[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2842-2848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-586]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 170
[OPP-250101; FRL-4930-4]
Exceptions to Worker Protection Standard Early Entry
Restrictions; Limited Contact Activities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed exceptions to rule; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing an exception to the Worker Protection
Standard for Agricultural Pesticides (WPS), that would allow, under
specified conditions, workers to perform early entry limited contact
tasks for up to 3 hours per day during a restricted entry interval
(REI). Early entry is entry into a pesticide-treated area before the
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 number OPP-
250101 should be submitted in triplicate by mail 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. 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, (703) 305-5805,
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
listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov 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.'' Comments and data will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect
in 5.1 file format or ASCII file format. Electronic comments must be
submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and
any form of encryption. All comments and data in electronic form must
be identified by the docket number OPP-250101 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: Cathy Kronopolus, Certification,
Training and Occupational Safety Branch (7506C), Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, (703) 305-
7371.
[[Page 2843]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
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 the procedure for considering
exceptions to the WPS provision that limits early entry during a
restricted entry interval (REI) to perform agricultural tasks. EPA has
received a request for exception to the early entry limitations for
performing limited contact tasks from the National Association of State
Departments of Agriculture (NASDA). EPA is considering a national
exception to the WPS early entry restrictions for performing limited
contact tasks. The purpose of this Notice is to solicit further
information and comment to assist EPA in determining whether the
conditions of entry under the proposed exception would pose
unreasonable risks to workers performing the permitted limited contact
tasks during a restricted entry interval. In addition, EPA solicits
further information about the economic impact of granting or not
granting the proposed exception.
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) exceptions to
early entry restrictions for irrigation activities; (3) reduced
restricted entry intervals (REIs) for low risk pesticides; and (4)
requirements for crop advisors. The Agency is interested in receiving
comments on all options and questions presented.
A. Worker Protection Standard
The Worker Protection Standard (WPS) promulgated at 57 FR 38102,
August 21, 1992, is intended to reduce the risk of pesticide exposure
and related poisonings and injuries among agricultural workers and
pesticide handlers. The WPS includes provisions to: (1) eliminate or
reduce exposure to pesticides; (2) mitigate exposures that occur; and
(3) inform employees about the hazards of pesticides. Provisions to
reduce exposure include application restrictions, use of personal
protective equipment (PPE), and entry restrictions.
B. Entry Restrictions
Agricultural workers, in general, are prohibited from entering a
pesticide-treated area during the restricted entry interval (REI)
specified on the product labeling. REIs are the time period after the
end of the pesticide application during which entry into the pesticide
treated area is restricted. In the absence of pesticide-specific REIs,
the WPS establishes a range of interim REIs, from 12 to 72 hours,
depending upon the toxicity of the active ingredient(s) and other
factors.
C. Exceptions to Entry Restrictions
The WPS contains exceptions to the general prohibitions against
workers entering a pesticide-treated area during the REI. The exception
provisions of Sec. 170.112 permit entry into the treated area during
the REI (i.e. early entry) under specified conditions to perform tasks
that result in contact with treated surfaces:
(1) Short term tasks. Section 170.112(c) permits exceptions to the
general prohibition on work in treated areas during REIs for short-term
tasks, with adequate PPE, decontamination, and exposure time limits.
(2) Agricultural emergencies. Section 170.112(d) permits exceptions
to the prohibition against entry into treated areas during REIs for
agricultural emergencies. The WPS permits early entry by workers to
perform tasks while wearing early-entry PPE, and without time limits,
in response to an agricultural emergency.
(3) EPA-approved exception. Section 170.112(e) permits exceptions
to the prohibition on work in treated areas during REIs when EPA has
approved a special exception. Case-by-case exceptions may be granted if
affected persons or organizations persuade EPA that the benefits of the
exception outweigh the risks associated with the exception.
In addition, Sec. 170.112(b) establishes an exception for
activities where no contact with treated surfaces will occur. Under
this provision, often referred to as 'no contact' entry, workers are
allowed unlimited entry into pesticide-treated areas before the
expiration of the REI without personal protective equipment when no
contact with pesticide residues on treated surfaces or in soil, water,
or air will occur.
