    ME Dept. of Agriculture/Food & Rural Resources
    Station 28
    State Office Building
    Augusta, ME 04333-0028
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]

Massachusetts

    Ms. Lillian Rivera
    Pesticide Bureau/Department of Food & Agriculture
    Department of Agriculture
    100 Cambridge Street
    Boston, MA 02202-0009
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]

New Hampshire

    Mr. Murray L. McKay, Director
    Division of Pesticide Control
    New Hampshire Dept. of Agriculture
    Caller Box 2042
    Concord, NH 03302-2042
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]





Rhode Island

    Ms. Elizabeth M. Lopes-Duguay
    Senior Plant Pathologist
    Division of Agriculture
    Department of Environmental Management
    22 Hayes Street
    Providence, RI 02908-5025
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]


Vermont

    Mr. John Berino
    Division of Plant Industry
    Laboratories & Consumer Assurance
    Dept. of Agriculture, Food & Markets
    116 State Street
    Montpelier, VT 05620-2901
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]



[[Page 2832]]

REGION II


New Jersey

    Mr. Raymond Ferrarin
    Assistant Director
    Pesticide Control Program
    New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
    CN 411
    Trenton, NJ 08625
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]


New York

    Mr. James S. Moran, PE, Supervisor
    Bureau of Pesticides Regulation
    New York State Department of
     Environmental Conservation
    50 Wolf Road
    Albany, NY 12233-7254
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]


Puerto Rico

    Ms. Arline R. de Gonzalez, Director
    Agriculture Materials Laboratory
    Puerto Rico Dept. of Agriculture
    P.O. Box 10163
    Santurce, PR 00908
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]


Virgin Islands

    Mr. Leonard Reed
    Assistant Director
    Division of Environmental Protection
    Virgin Islands Dept. of Planning
     & Natural Resources
    Nisky Center, Suite 231
    Nisky 45 A
    St. Thomas, U.S. VI 00802
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]



REGION III


Delaware

    Mr. Larry Towle
    Delaware Dept. of Agriculture
    2320 S. Dupont Highway
    Dover, DE 19901
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]


District of Columbia

    Mr. Mark Greenleaf (C-T)
    DCRA/ERA/ECD
    Pesticides Section - Suite 203
    2100 Martin Luther King, Jr. Ave. SE
    Washington, DC 20020
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]


Maryland

    Mr. John Bergquist
    Pesticide Regulation Section
    Maryland Dept. of Agriculture
    50 Harry S. Truman Parkway
    Annapolis, MD 21401
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]




Pennsylvania

    Mr. Dave Bingamen
    Bureau of Plant Industry
    PA Department of Agriculture
    2301 N. Cameron Street
    Harrisburg, PA 17110-9408
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: 7l7/783-3275


Virginia

    Mr. Don Delorme
    Office of Pesticide Management
    VA Department of Agriculture
     & Consumer Services,
    P.O. Box 1163, Rm. 403
    1100 Bank Street
    Richmond, VA 23219
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]


West Virginia

    Mr. Ed Hartman
    West Virginia Dept. of Agriculture
    P.O. Box 66
    Inwood, WV 25428
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]



REGION IV


Alabama

    Mr. Pat Morgan
    Pesticide Administrator
    AL Dept. Agriculture & Industries P.O. Box 3336
    Montgomery, AL 36109-0336
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]


Florida

    Dr. Marion Fuller
    Ms. Mari Dugarte-Stavania
    Florida Dept. of Agriculture
    3125 Conner Boulevard, MC-2
    Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]


Georgia

    Mr. Mike Evans
    Special Projects Coordinator
    Georgia Dept. of Agriculture
    Entomology & Pesticides
    Capitol Square, Suite 550
    Atlanta, GA 30334
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]


Kentucky

    Mr. Ken Richeson
    Worker Protection Coordinator
    Kentucky Agriculture
    Div. of Pesticides
    500 Metro Street
    Frankfort, KY 40601
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]



Mississippi

    Mr. Tommy McDaniel
    Pesticide Coordinator
    MDAC, Bureau of Plant Industry
    P.O. Box 5207
    Miss. State, MS 39762
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]


North Carolina

    Ms. Kay Glenn
    Pesticide Specialist
    N.C. Dept. of Agriculture
    P.O. Box 27647
    Raleigh, NC 27611
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]


South Carolina

    Dr. Neil Ogg
    Ms. Tammy Lark
    Special Programs Manager
    Dept. of Fertilizer & Pesticide
     Control
    257 Poole Agricultural Center
    Clemson University, Box 340394
    Clemson, SC 29634-0394
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]


Tennessee

    Ms. Karen Roecker
    Worker Safety Coordinator
    Tenn. Dept. of Agriculture
    Div. of Plant Industries
    P.O. Box 40627, Melrose Station
    Nashville, TN 37204
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]



REGION V


Illinois

    Mr. Thomas Walker, Manager
    Support Services
    Bureau of Environmental Programs
    IL Department of Agriculture
    State Fairgrounds, P.O. Box 19281
    Springfield, IL 62706
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]


Indiana

    Mr. Joseph Becovitz
    Office of Indiana State Chemist
    Purdue University
    1154 Biochemistry Building
    West Lafayette, IN 47907-1154
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]


Michigan

    Ms. Katherine Fedder

[[Page 2833]]

    MI Department of Agriculture
    Pesticides & Plant Pest Management Division
    611 West Ottawa Street
    P.O. Box 30017
    Lansing, MI 48909
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]


Minnesota

    Mr. Steve Poncin, Supervisor
    Pesticide Enforcement Unit
    MN Department of Agriculture
    90 West Plato Blvd.
    St. Paul, MN 55107
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX:


Ohio

    Mr. Robert DeVeny
    Pesticide Division Inspector
    OH Department of Agriculture
    65 South Front Street
    Columbus, OH 43068
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]


Wisconsin

    Mr. Eric Nelson
    WI Department of Agriculture
    Trade & Consumer Protection
    801 West Badger Road
    Madison, WI 53708
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]




REGION VI


Arkansas

    Mr. Don Alexander/
    Mr. Charles Armstrong
    Arkansas State Plant Board
    P.O. Box 1069
    Little Rock, AR 72203
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]


Louisiana

    Mr. Peter Grandi
    LA Department of Agriculture
     & Forestry
    P.O. Box 3596
    Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3596
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]


New Mexico

    Ms. Sherry Sanderson
    New Mexico Department
    P.O. Box 30005, Dept. 3AQ
    Las Cruces, NM 88003-0005
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]


Oklahoma

    Mr. Jerry Sullivan
    Plant Industry & Consumer Services
    OK State Department of Agriculture
    2800 North Lincoln Blvd.
    Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4298
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]


Texas

    TX Department of Agriculture
    Stephen F. Austin Bldg.
    P.O. Box 12847
    Austin, TX 78711
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]



REGION VII


Iowa

    Mr. Jim Ellerhoff
    Program Coordinator
    IO Department of Agriculture
     & Land Stewardship
    Henry A. Wallace Building
    900 East Grand
    Des Moines, IO 50319
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]

    Mr. Charles Eckerman
    IO Department of Agriculture
     & Land Stewardship
    Henry A. Wallace Building
    900 East Grand
    Des Moines, IO 50319
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]


Kansas

    Mr. Gary Boutz,
    Pesticide Law Administrator
    Ms. Glenda Mah,
    Programs Coordinator
    Kansas State Board of Agriculture
    901 S. Kansas, 7th Floor
    Topeka, KS 66612-1281
    Phone: [phone] (G. Boutz)
     913/296-0672 (G. Mah)
    FAX: [phone]


