[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 189 (Friday, September 29, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50686-50691]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-24213]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 170
[OPP-250108; FRL-4969-5]
Worker Protection Standard; Decontamination Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to amend the Worker Protection Standard (WPS)
for agricultural pesticides by modifying the current requirements for
decontamination sites for workers. EPA is proposing to shorten the time
that decontamination sites are required when certain pesticides are
used; all other decontamination provisions are unaffected by this
proposal. The objective of the proposed change is to provide
flexibility and encourage the use of low-toxicity pesticides, while
ensuring that there is no increase in worker risk. EPA is also
clarifying existing decontamination requirements so that agricultural
employers will better understand their responsibilities under this WPS
provision.
DATES: Written comments, data, or evidence must be identified by docket
number and should be submitted on or before November 13, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments in triplicate to: By mail: Program
Resources Section, Public Response and Program Resources Branch, Field
Operations Division (7506C), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring comments to: Rm. 1132,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: opp-docket@epamail.epa.gov. 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-250108.'' No Confidential Business Information
(CBI) should be submitted through e-mail. Electronic comments on this
document may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
Additional information on electronic submissions can be found in Unit
VIII. of this document.
Information submitted as a comment concerning this document may be
claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as
CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance
with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the comment that
does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public
record. Information not marked confidential may be disclosed publicly
by EPA without prior notice. All written comments will be available for
public inspection in Rm. 1132 at the Virginia address given above from
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Joshua First or Allie Fields,
Office of Pesticide Programs, Field Operations Division, Certification,
Training, and Occupational Safety Branch (7506C), Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. By telephone:
(703) 305-7437 and (703) 305-5391, respectively. By e-mail:
first.joshua@epamail.epa.gov or fields.allie@epamail.epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Statutory Authority
This proposal is issued under the authority of section 25(a) of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C.
136w(a).
II. Background of the Worker Protection Standard
In 1992, EPA revised the Worker Protection Standard (40 CFR part
170) (57 FR 38102, August 21, 1992) which is intended to protect
agricultural workers from risks associated with agricultural
pesticides. The 1992 WPS expanded the scope of the original WPS to
include not only workers performing hand labor operations in fields
treated with pesticides, but also workers in or on farms, forests,
nurseries, and greenhouses. It also included pesticide handlers who
mix, load, apply, or otherwise handle pesticides for use at these
locations in the production of agricultural commodities. The WPS
contains other requirements for training, notification of pesticide
applications, use of personal protective equipment, restricted entry
intervals, decontamination, and emergency medical assistance.
This proposed WPS amendment is one of a series of Agency actions in
response to concerns raised by persons affected by the final WPS rule
since its publication in August 1992. In addition to this proposed
amendment, EPA will also be publishing a notice soliciting public
comment about possible modifications to the requirements for the WPS
warning sign.
[[Page 50687]]
III. Current Worker Protection Standard Decontamination Requirement
Section 170.150 of the WPS requires that workers be provided with a
decontamination site (water, soap, disposable towels) for washing off
pesticide residues whenever a worker performs any task in an area
where, within the last 30 days, a pesticide has been applied or a
restricted-entry interval has been in effect, and the worker contacts
anything that has been treated with the pesticide. Decontamination
sites must consist of soap and single-use towels sufficient to meet
workers' needs and enough water for routine washing and emergency eye
flushing. The sites must be reasonably accessible to workers and not
more than \1/4\ mile from workers, or at the nearest place of vehicular
access.
The water must be of a quality and temperature that will not cause
injury when it contacts eyes, skin, or when it is ingested. Water
cannot be stored in tanks used for mixing pesticides, unless the tank
is equipped with functioning valves or mechanisms that prevent
pesticides from entering the tank. EPA recommends that at least 1
gallon of water be available per worker for general washing. When
workers are engaged in early-entry tasks in areas treated with
pesticides that require protective eye wear, at least 1 pint of water
must be immediately available to each worker for emergency eye
flushing; this water must be carried by the worker, on the vehicle
which the worker is using, or must be otherwise immediately available.