II. Request for Exception and Supporting Evidence
In a July 8, 1994 petition for rulemaking, NASDA requested that EPA
reduce WPS requirements for low contact work during the REI. In
particular, NASDA asked for limited PPE for low contact activities,
consisting of coveralls, chemical-resistant gloves, and footwear, and a
``somewhat longer period than the one-hour in twenty-four hour period
currently allowed by the exception for short-term activities.''
In a subsequent meeting with EPA on low contact activities, NASDA
suggested defining low contact as follows:
Low contact means a task related to the production of
agricultural plants that results in minimal body exposure. Personal
protective equipment cannot be used to achieve low contact status
for purposes of this definition, but rather the level of contact
must be inherent in the nature of the task performed. The task must
also meet one of the following:
(1) Results in only incidental worker body contact with treated
surfaces due to the stage of growth (seedlings) or nature of the
crop (size of plants), the way the task is performed (use of long
handled tools or operator placement on equipment), or the way the
pesticide was applied (soil incorporated).
(2) Is a very short-term task, involving worker body contact
with treated surfaces that are of only a few minutes' duration and
which occur at widely separated intervals.
This proposed definition was developed with the help of the
American Association of Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO).
NASDA also provided EPA with lists of tasks that they assert could
require entry into treated areas during an REI, and proposed that
allowance for the accomplishment of these tasks be covered under any
definition of 'low contact'. The lists of proposed low or limited
contact activities were provided to NASDA by state pesticide regulatory
agencies. In reviewing the lists of tasks, EPA found: (1) many of the
tasks may already be allowed under the exception for activities with no
contact set out in Sec. 170.112(b), (2) other tasks were identified as
clearly hand labor tasks or handler tasks that could result in
substantial contact with pesticide treated surfaces, (3) many tasks
were irrigation-related activities, which EPA is addressing in a
separate exception proposal, and (4) some were non-hand labor tasks
that could, in some circumstances, be accomplished with minimal contact
with pesticide residues on treated plants, soil, and other surfaces,
depending on how the task was performed.
III. EPA's Exception Proposal
A. Background
NASDA's membership includes state Departments of Agriculture, the
state agencies that, in most instances, are responsible for enforcing
the WPS. EPA
[[Page 2844]]
has seriously considered NASDA's request and acknowledges that there
may be certain non-hand labor tasks that may be necessary while a
treated area remains under an REI, such that the benefits resulting
from the performance of these tasks outweigh the risks associated with
the tasks as long as the workers can perform the early entry tasks with
minimal contact. While the WPS does provide in Sec. 170.112 for
exceptions for short-term tasks and 'no contact' tasks, EPA recognizes
that there may be non-hand labor tasks that may not be able to be
performed under the time limitations of the short-term (1 hour)
exception, or may not completely fit under the provisions of the no
contact or agricultural emergency exceptions.
B. Discussion of EPA's proposal
EPA proposes an exception that would allow workers to perform
limited contact tasks for up to 3 hours during the REI if: (1) the
tasks must be performed during the REI, (2) the inhalation exposure
level or ventilation criteria have been met (3) the tasks result in
minimal contact with treated surfaces, (4) contact with pesticides is
limited to forearms, hands, lower legs, and feet, and (5) the specified
PPE requirements are met.
There may be non-hand labor tasks that must be performed during the
REI that are necessary for crop production. Examples of possible
limited contact tasks include: (1) the operation and repair of weather
monitoring equipment, and frost protection equipment, (2) repair of
greenhouse heating, air conditioning, and ventilation equipment (3)
repair of non-application field equipment, and (4) maintaining and
moving beehives.
The following scenarios provide examples of limited contact tasks:
(1) The information collected from weather monitoring equipment is
often critical for the successful implementation of integrated pest
management and agricultural production (e.g., rainfall amounts, degree
days). Weather information is used to schedule pesticide and irrigation
applications, and it may be necessary to enter the treated area during
an REI to collect the information. Weather equipment may be stationed
in more than one location around a large treated area, and it may take
longer than 1 hour for the worker to walk to each site to complete the
information collection. The worker must walk through the treated area,
but all of the treated plants are well below knee-height and/or are
sufficiently spaced apart so that the task may be accomplished in a
manner that results in minimal contact with treated surfaces, and such
contact is only to lower arms, hands, lower legs, and feet.