Missouri

    Mr. Jim Lea, Supervisor
    Plant Health Division
    MO Department of Agriculture
    P.O. Box 630
    Jefferson City, MO 65101
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]

    Mr. Paul Andre
    Programs Coordinator
    MO Department of Agriculture
    P.O. Box 630
    Jefferson City, MO 65101
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]


Nebraska

    Mr. Richard Reiman, Chief
    Bureau of Plant Industries
    NE Department of Agriculture
    P.O. Box 94756, State House Station
    Lincoln, NE 68509
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]

    Mr. Grier Friscoe, Manager
    Mr. Jamie Green, Prog. Coord.
    Pesticide/Noxious Weed Prog.
    Post Office Box 94756
    State House Station
    Lincoln, NE 68509
    Phone: [phone] (G. Friscoe)
     402/471-6882 (J. Green)
    FAX:




REGION VIII


Montana

    Mr. Steve Baril
    Environmental Management Office
    Department of Agriculture
    Agriculture Livestock Bldg.
    Capitol Station
    Helen, MT 59620
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]


North Dakota

    Mr. Jack Peterson, Director
    ND Department of Agriculture
    State Capitol Building
    600 East Blvd. 6th Floor
    Bismark, ND 58505-0020
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]


South Dakota

    Mr. Brad Berven, Administrator
    SD Department of Agriculture
    Division of Regulatory Services
    Anderson Bldg.
    Pierre, SD 57501
    Phone: [phone]

    Mr. Joshua Logg, Jr.
    Pesticide Enforcement Program
    Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
    P.O. Box 590
    Eagle Butte, SD 57625
    Phone : [phone]
    FAX: [phone]

    Mr. Irv Provost, Coordinator
    Pesticide Enforcement Program
    Natural Resources Agency
    Oglal Sioux Tribe
    P.O. Box 468
    Pine Ridge, SD 57770






Utah

    Mr. Gary L. King
    Department of Agriculture
    350 North Redwood Road
    Salt Lake City, UT 84116
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]



REGION IX


Arizona

    Mr. Dan Danielson

[[Page 2834]]

    Environmental Services Division
    Department of Agriculture
    1688 N. 7th Street
    Phoenix, AZ 85006
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]


Navajo Nation

    Mr. Jefferson Biakkedy
    Pesticide Regulatory Program
    Navajo Environmental Protection
     Administration
    Navajo Nation
    P.O. Box 308
    Fort Defiance, AZ 86504
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]


Intertribal Council of Arizona

    Ms. Elaine Wilson
    Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
    4205 North 7th Avenue, Suite 200
    Phoenix, AZ 85013
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]




California

    Ms. Virginia Rosales
    Pesticides Enforcement Branch
    Department of Pesticide Regulation
    CA Environmental Protection Agency
    1220 N Street
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX:


Hawaii

    Mr. Gerald Kinro
    Pesticides Branch
    Division of Plant Industry
    HI Department of Agriculture
    P.O. Box 22159
    Honolulu, HI 96822-0159
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]


Nevada

    Mr. Chuck Moses
    Division of Plant Industry
    NV Department of Agriculture
    P.O. Box 11100
    Reno, NV 89510-1100
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]



REGION X


Alaska

    Mr. Karl Kalb
    Dept. of Environmental Conservation
    500 South Alaska, Suite A
    Palmer, AK 99645
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]



Idaho

    Mr. John Helsol
    Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
    P.O. Box 306
    Fort Hall, ID 83203
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]

    Mr. Robert Hays
    ID Dept. of Agriculture
    P.O. Box 790
    Boise, ID 83701
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]


Oregon

    Mr. Chris Kirby
    OR Department of Agriculture
    635 Capitol Street, N.E.
    Salem, OR 97310-0110
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]

    Ms. Marylin Schuster
    Oregon OSHA
    21 Labor & Industries Bldg.
    Salem, OR 97310
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]


Washington

    Mr. Don Locke
    WA Department of Labor & Industries
    P.O. Box 44610
    Olympia, WA 98504-4610
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]

    Ms. Ann Wick
    WA State Dept. of Agriculture
    Pesticide Management Division
    P.O. Box 42589
    Olympia, WA 98504-2589
    Phone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]

A. Worker Protection Standard

    The revisions to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) promulgated 
at 57 FR 38102, August 21, 1992, were intended to reduce the risk of 
pesticide poisonings and injuries among agricultural workers, including 
pesticide handlers. The WPS includes three types of provisions to:
    (1) Eliminate or reduce exposure to pesticides.
    (2) Mitigate exposures that occur.
    (3) Inform employees about the hazards of pesticides.
Exposure reduction provisions include application restrictions, use of 
personal protective equipment (PPE), and entry restrictions.

B. Restricted Entry Intervals (REI)

    Agricultural workers, in general, are prohibited from entering a 
pesticide-treated area during the restricted entry interval (REI) 
specified on the product labeling if they might contact anything 
treated with a pesticide.
    Regulations at 40 CFR part 156, subpart K specify that WPS labeling 
retains all of the pesticide-specific permanent REIs set by EPA on the 
basis of adequate data, and retains all established interim REIs longer 
than those established in part 156. The WPS preamble notes: ``These 
longer REIs have been based, in general, on either delayed [chronic] 
effects or other exposure hazards such as persistence, post-application 
chemical transformations, or potential for severe skin sensitization.'' 
In the absence of pesticide-specific REIs, the WPS establishes a range 
of REIs, from 12 to 72 hours, depending upon the toxicity of the active 
ingredient(s) and other factors.
    During an REI, tasks that result in contact with treated surfaces 
(including soil, water, air, and plant surfaces in the treated area) 
are limited to the following:
    (1) Short-term tasks (1 hour per day) that do not require hand 
labor.
    (2) Tasks, including hand labor tasks, performed in a situation 
meeting the definition of an agricultural emergency.
    (3) Tasks that may be permitted by EPA through case-by-case 
exceptions. Exceptions may be granted pursuant to 40 CFR 170.112(e)(2), 
if affected persons or organizations persuade EPA that the benefits of 
the exception outweigh the risks associated with the exception and the 
workers can perform the early entry tasks without unreasonable adverse 
risk.

C. Current WPS Irrigation Provisions During REI

    Irrigation activities expressly are excluded from the definition of 
``Hand labor'' at 40 CFR 170.3: ``Hand labor does not include 
operating, moving, or repairing irrigation or watering equipment....'' 
EPA realizes that moving, adjusting, or repairing irrigation equipment 
may result in contact with treated surfaces, yet these tasks may be 
necessary while an area remains under a REI. The Agency thus has 
allowed entry during an REI to perform irrigation-related tasks, but 
has placed strict limitations on that entry.
    These limitations, set out at 40 CFR 170.112(c), include:
    (1) There is no entry for the first 4 hours after application and 
thereafter until any exposure level listed on the labeling has been 
reached or any ventilation criteria established at 40 CFR 170.110(c)(3) 
or in the labeling has been met.
    (2) No hand labor tasks are performed.
    (3) The time for any worker in treated areas under an REI does not 
exceed 1 hour in any 24-hour period.
    (4) The required PPE is provided, cleaned, and maintained for the 
worker.