At remote work sites, workers may use clean water from streams,
springs, lakes, or other sources that are more accessible than the
water at the decontamination site located at the nearest point of
vehicular access.
Decontamination sites shall not be in areas being treated with
pesticides. In general, decontamination sites shall not be in areas
under a restricted entry interval (REI), unless workers are engaged in
permitted early-entry tasks and are contacting treated surfaces. For
workers who have performed early-entry tasks, employers must provide a
decontamination site at the place where the workers remove their
protective equipment with a sufficient amount of water to wash
thoroughly. These requirements are discussed more fully in the next
unit.
IV. Discussion of Comments Received and Clarification of
Requirements
The Agency has received comments and requests from stakeholders
that changes to the WPS decontamination requirement be made. EPA has
held meetings with agricultural industry representatives and farmworker
representatives to discuss their concerns about potential changes in
the decontamination requirement. EPA has also received written comments
on the subject. Concerns expressed by stakeholders in both
correspondence and in meetings are reviewed below.
A. Stakeholder Concerns
In a July 8, 1994, petition for rulemaking, the National
Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) requested that
EPA narrow WPS decontamination supply requirements to periods which EPA
has previously identified as posing potential contact with residues. In
particular, NASDA asked for decontamination supplies to be required
only during REIs or ``immediately following the pesticide
application.'' NASDA stated that the duration of the 30-day requirement
is ``unnecessary and wasteful'' because decontamination supplies must
be provided even when there is no apparent risk.
NASDA stated that pesticide dusts and mists settle after a
pesticide application, which minimizes the opportunity for workers to
contact the pesticide residues. Moreover, NASDA argued that, unless EPA
has a specific health-based concern about a particular pesticide, which
should be reflected in the pesticide's REIs, decontamination supplies
should not be required beyond a pesticide's REI because foliar residues
should be largely dissipated by the time the REI expires; NASDA stated
that risks are relatively low when foliar residues are mostly
dissipated. NASDA also argued that it is impractical to place a
decontamination site where potential risks from residues are arguably
low, instead of in areas where potential risks are known to be high.
The Farm Bureau, the Cotton Council, and other stakeholders have
stated in correspondence and in meetings with EPA that the requirement
is unduly burdensome because there is little or no worker risk from
what pesticide residues remain after the respective REIs expire. These
commenters believe that the sites would be better utilized in more
recently treated areas. Industry stakeholders comments have focused on
the risks associated with pesticides' acute toxicity.
Some agricultural industry stakeholders stated that putting
decontamination sites in areas of arguably low risk, such as areas
where the REIs have expired, results in the inefficient use of
transport equipment. For example, on some cotton farms work crews are
large, and decontamination supplies and facilities are transported in
trailers. Commenters have stated that the trailers are expensive, are
difficult to move around, and that purchasing several of them, instead
of moving one trailer to the area most in need of a decontamination
site, is an added burden and an inefficient use of equipment. Some
commenters have stated that other vehicles, such as pickup trucks, are
also not efficiently used, because large water tanks are kept in the
truck's bed and the truck must remain with the workers.
On the other hand, stakeholders representing farmworker concerns
have taken issue with the proposed changes to the decontamination
requirement. For example, the Farmworker Justice Fund and the American
Farmworker Opportunities Program have requested that EPA not make any
changes to the requirement. They have stated that a change to the
requirement may be perceived as a weakening of the requirement and
might promote less compliance. Stakeholders representing farmworkers
have said that implementing any of the possible changes mentioned in
this proposal will weaken the requirement. They have said that these
changes will result in increased risks to farmworkers, because the
number of opportunities for farmworkers to wash themselves during
working hours will decrease. These commenters have also stated that the
requirement is easy to meet because of its low costs and, therefore,
there is no basis for changing it.