(2) On occasion, unanticipated repairs must be made to non-
application field equipment while in the treated area during an REI.
The immediate repair of the non-application field equipment is
necessary and important to crop production. The nature of the
breakdown, and/or the size of the equipment may hinder the removal of
the equipment from the treated field for repair, and the repair may not
be able to be completed within an hour.
The proposed exception specifically excludes pesticides whose
labeling requires ``double notification'', i.e., the labeling requires
both the posting of treated areas and oral notification to workers. EPA
requires double notification for a pesticide when exposure -- for
example, contact with treated surfaces -- has the potential to cause
acute illness or injury. 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) and PPE requirements
would still apply. For the convenience of commenters, the following
Appendix A lists the active ingredients subject to WPS that may be
subject to the double notification requirement.
Appendix A
Worker Protection Standard ``Double Notification'' Active Ingredient
List
Please note that Appendix A (From PR Notice 93-7, Appendix 3-A) is
incomplete in several respects: first, it does not contain the active
ingredients in products already bearing mandatory posting requirements
prior to adoption of the WPS and that must be retained under WPS;
second, it may contain a few active ingredients that will be found to
not require double notification upon further EPA review (such as
reregistration), and third, active ingredients requiring double
notification may be added during reregistration or other Agency action.
Nonetheless, EPA believes that this list contains the bulk of the
active ingredients subject to double notification. These listed
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 is
considered by EPA as high risk to workers. In addition, the exception
excludes pesticides whose labels prohibit any person from entering
during the REI. In other words, the label does not allow the use of the
exceptions set out in Sec. 170.112.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHEMICAL
COMMON NAME 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
[[Page 2845]]
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to establish a reduced set of PPE for limited
contact tasks, although the worker may wear the PPE specified on the
label even if the early entry PPE specified on the label is less
restrictive than the reduced set. Based on the limitations in the
exception, EPA expects that contact will not be significant and a
reduced set of PPE will be adequate.
EPA is proposing to limit the exception to 24 months (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
EPA is proposing an exception to the early entry restriction for
limited contact tasks, and is considering the following definition for
'limited contact task':
``For the purposes of this exception, the term 'limited contact
task' means a non-hand labor task that is performed by workers that
results in minimal contact with treated surfaces (including but not
limited to soil, water, air, surfaces of plants, and equipment), and
where such contact with treated surfaces is limited to the forearms,
hands, lower legs, and feet.''
Under the proposed exception, a worker may enter a treated area
during a restricted entry interval to perform a limited contact task if
the agricultural employer ensures that the following requirements are
met:
(1) 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''), or a
restriction prohibiting any person, other than an appropriately trained
and equipped handler, from entering during the restricted entry
interval.
(2) No hand labor activity is performed.
(3) The time in a treated area under a restricted entry interval
for any worker does not exceed 3 hours in any 24 hour period.
(4) The personal protective equipment for early entry must be
provided to the worker by the agricultural employer for all tasks. Such
personal protective equipment shall either: (a) conform with the label
requirements for early entry PPE; or (b) consist of coveralls, chemical
resistant gloves, socks, and chemical resistant footwear. In either
case, the PPE must conform to the standards set out in
Sec. 170.112(c)(4)(i) through (x).
(5) Workers are notified verbally, before such workers enter a
treated area, that the establishment is relying on this exception to
allow workers to enter treated areas to perform limited contact tasks.
(6) The task cannot be delayed until after the expiration of the
restricted entry interval, or the pesticide application could not be
delayed until the task was completed.
(7) For all limited contact tasks, the requirements of
Sec. 170.112(c)(3) -(9) are met. These are WPS requirements for all
early entry situations that involve contact with treated surfaces, and
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)
informing workers of safety information on the product labeling, (c)
provision, proper management, and care of personal protective
equipment, (d) heat-related illness prevention, (e) requirements for
decontamination facilities, and (f) prohibition on taking personal
protective equipment home.