[[Page 2835]]

    (5) Agricultural employers ensure that workers wear required PPE, 
and other PPE-related protections are provided.
    (6) Measures are taken to avoid heat stress (see, A Guide to Heat 
Stress in Agriculture, EPA HW77 March 1994).
    (7) Required decontamination supplies and decontamination areas are 
provided.
    (8) Required PPE-related, heat-stress-related, and labeling-
specific safety information have been furnished.
    Pursuant to The Pesticide Compliance Dates Extension Act, Pub. L. 
103-231, April 6, 1994, implementation of some WPS provisions, 
including some entry restrictions, has been delayed until January 1, 
1995. Until then, if irrigation workers contact with pesticide-treated 
surfaces is limited only to feet, lower legs, hands, and forearms, then 
coveralls plus chemical-resistant gloves and chemical-resistant 
footwear may be substituted for the early-entry PPE specified on the 
label. Also, until January 1, 1995, workers performing non-hand-labor 
tasks may work for an unlimited time in an area remaining under an REI. 
Starting January 1, 1995, routine early entry to perform non-hand labor 
tasks, including operating irrigation equipment, will be limited to 1 
hour per worker each day if the entry would result in contact with 
pesticide-treated surfaces. In addition, irrigation workers must wear 
PPE specified on the pesticide label for early entry.

D. Irrigation Tasks Allowed by the WPS After January 1, 1995

    EPA has issued the following guidance in the publication Worker 
Protection Questions & Answers, clarifying circumstances in which 
irrigation tasks can take place during a restricted-entry interval 
pursuant to the restrictions at 40 CFR 170.112:
    WPS was designed to reduce the opportunities for workers to be 
exposed to pesticide residues in treated areas during REIs. For 
example, with the exceptions noted below, irrigation pipe may not be 
moved during REIs when that task would bring workers into contact 
with treated surfaces. As a result, agricultural employers should 
schedule pesticide applications and irrigation so that the need for 
irrigation involving workers during REIs will be minimized. If, 
however, irrigation in a treated area under a REI is essential, it 
is permitted under WPS under the following conditions:
    1. Without entry to treated Area. Some irrigation tasks take 
place at the edges of fields, which may not be within the treated 
area (area to which the pesticide has been directed.) An example may 
be the installation or removal of pipe for furrow irrigation. As 
long as such activities do not cause workers to enter the treated 
area, they may take place without time limit or use of PPE during 
the REI.
    2. With Entry to Treated Area.
    a. By Pesticide Handlers. During chemigation or when pesticide 
labeling requires the pesticide to be watered-in, this task may be 
performed by trained handlers wearing the handler PPE specified on 
the product labeling. [See the Question and Answer on watering-in, 
found in the Handler Activities section of Worker Protection 
Questions & Answers, for additional details.]
    b. By Workers With No Contact. WPS provides an exception for 
entry to treated areas, after any inhalation exposure level or 
ventilation criteria have been met, without PPE or other time 
limitation, when there will be no contact with the pesticide or its 
residues (40 CFR 170.112(b)]. Note, however, that PPE cannot be used 
to prevent the contact under this exception. This exception may 
apply to a variety of typical irrigation situations, e.g.:
    \ Workers moving irrigation equipment or performing other tasks 
in the treated area after the pesticide was correctly soil-
incorporated or injected, provided the workers do not contact the 
soil subsurface by digging or other activities.
    \ Workers walking or performing other tasks in furrows after the 
pesticides are applied to the soil surface in a narrow band on beds 
and there is no contact with those treated surfaces.
    c. Short Term -- Workers may enter treated areas during REIs to 
perform short-term tasks [40 CFR 170.112(c)] provided that:
    (1) Such entry does not take place during the first 4 hours 
after application and until any inhalation exposure limits or 
ventilation criteria are met;
    (2) The entry does not involve more than 1 hour per day per 
worker;
    (3) The worker does not perform tasks defined in WPS to be hand 
labor (operating irrigation equipment is not hand labor under WPS);
    (4) The worker wears the early-entry PPE specified on the 
pesticide labeling;
    (5) Is correctly informed as required for early-entry workers in 
the WPS; and
    (6) all other applicable requirements of 40 CFR 170.112 are met.
    (d) Agricultural Emergencies. The WPS permits early entry by 
workers to perform tasks including irrigation while wearing early-
entry PPE, and without time limits, in response to an agricultural 
emergency, as defined in the regulation at 40 CFR 170.112(d).
    e. EPA-Approved Exceptions. Section 170.112(e) of WPS permits 
exceptions to the general prohibition on work in treated areas 
during REIs when EPA has approved a special exception. Exceptions 
may be requested of EPA as described in that section of the 
regulation.


    The EPA publication Worker Protection Questions & Answers is 
available through the docket at EPA Headquarters.

II. Evidence Necessary to Support Exception

    The Worker Protection Standard establishes at 40 CFR 170.112(e)(2), 
a process to allow the Agency to initiate an exception to WPS entry 
restrictions, or to grant exceptions upon request from interested 
persons, if the benefits associated with otherwise-prohibited early 
entry activities exceed the risks associated with those early entry 
activities.
    As specified in existing WPS, at 40 CFR 170.112(e)(2), data 
supporting an exception request should include:
    (1) Crop(s) and specific production task(s) for which the exception 
is requested, including an explanation of the necessity to apply 
pesticides of types and at frequencies such that the REI would 
interfere with necessary and time-sensitive tasks for the requested 
exception period.
    (2) Geographic area, including unique exposures or economic impacts 
resulting from REI prohibitions.
    (3) Evaluation, for each crop-task combination, of technical and 
financial viability of alternative practices, and projection of 
practices most likely to be adopted by growers if no exception is 
granted, including rescheduling pesticide application or irrigation 
tasks, non-chemical pest control, machine irrigation, or use of 
shorter-REI pesticides.
    (4) Per-acre changes in yield, market grade or quality, and changes 
in revenue and production cost attributable to REI prohibitions for 
crop and geographic area, specifying data before and after WPS 
implementation. Also, include factors which cause changes in revenue, 
market grade or quality; product performance and efficacy studies; and 
source of data submitted and the basis for any projections.
    (5) The safety and feasibility of the requested exception, 
including feasibility of performing irrigation activity wearing early-
entry PPE required for pesticides used; means of mitigating heat-
related illness; time required daily per worker to perform irrigation 
activity; and methods of reducing worker exposure. Mitigating factors 
discussed should include availability of water for routine and 
emergency decontamination, and mechanical devices to reduce worker 
contact with treated surfaces. Discussion of the costs of early entry 
should include decontamination facilities, worker training, heat stress 
avoidance procedures, and provision, inspection, cleaning and 
maintenance of PPE.
    (6) Why alternative practices would not be technically or 
financially feasible.

[[Page 2836]]

III. Requests for Exception and Supporting Evidence

    Parties from the States of California and Hawaii each have 
requested exceptions to the WPS REI requirements for workers performing 
tasks related to irrigation. The full exception requests are available 
through the docket at EPA Headquarters, the Regions and the States.