B. Clarification of Current Worker Protection Standard Decontamination
Requirement
EPA has received comments and requests to provide clarification
about the WPS decontamination requirement. The Agency has realized from
these questions that the requirement is not completely understood by
agricultural employers. In response, EPA is providing the following
information.
1. When a decontamination site must be provided and when it is not
required. A decontamination site is only required whenever workers
perform tasks resulting in contact with pesticide-treated surfaces in
an area that has been treated with pesticides within the last 30 days,
or an REI has been in effect in the area within the last 30 days. The
decontamination site is not required to be left in or near a pesticide-
treated area when workers are not present, nor is a decontamination
site required to be left in or near a pesticide-treated area in the
event that it might be needed at some future time.
[[Page 50688]]
Decontamination sites are not required when there are no workers
present in the treated area. Decontamination sites are not required
when workers are engaged in work that does not result in contact with
pesticide-treated surfaces. For example, a decontamination site is not
required for a worker who walks into a treated field to place a flag
without handling the crop or otherwise contacting treated surfaces.
Likewise, a decontamination site is not required for workers who enter
fields where the treated surface(s) has been completely removed.
The removal of treated surfaces can occur during the harvest of
some crops. However, not all harvesting will result in the removal of
all treated surfaces. The harvest of some crops is accomplished in
stages, such as melons. Melons ripen throughout the growing season and
it is likely that many melons remaining in the field will have
pesticides residues on them that are less than 30 days old, due to
periodic retreatment. With other crops, such as orchard fruits,
harvesting cannot completely remove all treated surfaces, which include
tree leaves and branches. However, the remains of some field crops are
plowed under after harvest. In that case, there would be no treated
surfaces remaining.
2. How to transport and provide a decontamination site. Employers
have expressed concern about ways to transport and provide
decontamination sites, particularly the water. Employers have stated
that providing large containers of water limits the use of the
transport vehicle, which is often left stationary with the supplies in
or on it. In response, the Agency would like to emphasize that the
method of providing decontamination supplies is at the discretion of
the employer. Examples of placement of the supplies can include in a
shed, trailer, pickup truck, carboy, or enclosed container.
Decontamination water must be sufficient for workers' needs. If
running water is not immediately available, EPA recommends that at
least 1 gallon of water be provided for each worker. The water need not
necessarily be in a single large container that would be kept in or on
a vehicle. It can be provided in smaller containers, such as large and
medium coolers, or even 1 gallon jugs. Whenever possible, EPA
recommends that employers provide larger water containers. Small ones,
such as 1 gallon jugs, are more easily contaminated because they are
handled more, and more easily moved and knocked over than larger
containers.
3. Duration of decontamination sites. The decontamination
requirement does not require that a permanent supply site be built,
such as a shed. The requirement will be satisfied so long as the
decontamination supplies are reasonably accessible to workers (within
\1/4\ mile or at the nearest point of vehicular access), and the water
is of a quality and temperature that will not cause illness or injury
when it contacts the skin or eyes or if it is swallowed. Water can be
kept at acceptable temperatures any number of ways, the most common
being shade, although coolers are also common.
4. Decontamination sites in areas under an REI. A decontamination
site can be placed in a pesticide-treated area, including an area under
an REI. The decontamination site can be in an area under an REI only if
intended for workers engaged in early entry tasks in that area.
In the case of workers engaged in early entry work in an area under
an REI, it is the employer's discretion on where to provide the
decontamination site. The site can be placed at the edge of the area
under the REI, where there is less opportunity for it to contact
pesticide residues. However, the employer may also wish to place the
site in the area under the REI, where it would be closer to the
workers. The site must be within \1/4\ mile of the work area or at the
nearest point of vehicular access.
Workers entering areas under an REI in a vehicle, such as a truck
or tractor, may bring decontamination supplies with them in the
vehicle, so long as the supplies will not contact pesticides or their
residues. One way of ensuring that the decontamination supplies do not
contact pesticides or their residues is to store them in an enclosed
container. An enclosed container can be a closable plastic bag, a hard
plastic box with a sealable lid, or other similar container.