IV. Options Considered
EPA considered including hand labor tasks in this exception, but
determined that hand labor tasks could not be performed with limited
contact. The WPS defines hand labor as any agricultural activity
performed by hand or with hand tools that causes a worker to have
substantial contact with surfaces (such as plants, plant parts, or
soil) that may contain pesticide residues. These activities include,
but are not limited to,
[[Page 2846]]
harvesting, detasseling, thinning, weeding, topping, planting, sucker
removal, pruning, disbudding, roguing, and packing produce into
containers in the field. Hand labor does not include operating, moving,
or repairing irrigation or watering equipment or performing the tasks
of crop advisors. Hand labor tasks involve substantial contact and are
by nature high exposure scenarios and potentially high risk.
EPA considered eliminating the PPE requirement for coveralls, but
has several concerns about eliminating this requirement. Under
Sec. 170.112(c), early entry workers are required to remove PPE before
going home and may not take it home. If only long sleeved shirts and
long pants are worn, it may not be possible for workers to remove their
work clothes when they leave the treated area, enter their vehicles,
and return home. This could result in contamination of the vehicles
from their clothing, causing an increased exposure risk to potentially
toxic pesticide residues for all vehicle occupants. Additionally, EPA
believes that coveralls will assure greater risk reduction for workers
since the WPS requires agricultural employers to assure proper
handling, care and maintenance of these items. There is no such
requirement for personal clothing.
EPA considered requiring that protective eyewear be included in the
minimum PPE requirement if required on the product labeling for early
entry because of concern about workers rubbing or wiping residues into
their eyes from hands, gloves, or sleeves. EPA decided not to propose a
requirement for eyewear as part of the minimal set at this time because
the performance of limited contact tasks should result in minimal
worker contact with treated surfaces.
EPA considered eliminating PPE requirements for tasks that must be
performed when unanticipated repairs of non-application field equipment
arise, but rejected this option because EPA believes that in some
instances equipment repair could result in significant exposure.
Unanticipated equipment repairs would be expected to occur
infrequently, and some repairs may be able to be performed with almost
no contact to treated surfaces. EPA continues to be concerned that some
PPE is needed to provide adequate protection for all worker activities
given the range and nature of equipment repair tasks and the potential
for even limited exposure to highly toxic pesticides.
V. Comments Solicited
EPA is interested in a full range of comments and information on
the proposed exception and on the exception options presented, and is
providing 45 days for the submission of comments.
1. Need for an exception. EPA solicits comment on whether early
entry for limited contact activities is necessary. Specifically, EPA
requests comments on why specific limited contact tasks could not
normally be delayed until the expiration of the REI, or why the
application could not be delayed until the tasks are completed. EPA
requests comments on why alternative practices would not be technically
or financially viable (such as placing beehives and weather monitoring
stations outside areas normally treated with pesticides). EPA also
requests comments on the economic impacts on agricultural employers if
they cannot enter the treated area during the REI for limited contact
activities. Commenters should be task specific in their response.
EPA requests information on the expected costs in terms of
decreased yield, grade or quality or other economic cost as a result of
being unable to perform some tasks during an REI. In addition, EPA
requests information on the frequency of tasks that must be done during
an REI and the amount of time required to complete those tasks per
occurrence and per agricultural establishment for a typical growing
season.
2. Definition of ``limited contact''. EPA requests specific
comments on the proposed definition of 'limited contact tasks'. EPA is
particularly concerned about defining limited contact activities in a
way that may inadvertently result in unnecessary routine early entry,
which may increase risk to workers. Does the proposed definition
encompass tasks or activities that are inherently high risk? Are there
non-hand labor activities that should be covered by the exception but
do not fall under the definition as proposed? EPA also requests
information on whether worker exposures for the tasks that fall within
the proposed exception could reasonably be limited to lower legs and
feet, hands and forearms, or if greater exposure would result due to
the nature of the activity.
EPA also solicits comments on whether there are hand labor tasks
that must be done during the REI, and whether these tasks can be
accomplished without subjecting workers to substantial contact.
3. Safety and feasibility factors. EPA requests information on the
safety and feasibility of a limited contact exception. Information
should include, at minimum, the feasibility of performing the limited
contact activity while wearing PPE; means of mitigating heat stress
concerns; the cumulative amount of time required, per worker, per day
for necessary limited contact activities; any suggested methods of
reducing the worker's exposure for a given task; and any other
alternative practices, such as mechanical devices that reduce workers'
exposure to treated surfaces. The information should describe the costs
(time and materials) of providing the protective measures in the terms
of the proposed exception.