A. California Growers Request for Exception

    California growers have requested that workers be permitted entry 
into treated areas under an REI for an indefinite time to perform 
irrigation tasks when workers are (1) properly trained, (2) use the 
label-specified PPE, (3) are provided decontamination facilities, and 
(4) are not allowed entry to the treated area for at least 4 hours 
following pesticide application.
    California cited a broad range of soil types, climates and crops 
requiring irrigation tasks such as moving pipe, turning on valves, 
checking sprinkler and drip irrigation nozzles, and removing debris or 
obstructions impeding water flow. Requesters indicate that these tasks 
``do not involve substantial contact with treated plants.'' The 
California requesters cite conditions specific to their state to 
support an REI exception.
    1. Alternate practices. The California requesters assert that 
alternative practices are not technically practical because the 
availability of irrigation water is often at the discretion of the 
irrigation district. They note that often a grower does not know until 
the last few hours when water will arrive from the irrigation 
contractor.
    The California requesters also state that the failure to properly 
irrigate plants in a timely manner induces plant stress, disrupts 
integrated pest management (IPM) practices, increases plant 
susceptibility to pests, and may ultimately increase pesticide use, 
resulting in greater exposure to workers.
    Finally, the requesters state that the 1-hour limitation on early 
entry activity per worker per day unnecessarily restricts agricultural 
activities vital to crop production.
    2. California regulations. The requesters cite California 
Regulations (Article 3, Field Worker Safety, section 6770), which 
permit workers to perform irrigation activities in treated areas during 
a restricted-entry interval, provided:
    (1) Sprays have dried and dusts have settled.
    (2) The workers are informed of the identity of the pesticide 
applied, the existence of the REI, and the protective work procedures 
they are required to follow.
    (3) Workers are wearing the personal protective equipment required 
by the pesticide label for early entry.
    (4) The workers are instructed to thoroughly shower with warm water 
and soap as soon as possible after the end of the work shift.
For certain pesticides, including all pesticides with the signal word 
DANGER and certain other pesticides with a history of illness or injury 
incidents involving workers exposed to post-application residues, the 
California regulations prohibit entry during a restricted-entry 
interval to perform hand labor tasks, such as picking, other hand 
harvesting, tying, pruning, tree-limb propping, disbudding, and other 
nonharvest cultural practices that may involve worker contact with 
plants. Irrigation tasks specifically are not included in this list of 
prohibited tasks. For all other pesticides, entry during a restricted-
entry interval to perform tasks, including hand labor tasks, is 
permitted after sprays have dried and dusts have settled, provided the 
protections listed above are provided to the worker.
    The California requesters state that heat-related illness will be 
mitigated by training workers and field-crew supervisors on heat stress 
symptoms and first-aid procedures. They note that drinking and handwash 
water and toilet facilities currently are required for all field 
workers under California regulations; and that the location of the 
nearest emergency medical care facility is listed on crop sheets that 
must be at each work site. They state also that WPS PPE maintenance 
provisions and early-entry restrictions will be required under 
California regulations as soon as they are revised to incorporate 
Federal standards.
    3. Economic impact. The California requesters estimate a sizeable 
economic impact if the requested exception is denied, based upon an 
estimated crew of two to four workers who require 6 to 8 hours to set 
up a sprinkler irrigation system on a 20-acre block of a vegetable 
crop. They state that the WPS requirement for worker rotation after 1 
hour is problematic because it would reduce efficiency and increase 
costs to recruit, hire, train and schedule workers; irrigators are 
unwilling to work for only 1 hour; and crop loss or nonuniform crop 
maturation would result from potential untimely irrigation of sensitive 
crops and seedlings.
    4. Pesticide injuries. Requesters address the protective nature of 
the requested exception by citing California Department of Pesticide 
Regulation (CDPR) records of reported pesticide injuries through the 
California Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program. The requesters' 
evaluation of this information alleges that allowing protected workers 
into treated areas to conduct irrigation activities for an unlimited 
time after an initial period of prohibited entry does not result in 
significant risk of illness or injury. Requesters support their 
exception request with data from DPR's pesticide illness surveillance 
program, which tracks potential pesticide injuries. They state, ``In 
1990, there were approximately 2,500 alleged pesticide illnesses/ 
injuries reported. These included occupational and non-occupational 
situations. Of these, only 20 cases involved irrigators that were in 
fields when exposure occurred. Only 1 of the 20 irrigation-related 
injury cases was classified as 'definitely' related to pesticides. In 
that case, the worker was determined to be involved in an activity that 
involved contact with containers contaminated with pesticide residues. 
In 1990, there were over 2.2 million agricultural pesticide application 
reports submitted in the state. The rate of irrigator injuries to 
possible pesticide exposure was 1 in over 110,000 applications.''

B. Hawaii Request for Exception

    The State of Hawaii provided EPA with an exception request 
submitted by an agricultural establishment, the Hawaiian Commercial 
Sugar Company (HC&S). The request related specifically to irrigation 
activities related to planting new crops, and appeared to comprise full 
exemption from WPS REI requirements for all agricultural activities 
described in their request. Requesters specifically cite their desire 
to return to the pre-WPS standard allowing agricultural workers to 
enter a field after pesticide application, once dusts have settled and 
sprays have dried. It is noteworthy that this was not allowed in the 
legislation delaying implementation of some portions of the WPS, which 
provided: ``Under the exception in section 2, no entry is allowed for 
the first 4 hours after application of the pesticide. This restriction 
parallels the requirements in the other exceptions to early entry 
promulgated in the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) at 40 CFR 
170.112.''
    Requesters state that during seed planting there is a ``buffer 
space'' between the cover machine and the herbicide tractor to ensure 
that agricultural workers are not exposed to pesticide drift. The size 
of the buffer space is dependent upon the wind

[[Page 2837]]