When decontamination sites are in a treated area, and there is no
REI in effect, enclosed containers or other measures to ensure that the
decontamination supplies do not contact pesticide residues are not
required, although EPA recommends that they be used.
5. Federal and State Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) Requirements. The OSHA Field Sanitation Standard (29 CFR
1928.110) sets sanitation requirements similar to those promulgated by
EPA for worker decontamination. Several states, such as Washington,
California, and Oregon, have requirements similar to or stricter than
the OSHA requirements. These states appear to be the exception,
however. The vast majority of states do not have requirements similar
to OSHA's. To the extent that the provision of state and OSHA-required
facilities coincide with WPS decontamination requirements, it is
acceptable to use the state or OSHA-required facility. Therefore,
employers meeting the OSHA or state requirement will not incur
additional cost or burden in complying with the WPS decontamination
requirement.
The OSHA standard requires agricultural employers who employ more
than 10 workers at a given time to provide to those workers, among
other things, hand washing facilities, including potable water, when
workers are engaged in hand labor operations in the production of crops
in the field. OSHA's Standard differs significantly from the WPS
requirement in the following ways: It applies only to larger
establishments; it applies to all hand labor (not work resulting in
limited contact with pesticide-treated surfaces); and it applies only
to more than 3 hours of labor. The WPS decontamination requirements
apply to any labor resulting in any contact with treated surfaces.
6. Length of time that decontamination sites are required after the
REI. Decontamination sites are required for 30 days after a pesticide
has been applied or after a REI has expired. All but a few pesticides
have at least 4-hour REIs; therefore, it is highly likely that
decontamination sites will be required for 30 days in almost all
situations where pesticides are used. If the employer wishes to do so,
decontamination sites can be provided to employees for longer than 30
days.
Should the proposed change in this proposed rule be implemented,
the period for which decontamination sites would be required for
certain low-toxicity pesticides will be shortened from 30 days to
between 1 and 15 days. The interval will be determined after the 45-day
comment period on this proposed rule.
V. Options Considered and EPA's Proposal
EPA considered several possible changes to the decontamination
requirement, and is proposing to change the length of time
decontamination supplies are required for pesticide-treated areas that
have been under a 4-hour REI, e.g., end-use products containing active
ingredients that have passed EPA's low toxicity screening criteria. The
Agency believes that this proposed change will provide regulatory
flexibility and promote the use of low-toxicity pesticides, while
ensuring that worker risk is not increased. Although the Agency is not
proposing any of the
[[Page 50689]]
other changes it considered at this time, EPA desires comments on these
possible changes. Should EPA receive comments on these options that the
Agency finds to be compelling, it is possible that one or more of the
options could be implemented.
A. Options EPA Considered
1. Eliminating the requirement of a decontamination site after
crops are harvested. EPA considered the option of eliminating the
decontamination requirement after certain crops are harvested. EPA is
not proposing this option for the following reasons.
First, tasks which occur after harvesting can result in high
exposures to pesticide-treated surfaces and, therefore, high exposures
to pesticide residues if residues remain. Implementing this option
would contradict EPA's regulation that tasks resulting in any contact
with pesticide-treated surfaces must be accompanied by a
decontamination site. Depending on the persistence of the pesticide
residues and the time that has elapsed between application and harvest,
the risks could still be high. For example, this option could not be
applied to orchard crops, melons, and other crops where significant
amounts of live plant material or foliage remain after the crop
harvest. Because so many different crops leave similar amounts of
foliage after harvest, determining the crops that are ineligible for
this option would be too resource-intensive.
Second, in those cases where the treated surfaces have been
completely removed during harvest, the rule already allows entry with
no contact without requiring decontamination supplies.