4. Duration of exposure. Because exposure is determined both by the
amount and the duration of contact with pesticides, EPA proposes to
limit the total amount of time in treated areas to perform limited
contact tasks to 3 hours per worker per day. EPA believes most limited
contact activities can be completed in significantly less than 3 hours,
but certain circumstances may exist that would necessitate more than 3
cumulative hours of early entry. EPA requests comment on whether 3
hours is adequate, or if some amount of time less than 3 hours would be
sufficient.
5. Exclusion of ``double notification''. EPA requests comments on
the exclusion of double notification pesticides from this proposed
exception. What impact, if any, on agricultural growers might result if
double notification pesticides were to be excluded from the limited
contact exception? Will the exclusion of double notification pesticides
from the exception sufficiently reduce risk to workers? EPA also
requests information on pesticide-related worker injuries or illnesses
as a result of performing the types of tasks that would fall under this
proposed limited contact exception.
6. PPE requirements. EPA solicits comments on the risks and
benefits for the PPE options under a limited contact exception. Is PPE
feasible for workers performing limited contact tasks, and to what
extent is PPE necessary to reduce worker risk for different tasks?
EPA specifically requests information on whether protective eyewear
should be included in the minimum PPE requirement if required on the
product labeling for early entry because of concern about workers
rubbing or wiping residues into their eyes from hands, gloves, or
sleeves.
EPA is interested in any information concerning whether there are
certain limited contact tasks (such as repair of non-application
equipment and frost protection tasks) and early entry situations (such
as entry into fields that
[[Page 2847]]
have been treated with toxicity category IV pesticides) that may not
require the use of PPE, or may allow the use of a reduced set of PPE (
e.g., only waterproof gloves and chemical resistant boots).
7. Duration of exception. EPA requests comments on whether the
proposed 24 month (2-year) limit is appropriate for this exception, or
why a longer or shorter period may be more practical.
VI. Public Docket and Electronic Comments
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number ``OPP-250101'' (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.
EPA is interested in a full range of comments and information on
these proposed revisions and particularly welcomes comments supported
by data. Comments are requested on: (1) general worker and handler
hiring and employment practices, such as the rate of turnover and
employment among agricultural workers and handlers, (2) the
practicality and effectiveness of the proposed elimination of the grace
period, including how the frequency of hiring would affect the
frequency of training sessions, situations where training before entry
would not be possible, mechanisms that are available or will be
available to provide training on short notice and the estimated costs
of reducing or eliminating the grace period or providing a weekly
training regimen, (3) the proposal to eliminate the phase-in period for
the training grace period and (4) the retraining interval, including
the impacts of a retraining interval of less than 5 years, worker and
handler retention of safety training information over time, whether
agricultural workers and handlers have a greater need for retraining
than workers in other occupations, the effectiveness of the pesticide
poster in reinforcing previous training and the burdens the various
retraining options might place on agricultural employers or other
entities that may perform worker or handler training. Comments should
be distinguished as applying to workers, handlers, or both, as
applicable.
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 Notice 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 Notice, send an e-mail message to:
listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov that says ``Subscribe RIN-2070-AC69
.'' Once you are subscribed to the ListServe,
comments should be sent to: RIN-2070-AC69@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov.
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use
of special characters and any form of encryption. All comments and data
in electronic form should be identified by the docket number OPP-250101
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]
To obtain further information on the electronic comment process, or
on submitting comments on this Notice electronically through the EPA
Bulletin Board or the Internet ListServe, please contact John A.
Richards (Telephone: 202-260-2253; FAX: 202-260-3884; Internet:
richards.john@epamail.epa.gov).
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 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
[[Page 2848]]
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. EPA Decision on Proposed Exception
EPA will publish in the Federal Register its final decision on
whether to grant the request for a national exception. EPA will base
its decision on whether the benefits of the exceptions outweigh the
costs. An exception may be withdrawn by EPA at any time if EPA receives
poisoning information or other data that indicate that the health risks
imposed by the early entry exception are unacceptable or if EPA
receives other information that indicates that the exception is no
longer necessary or prudent.
Dated: January 3, 1995.
Lynn R. Goldman,
Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances.
[FR Doc. 95-586 Filed 1-6-95; 12:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