direction. Requesters state that herbicide sprays dry within a few 
minutes, and that on a typical sunny day drying occurs on contact. The 
irrigation hook-up crew follows behind the weed control operations, and 
connect the irrigation tubing injected by the mechanical planter, to 
the irrigation mainlines existing in the field. Requesters state that 
the majority of irrigation work is done on the field edge, which has 
the least amount of pesticide.
    Requesters state that timing of the irrigation operation is 
critical, since seed pieces are prone to desiccation and disease, and 
the seed needs water to germinate. Soil into which the seed pieces are 
placed is dry; thus if the fields are not irrigated immediately after 
planting, seed pieces will not germinate.
    Requesters also note that irrigation system repair is conducted at 
the time of planting. The drip irrigation system is largely underground 
and the main line at the field perimeter is reused for every crop. 
Since it is underground, system damages from harvesting of the previous 
crop are not evident until planting of the section is started. Drip 
hookup is performed as soon as possible so system damages can be 
repaired and the system returned to function before the seed 
dehydrates. Underground pipes are composed of PVC (polyvinylchloride); 
thus there is a delay of at least 1 day to dry repair glues.
    Requesters utilize furrow irrigation for approximately 2,000 acres 
of the 36,000 acre plantation, utilizing cane wash water from its 
factories. Installation of feeder ditches follow herbicide application 
in furrow irrigated fields. Some fields also are ``ratooned,'' where 
cane stalks are severed at the base of the plant during harvest, and 
the cane plant regrows from the stubble. The mechanical planter follows 
the emerged cane line in ratooned fields and places seed in the gaps 
where there are no plants. Vegetation is present to heights less than 1 
foot. Requesters state that it is readily evident when ``sprays have 
dried and dusts have settled'' in ratooned fields.
    1. Alternate practices. The request was limited to the time until 
new preemergence herbicides are approved for use in sugarcane fields. 
Requesters note that application of water to the field before the 
herbicide operation would result in tractors stuck in the mud and 
compaction of the moist soil. They state that application of herbicides 
immediately after planting is critical because it allows for minimal 
use of pesticides -- less material is needed to kill weeds as they try 
to emerge than to kill weeds after they emerge. Requesters state that 
capillary action of water is relied upon to wet the seed, this 
occurring within 24 to 72 hours depending upon soil type. Requesters 
state that if herbicide applications were delayed until after seed 
pieces were wetted, weed seeds would have germinated and herbicide 
usage rates would need to be increased.
    Requesters also note that the HC&S is located on the island of 
Maui, in a valley with average wind speeds of approximately 30 miles 
per hour. Pesticide applications must be done carefully to reduce drift 
to non-target areas; timing of application is used as the variable to 
control pesticide volume applied, and tractors are used to minimize 
herbicide usage by more accurately directing material to the target 
area. Rains from 10 to 40 inches per year are very seasonal; therefore 
requesters state that the plantation is totally reliant upon drip 
irrigation for growing crops.
    2. Current regulations. Requesters noted no pesticide regulations 
beyond current pesticide label requirements governing their operations. 
Requesters cited Hawaii's Workers Compensation Plan in discussing the 
safety and feasibility of their requested exception.
    3. Economic impact. Requesters state that immature sugarcane stalks 
are high in moisture content and vulnerable to desiccation resulting in 
failure to germinate. The cut ends of the stalk (as well as damaged 
portions of the 40 percent of seed pieces which are damaged 
physically), are avenues of entry for disease organisms, specifically 
the fungus Ceratocystis paradoxa or pineapple disease. Requesters note 
that timely treatment, planting and irrigation of seed pieces thus is 
important.
    Requesters note that tractor application of herbicides replaced 
aerial applications 7 years ago, in order to reduce herbicide usage, 
improve herbicide placement, reduce off-target drift, and to protect 
workers and the environment. Requesters also state that aerial 
applications are estimated to cost 20% more than current tractor costs, 
or $137,880 per year. Respraying by hand or tractor application is 
estimated to cost another $250,000 per year, to address areas missed 
along roads and pole lines, and increased weeds when application is 
delayed due to unfavorable wind conditions. Thus requesters estimate 
that total increased operating costs for aerial herbicide applications 
in place of timely tractor applications is $387,880 per year, an 
increase of 55 percent over current practice, as well as unquantifiable 
effects of potential off-target drift and potential for greater worker 
exposure. Nighttime aerial application is precluded by undulating 
terrain, poles and lines transecting fields, difficulty in determining 
flight path, and variable wind.
    Requesters also estimate that water application before herbicide 
application would impair field trafficability, decrease plant growth, 
increase weeds, require more pesticide use and additional worker 
exposure, and cost approximately $30l,600 or 42 percent more than 
current costs. Requesters estimate that using more tractors to cover 
the treated seed would require significant capital expenditure, with 
very poor return on investment since there will be significant amounts 
of unproductive time between tractor operations. They estimate an 
increase of $232,000 in operating costs per year to increase tractors 
and associated additional manpower, an increase of 33 percent over 
current operating costs, with no return on investment. Requesters also 
considered utilizing night operations to minimize the impact of a 12-
hour REI. They estimate an increase of $188,873 in annual operating 
costs, or 27 percent over current costs for this alternative, primarily 
due to missed areas, repair to damaged risers, and installation of 
lights.
    Finally, requesters estimate a cost of $702,000 for adhering to a 
stated 12-hour REI, due to delayed or reduced germination of seed 
pieces, a loss of at least 2 months in crop age, and the added cost of 
hand replanting. They estimate a loss of $2,332,800 in plantation 
profitability due to yield impacts.
    4. Pesticide injuries. Requesters cite the unique nature of 
sugarcane cultivation in discussing the safety and feasibility of their 
requested exception. They note that, unlike fields with crop canopies 
taller than workers, such as cornfields or grape vineyards, newly 
planted or ratooned sugarcane fields are bare or have vegetation less 
than 1 foot in height. They cite company policy requiring all workers 
to wear long-sleeved shirts, long pants, and eye protection. They note 
that irrigation hookup crews wear company-provided rubber gloves and 
rubber boots, due to constant contact with water. They state that 
irrigation crews work on the field edge, which has a minimum amount of 
herbicide, and that agricultural workers' frequent contact with water 
will wash off any residue that may be contacted. They note that workers 
have readily available potable water supplies, ready access to medical 
facilities, and ready access to Workers Compensation claims if they 
have a work related incident.

[[Page 2838]]

    Requesters state that company records indicate 11 pesticide related 
incidents between 1985 and 1993. They estimate their records cover 80 
handlers and 700 workers with field oriented tasks, working 40 to 48 
hours per week, 12 months per year, for 15,795,000 exposure hours. They 
report 10 unforeseen incidents involving handlers, including exposure 
due to a broken hose or fittings. Requesters note that all but one 
incident occurred before 1990, when operational sequences were changed 
to address the exposure episodes. The one incident which required 
absence from work did not involve pre-emergence herbicide application, 
but rather hand application later in the crop cycle.

IV. The Agency's Exception Proposal

A. Background

    Since the Worker Protection Standard was promulgated in August 
1992, the Agency has received information from growers and 
representatives from the Departments of Agriculture in several states 
regarding the 1-hour-per-worker-per-day limit during a restricted-entry 
interval to perform irrigation-related tasks. Most commenters, 
including the National Association of the State Departments of 
Agriculture (NASDA), asserted that the restriction would cause 
substantial disruption in the production of a wide variety of 
agricultural crops across a broad geographic area. NASDA and others 
urged the Agency to consider allowing entry during a restricted-entry 
interval for an unlimited time per day per worker, if the worker would 
not have substantial contact with treated surfaces, including crop 
foliage.
    They asked the Agency also to consider establishing a single suite 
of personal protective equipment that could be worn by irrigation 
workers rather than requiring them to wear the early-entry PPE 
specified on the labeling of the pesticide applied to the treated area. 
They argued that often irrigation workers need to work in several 
different treated areas in a single workday and that it would be 
burdensome to require workers to consult the pesticide label and to 
change their PPE before entering each different area. Although not 
directly addressed in the exception requests from California and 
Hawaii, these concerns are reflected in EPA's following proposed 
exception for irrigation tasks, and in the comments and information EPA 
solicits through this notice.
    The proposed exception specifically excludes pesticides whose 
labeling requires ``double notification'' -- both the posting of 
treated areas and oral notification to workers. The following Table 
lists the active ingredients subject to this requirement, which were 
identified in PR Notice 93-7.

B. Worker Protection Standard ``Double Notification'' Active Ingredient 
List

    The following Table 1 does not contain the active ingredients in 
products already bearing mandatory posting requirements prior to 
adoption of the WPS and which must be retained under WPS. It may also 
contain a few active ingredients which upon further Agency review, such 
as during reregistration, will be found not to require double 
notification (posting of treated areas and oral notification to 
workers). EPA expects the list to be amended prior to any final 
determination by the Agency. Nonetheless, EPA believes that this list 
contains the bulk of the active ingredients subject to double 
notification, and the list is included in this notice for the 
convenience of commenters. These pesticides contain an active 
ingredient categorized as highly toxic when absorbed through the skin 
(acute dermal toxicity), or as highly irritating (corrosive) when it 
contacts the skin, or otherwise are pesticides considered by EPA as 
posing high risk to workers for reasons such as suspected delayed 
effects, epidemiological data, or unusually long restricted-entry 
intervals. The Agency requires ``double notification'' for a pesticide 
when an incidental exposure -- for example, contact from brushing 
against the treated surfaces -- has the potential to cause an acute 
illness or injury or a delayed effect, such as developmental toxicity. 
For pesticides that contain ``double notification'' requirements on 
their labeling, the short-term (1 hour per worker per day) exception at 
40 CFR 170.112(c) would continue to apply.

          Table 1.--Double Notification Active Ingredient List          
                    From PR Notice 93-7, Appendix 3-A                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Common name                   Chemical code       CAS Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
aldicarb...........................  098301                     116-06-3
                                                                        
aldoxycarb.........................  110801                    1646-88-4
                                                                        
arsenic acid.......................  006801                    7778-39-4
                                                                        
arsenic trioxide...................  007001                    1327-53-3
                                                                        
carbofuran.........................  090601                    1563-66-2
                                                                        
chlorflurenol......................  098801                    2536-31-4
                                                                        
chloropicrin.......................  081501                      76-06-2
                                                                        
cuprous oxide......................  025601                    1317-39-1
                                                                        
disulfoton.........................  032501                     298-04-4
                                                                        
dodine.............................  044301                    2439-10-3
                                                                        
endothall, dimethylcocoamine.......  038905                             
                                                                        
endothall, disodium salt...........  038903                     129-67-9
                                                                        
ethephon...........................  099801                   16672-87-0
                                                                        
ethoprop...........................  041101                   13194-48-4
                                                                        
fonofos............................  041701                     944-22-9
                                                                        
(s)-(+)-lactic acid................  128929                      79-33-4
                                                                        
metam-sodium.......................  039003                     137-42-8
                                                                        
methamidophos......................  101201                   10265-92-6
                                                                        
methyl bromide.....................  053201                      74-83-9
                                                                        
methyl parathion...................  053501                     298-00-0
                                                                        
mevinphos..........................  015801                    7786-34-7
                                                                        
nicotine...........................  056702                      54-11-5
                                                                        
paraquat...........................  061601                    1910-42-5
                                                                        
parathion..........................  057501                      56-38-2
                                                                        
phorate............................  057201                     298-02-2
                                                                        
profenofos.........................  111401                   41198-08-7
                                                                        
propargite.........................  097601                    2312-35-8
                                                                        
sabadilla alkaloids................  002201                    8051-02-3
                                                                        
sulfotepp..........................  079501                    3689-24-5
                                                                        
sulfuric acid......................  078001                    7664-93-9
                                                                        
sulprofos..........................  111501                   35400-43-2
                                                                        
tefluthrin.........................  128912                   79538-32-2
                                                                        
terbufos...........................  105001                   13071-79-9
                                                                        
TPTH...............................  083601                      76-87-9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency has identified a range of national irrigation options 
with varying time and duration of entry, required PPE, and levels of 
exposure. The Pesticide Compliance Dates Extension Act, Pub. L. No. 
103-231, included these irrigation provisions:
    [A] worker may enter an area treated with a pesticide product 
during the restricted entry interval specified on the label of the 
pesticide product to perform tasks related to the production of 
agricultural plants if the agricultural employer ensures that -- (1) 
no hand labor activity is performed; (2) no such entry is allowed 
for the first 4 hours following the end of the application of the 
pesticide product; (3) no such entry is allowed until any inhalation 
exposure level listed on the product labeling has been reached; and 
(4) the personal protective equipment specified on the product 
labeling for early entry is provided in clean and operating 
condition to the worker.
    (b) Protective Equipment for Irrigation Work. -- For irrigation 
work for which the only contact with treated surfaces is to the 
feet, lower legs, hands, and arms, the agricultural employer may 
provide coveralls,

[[Page 2839]]

chemical resistant gloves, and chemical resistant footwear instead 
of the personal protective equipment specified on the label.


    The Congressional Record of March 24, 1994 provides further 
information concerning the legislative intent of the nature of the 
irrigation exception:
    Section 2(b) provides, until January 1, 1995, optional PPE for 
early entry workers operating, moving, or repairing irrigation or 
watering equipment where contact with the treated surfaces is 
limited to hands, arms, lower legs, and feet. Instead of providing 
the PPE on the label specified for early entry, in this situation, 
the agricultural employer can provide to the irrigation workers the 
following PPE: chemical resistant boots, chemical resistant gloves, 
and coveralls. This exception is only for workers performing 
irrigation work.


    In considering the terms of a proposed national exception, one 
concern is the need to learn from experience how the exception is being 
implemented, and whether workers truly are protected under the terms of 
the exception. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to limit the 
exception to 2 years, and to review and revise the terms of the 
exception as appropriate based upon experience during that 2 years.

C. Proposed Terms of Exception

    The Agency is considering the following proposed exception to early 
entry restrictions for irrigation tasks:
    A worker may enter a treated area during a restricted-entry 
interval to perform tasks related to operating, moving, or repairing 
irrigation or watering equipment, if the agricultural employer ensures 
that the following requirements are met:
    (1) The worker's only contact with treated surfaces (including, but 
not limited to, soil, water, air, surfaces of plants, crops, and 
irrigation equipment if exposed to pesticides during application) is to 
the feet, lower legs, hands and forearms.
    (2) The tasks could not be delayed until after expiration of the 
restricted-entry interval or the pesticide application could not be 
delayed until after the task is completed.
    (3) The pesticide product does not have a statement in the 
pesticide product labeling requiring both the posting of treated areas 
and oral notification to workers (``double notification'').
    (4) The personal protective equipment for early entry is provided 
to the worker. Such personal protective equipment shall either: (a) 
conform with the label requirements for early entry; or (b) coveralls, 
chemical resistant gloves, socks, and chemical resistant footwear.
    (5) No hand labor activity is performed.
    (6) The time in treated areas under a restricted-entry interval for 
any worker does not exceed 8 hours in any 24 hour period.
    (7) The requirements of 40 CFR 170.112(c)(3) through (9) are met. 
These are WPS requirements for all early-entry situations that involve 
contact with treated surfaces. They include (a) a prohibition against 
entry during the first 4 hours, and until applicable ventilation 
criteria have been met, and until any label-specified inhalation 
exposure level has been reached; (b) PPE definitions and requirements; 
(c) label-specific instructions; (d) heat-related illness avoidance 
measures; (e) decontamination requirements; and (f) a prohibition 
against wearing home or taking home PPE.
    (8) Notice about the exception for irrigation workers. The 
agricultural employer shall:
    (a) Notify early-entry irrigation workers orally, before such 
workers enter a treated area, that the establishment is relying on this 
exception to allow workers to enter treated areas to complete 
irrigation tasks.
    (b) post information about the terms and conditions of this 
exception. The posted information shall convey the following 
information:
    (i) The establishment is operating under the conditions of the 
exception for irrigation workers.
    (ii) No entry is allowed for the first 4 hours following an 
application, and until any exposure level has been reached or any 
ventilation criteria have been met.
    (iii) Time in treated areas under a restricted-entry interval for 
any worker does not exceed 8 hours in any 24 hour period.
    (iv) Decontamination and change areas are provided.
    (v) Basic safety training and label-specific information must be 
provided to early-entry irrigation workers.
    (vi) The personal protective equipment specified on the product 
labeling for early-entry, or a set of coveralls, chemical resistant 
gloves, socks, and chemical resistant footwear must be provided, 
cleaned, and maintained for early-entry irrigation workers.
    (vii) Early-entry irrigation workers must be instructed in how to 
put on, use, and remove the personal protective equipment.
    (viii) Measures to prevent heat stress must be implemented when 
appropriate.
    (ix) A pesticide safety poster and information about pesticide 
applications must be displayed in a central location.
    (x) The exception expires on January 11, 1997.
    (9) This exception shall expire 24 months after the effective date.

V. Comments Solicited

    The Agency is interested in a full range of comments and 
information on these exception requests, and is providing 45 days for 
submission of comments. Comments should be submitted in triplicate and 
addressed to the Document Control Officer (H7506C), Office of Pesticide 
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, 
DC 20460.

A. Possible Exceptions for Irrigation Tasks

    The Agency requests comments on whether an exception (if granted) 
should be limited to a geographic region that would be comprised of two 
or more States in one area. Comments are requested on whether an 
exception should be limited to California, should be limited to Hawaii, 
should include other states with irrigation issues similar to 
California and Hawaii, or should include the whole country.
    In determining whether to grant an exception, and, if so, whether 
the exception should or should not be limited to any particular 
geographic areas, the Agency will assess whether the risks and benefits 
associated with early-entry irrigation tasks differ across the country. 
In that regard, it should be noted that the California and Hawaii 
requests contained much information that may not apply to other parts 
of the country. This is particularly true with regard to the issue of 
the need to perform early-entry tasks. On this issue, the requestors 
identified a number of factors which may be unique to the two States 
involved. Commenters are encouraged to provide information about 
conditions in other States, and are particularly encouraged to include 
in their comments whether (and to what extent) the comments apply to 
particular geographic areas or to the whole country.
    The Agency particularly welcomes comments and risk/benefit 
information (including scientific data, where available) on the 
California, Hawaii, and Agency proposed exceptions, addressing the 
following issues:
    (1) The risks to workers under the various proposed exceptions, and 
whether risks differ among irrigation tasks or crop sites.

[[Page 2840]]

    (2) Whether use of personal protective equipment while performing 
irrigation work is feasible; and to what extent PPE is necessary to 
reduce risk to workers performing irrigation tasks.
    (3) Whether it is reasonable to expect early entry irrigation 
workers to wear the early entry PPE required on the pesticide label.
    (4) Whether feasible alternative practices would make routine early 
entry unnecessary to perform irrigation work.
    (5) Whether an exception is necessary to perform all irrigation 
tasks on all crop sites, or whether the Agency decision should 
differentiate among irrigation tasks or crops.
    (6) Whether an exception is necessary in all States, or whether the 
Agency decision should differentiate among States or regions (two or 
more States in one area) because of climate, water availability, or for 
other reasons.
    (7) The economic impact on the agricultural industry (or portions 
of the agricultural industry) of continued limitation of irrigation 
tasks during WPS restricted-entry intervals if the requested exception 
(or part of the exception) is not granted.
    (8) Other States' regulation of irrigation workers' exposure to 
pesticides.

B. Exposure Data to Evaluate Irrigation Exception Proposals

    To fully evaluate the exception proposals, the Agency solicits 
specific information concerning the following:
    (1) Potential worker exposure to pesticide residues related to 
early-entry irrigation activities, including setting-up, running, 
maintaining, checking, repairing, and moving irrigation equipment for 
different irrigation systems and equipment.
    (2) The amount of potential worker exposure/contact with surface 
residues or pesticides, including residues on soil, foliage, and 
irrigation pipes and equipment, including the expected timing, 
frequency, and duration of exposure.
    (3) The potential for field/site variables to affect potential 
exposure such as type of crop, crop height and density, crop row 
spacing, or whether surface residues are wet or dry.
    (4) Minimal exposure irrigation practices including incidental or 
intermittent exposure to surface residues on soil, foliage, irrigation 
pipes and equipment; versus potentially high exposure practices 
involving prolonged or continuous hand and upper body exposure from 
contact with residues on medium to tall crops, or moving irrigation 
pipes that may have high surface pesticide residues from being exposed 
in the field during pesticide spray operations.

C. Benefits Data to Support Exception

    EPA is specifically interested in benefits data that include, but 
are not limited to, the following:
    (1) Identification of the crops, specific production tasks and/or 
unique geographic areas for which this exception would apply. A well 
supported explanation of the use practices (e.g. typical rates, number 
and methods of application) that would be adversely impacted by denying 
the exception.
    (2) Evaluation of technically and financially viable alternatives 
for each crop/task combination and projection of the most likely 
alternative(s) that would be adopted by the growers in each unique 
geographic area if no exception is granted (e.g., rescheduling 
pesticide application or irrigation tasks, using non-chemical pest 
controls or shorter REI pesticides, utilizing different irrigation 
systems or agronomic practices, producing different crops, or any other 
adjustments that may be relevant). The submitted evaluations of impacts 
should be supported with documented empirical data as fully as 
possible; if experimental data are lacking, the basis for projected 
impacts must be adequately explained and documented.
    (3) Unique geographic estimates of grower impacts per acre for crop 
yield, market grade or quality, revenues, and production costs. These 
estimates should be based on the assumption that the growers will adopt 
the most likely alternative(s). Any new investment costs associated 
with the REI should be appropriately annualized. All estimates should 
be sufficiently documented for items such as current crop production 
budgets and comparative efficacy/performance studies for alternative 
pest control practices. Background information such as five previous 
years of data associated with total acres grown or harvested, total 
production/yield, farm level prices, market grades and other relevant 
information for each unique geographic area should be provided in order 
to establish a baseline.
    (4) Aggregate grower level impacts on an annual basis for all 
estimated impacted acres in each unique geographic area. Estimation of 
expected crop price changes, if any, without the exception and the 
basis for these estimates.
    (5) Estimation of any other significant economic impacts that are 
expected if the exception is not granted. Examples include impacts on 
consumers and foreign trade, regional shifts in commodity production, 
or social/community effects associated with local employment and 
income.

D. Other Valuable Data Solicited

    The Agency also solicits comment and information (including 
scientific data, where available) on the Agency's proposed exception 
and on several possible modifications to the proposed exception that 
the Agency is considering. These modifications include:
    (1) Establishing specific criteria for determining whether the 
early-entry is a necessity rather than a convenience.
    (2) Excluding from the exception all pesticides with the signal 
word DANGER in addition to (or rather than) those with ``double 
notification.''

E. Applicability of Exceptions

    EPA remains convinced that routine entry for unlimited time periods 
into areas remaining under a restricted-entry interval should not be 
allowed except under rare circumstances. Therefore, if the Agency 
grants a special exception for irrigation tasks, it intends, to the 
extent feasible, to limit the exception to situations where entry 
during the restricted-entry interval is a technical and economic 
necessity. The Agency seeks comments and information about:
    (1) Criteria limiting the exception to situations where the 
availability of irrigation water is unpredictable or the length of the 
REI exceeds the acceptable watering interval for the crop.
    (2) Situations where entry during a restricted-entry interval is an 
economic necessity.
    (3) Situations where entry during a restricted-entry interval is a 
technical necessity.
    (4) Other possible criteria for limiting an exception to those 
circumstances where early entry is unavoidable.
    (5) Excluding double-notification pesticides from any exception it 
may grant.
    (6) Whether to exclude all products with the signal word DANGER 
from any exception it may grant. EPA notes, however, that signal words 
are based on the acute toxicity of the end-use (formulated) product by 
any route of entry. The signal word would not reflect any concerns 
about delayed effects or sensitization. Furthermore, a DANGER signal 
word may be a result of an irritating ``inert'' ingredient in the 
formulated product that is volatile and thus is no longer present 
beyond 4 hours after the application is complete. Also, the DANGER 
signal word may be based on oral or inhalation toxicity,

[[Page 2841]]

which are not usually a concern for exposures to residues on treated 
surfaces.
    (7) Physical activities involved in irrigation. The Agency's 
proposed exception would allow only those irrigation tasks for which 
contact with the treated surfaces would be limited to the feet, lower 
legs, hands, and forearms. These tasks would include tasks such as 
operating irrigation gates, adjusting irrigation valves, and checking 
for or unclogging obstructions in areas with low crops or widely spaced 
rows. Carrying irrigation equipment that was in the treated area during 
application on one's shoulder or against one's chest would NOT meet 
these criteria.
    Therefore, the Agency solicits specific information about potential 
worker exposure to pesticide residues during various irrigation 
activities, including moving, installing, operating, maintaining, 
checking, repairing, and unclogging irrigation equipment. The Agency 
also seeks comment and information about whether the irrigation-related 
tasks that would be performed if the exception is granted would result 
in exposures just to the feet, lower legs, hands, and forearms, or 
whether many such tasks would result in more widespread exposures due 
to contact with residues on medium to tall crops or on residue-laden 
irrigation equipment.
    (8) Finally, EPA requests comment on whether to allow employers of 
early-entry irrigation workers to choose whether to provide the PPE 
specified on the pesticide label for early entry or the exception-based 
PPE (coveralls plus chemical-resistant gloves and footwear). For any 
toxicity category pesticide, the label-specified PPE might be more 
protective, because it might include coveralls over other work attire 
and/or protective eyewear. However, since the exposures are limited to 
the feet, lower legs, hands, and forearms, this extra PPE may not be 
necessary. Conversely, the coveralls plus chemical-resistant gloves and 
chemical-resistant footwear PPE in the proposed exception are more 
protective than the early-entry PPE required for toxicity III and IV 
(signal word CAUTION) pesticides, where chemical-resistant footwear is 
not required (labels will require coveralls, chemical-resistant gloves, 
shoes, and socks). EPA requests comment on whether to require chemical-
resistant footwear for all irrigation workers under this exception, 
because of the long period of potential exposure. The Agency did not 
include protective eyewear in the proposed exception, since exposure is 
limited to feet, lower legs, hands, and forearms. Also many pesticides 
that are highly irritating to skin (and are excluded from this 
exception) are also highly irritating to the eyes. Therefore, many of 
the products most irritating to the eyes also will be excluded from the 
exception. However, EPA solicits comment on whether protective eyewear 
should be included in the minimum PPE requirement for early-entry 
irrigation workers under any exception due to concern about workers 
rubbing or wiping residues into their eyes from hands, gloves, or 
sleeves.

VI. Public Docket and Electronic Comments

    A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket 
number ``OPP-250098'' (including comments and data submitted 
electronically as described below). A public version of this record, 
including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does 
not include any information claimed as confidential business 
information (CBI), is available for inspection from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The public record is 
located in Room1132 of the Public Response and Program Resources 
Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide 
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis 
Highway, Arlington, VA. Written comments should be mailed to: Public 
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division 
(7506C) Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
    As part of an interagency ``streamlining'' initiative, EPA is 
experimenting with submission of public comments on selected Federal 
Register actions electronically through the Internet in addition to 
accepting comments in traditional written form. This proposed exception 
is one of the actions selected by EPA for this experiment. From the 
experiment, EPA will learn how electronic commenting works, and any 
problems that arise can be addressed before EPA adopts electronic 
commenting more broadly in its rulemaking activities. Electronic 
commenting through posting to the EPA Bulletin Board or through the 
Internet using the ListServe function raise some novel issues that are 
discussed below in this Unit.
    To submit electronic comments, persons can either ``subscribe'' to 
the Internet ListServe application or ``post'' comments to the EPA 
Bulletin Board. To ``Subscribe'' to the Internet ListServe application 
for this proposed exception, send an e-mail message to: 
[e-mail] that says ``Subscribe RIN-2070-AC69 
 .'' Once you are subscribed to the ListServe, 
comments should be sent to: [e-mail]. All 
comments and data in electronic form should be identified by the docket 
number OPP-250098 since all five documents in this separate part 
provide the same electronic address.
    For online viewing of submissions and posting of comments, the 
public access EPA Bulletin Board is also available by dialing 202-488-
3671, enter selection ``DMAIL,'' user name ``BB--USER'' or 919-541-
4642, enter selection ``MAIL,'' user name ``BB--USER.'' When dialing 
the EPA Bulletin Board type  at the opening message. When the 
``Notes'' prompt appears, type ``open RIN- 2070-AC69'' to access the 
posted messages for this document. To get a listing of all files, type 
``dir/all'' at the prompt line. Electronic comments can also be sent 
directly to EPA at:
    [email protected]


    Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the 
use of special characters and any form of encryption. To obtain further 
information on the electronic comment process, or on submitting 
comments on this proposed exception electronically through the EPA 
Bulletin Board or the Internet ListServe, please contact John A. 
Richards (Telephone: [phone]; FAX: [phone]; Internet: 
[e-mail]).
    Persons who comment on this proposed rule, and those who view 
comments electronically, should be aware that this experimental 
electronic commenting is administered on a completely public system. 
Therefore, any personal information included in comments and the 
electronic mail addresses of those who make comments electronically are 
automatically available to anyone else who views the comments. 
Similarly, since all electronic comments are available to all users, 
commenters should not submit electronically any information which they 
believe to be CBI. Such information should be submitted only directly 
to EPA in writing as described earlier in this Unit.
    Commenters and others outside EPA may choose to comment on the 
comments submitted by others using the RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe or the 
EPA Bulletin Board. If they do so, those comments as well will become 
part of EPA's record for this rulemaking. Persons outside EPA wishing 
to discuss comments with commenters or

[[Page 2842]]

otherwise communicate with commenters but not have those discussions or 
communications sent to EPA and included in the EPA rulemaking record 
should conduct those discussions and communications outside the RIN-
2070-AC69 ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board.
    The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public 
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly, 
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically in the RIN-2070-
AC69 ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board, in accordance with the 
instructions for electronic submission, into printed, paper form as 
they are received and will place the paper copies in the official 
rulemaking record which will also include all comments submitted 
directly in writing. All the electronic comments will be available to 
everyone who obtains access to the RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe or the EPA 
Bulletin Board; however, the official rulemaking record is the paper 
record maintained at the address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the beginning of 
this document. (Comments submitted only in written form will not be 
transferred into electronic form and thus may be accessed only by 
reviewing them in the Public Response and Program Resources Branch as 
described above.)
    Because the electronic comment process is still experimental, EPA 
cannot guarantee that all electronic comments will be accurately 
converted to printed, paper form. If EPA becomes aware, in transferring 
an electronic comment to printed, paper form, of a problem or error 
that results in an obviously garbled comment, EPA will attempt to 
contact the comment submitter and advise the submitter to resubmit the 
comment either in electronic or written form. Some commenters may 
choose to submit identical comments in both electronic and written form 
to ensure accuracy. In that case, EPA requests that commenters clearly 
note in both the electronic and written submissions that the comments 
are duplicated in the other medium. This will assist EPA in processing 
and filing the comments in the rulemaking record.
    As with ordinary written comments, at the time of receipt, EPA will 
not attempt to verify the identities of electronic commenters nor to 
review the accuracy of electronic comments. Electronic and written 
comments will be placed in the rulemaking record without any editing or 
change by EPA except to the extent changes occur in the process of 
converting electronic comments to printed, paper form.
    If it chooses to respond officially to electronic comments on this 
proposed rule, EPA will do so either in a notice in the Federal 
Register or in a response to comments document placed in the rulemaking 
record for this proposed rule. EPA will not respond to commenters 
electronically other than to seek clarification of electronic comments 
that may be garbled in transmission or conversion to printed, paper 
form as discussed above. Any communications from EPA employees to 
electronic commenters, other than those described in this paragraph, 
either through Internet or otherwise are not official responses from 
EPA.

VII. Agency Decision on Proposed Exception

    EPA will publish in the Federal Register its decision whether to 
grant the requests for exception, as well as its final decision on a 
national exception. EPA will base its decision on whether the benefits 
of the exceptions outweigh the costs, including the value of the health 
risks attributable to the exception. An exception may be withdrawn by 
the Agency at any time if the Agency receives poisoning information or 
other data that indicate that the health risks imposed by the early-
entry exception are unacceptable or if the Agency receives other 
information that indicates that the exception is no longer necessary or 
prudent.

List of Subjects

    Administrative practice and procedure, Labeling, Occupational 
safety and health, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: January 3, 1995.

Lynn R. Goldman,

Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic 
Substances.

[FR Doc. 95-585 Filed 1-6-95; 12:16 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F