Finally, the costs of providing a decontamination site (which
consists of water, soap, and disposable towels) are quite low. In
certain situations, potential exposure to pesticide residues from
activities in treated areas, and potential risks, even after harvest,
can be high. Therefore, the Agency believes that the risks avoided by
having decontamination sites available to workers appear to justify the
very small costs of meeting that requirement.
2. Ending the decontamination requirement when REIs expire. EPA
considered eliminating the requirement for decontamination sites after
the particular REI has expired. This option is appealing because the
REI represents the time of greatest exposure potential and the greatest
potential acute risk. The WPS establishes interim REIs, based on
toxicity, for pesticides which have not been through the reregistration
process. Excluding the interim REIs set by the WPS, EPA sets permanent
REIs through the registration, reregistration and special review
processes to coincide with the dissipation of pesticide residues,
thereby minimizing potential worker exposure to residues.
EPA is not proposing this option for several reasons. First,
pesticide residues often remain even after the REI. The residues
present after the REI may not always pose an acute risk, but EPA is
also concerned about other risks that they may pose, such as
reproductive effects and carcinogenicity. If the decontamination
requirements were to be eliminated immediately following the expiration
of the REI, the workers would be subject to higher risks. The Agency
believes that washing with soap and water will mitigate, to a
substantial extent, the potential acute, chronic, and subchronic risks
posed by pesticide residues which may remain after the REI.
Second, EPA does not yet have complete data sets on residue
dissipation for all pesticides which have not been through the
reregistration process; thus, interim REIs may not accurately reflect
all potential risk to workers. Based on its experience with the
reregistration process, the Agency believes that some REIs may be
increased in the future.
3. Relating the length of time a decontamination site is required
to toxicity category. EPA considered relating the length of time a
decontamination site is required to broad toxicity categories (such as
Toxicity Categories I through IV). EPA is not willing to propose this
option because many pesticides can present risk beyond the REI,
particularly for the higher toxicity pesticides. Pesticides can also
present other than acute risks and EPA believes that provision of
decontamination supplies should continue as currently required for most
pesticides.
EPA is willing to propose a reduced decontamination period for a
specific subset of pesticides, such as certain determined low-toxicity
pesticides that have had 4-hour REIs approved for their use. EPA
believes that pesticides that qualify for 4-hour REIs have been shown
to present far less risk than pesticides with longer REIs. EPA does not
believe that it is prudent to completely eliminate the decontamination
requirement for these low-toxicity pesticides based upon the assumption
that additional risks, such as carcinogenicity and mutagenicity, may
still exist.
B. Proposed Change
This proposal is in response to the input EPA has received from its
stakeholders. It addresses only the requirement that decontamination
sites be provided to workers for 30 days after the expiration of REIs.
Other decontamination provisions will not be affected by this proposal.
1. Reasons for proposal. In considering the requests to change the
decontamination requirement, EPA has reassessed the initial analysis
used to establish the 30-day requirement. This reassessment is based on
two factors. The first is the Agency's experience with recent data from
the reregistration process. Through the reregistration process, it has
been demonstrated that many pesticides pose additional risks, such as
carcinogenicity and developmental effects. Second, agricultural
pesticides that have not been through the reregistration process lack
complete or substantially-complete data sets, making it difficult for
the Agency to make an accurate estimate of the risks that these
pesticides may pose. Although the Agency has established product
specific REIs for pesticides that have completed the reregistration or
special review processes, the Agency believes that products with
permanent REIs, as well as those products with interim REIs should
retain the 30 day decontamination period.
However, EPA has sufficient information to support the proposition
that, because different pesticides pose different levels of risk, the
current decontamination requirement does not adequately fit all
pesticides. EPA is willing to decrease the time a decontamination site
is required for pesticides which have been demonstrated to pose low or
insignificant worker risks. The criterion EPA is using to determine
which pesticides pose low or insignificant worker risks is a 4-hour
REI. Any end-use pesticide that has had 4-hour REIs approved will have
met or exceeded the standard for low or insignificant risk described in
the May 3, 1995 Policy Statement (60 FR 21965).
In that policy statement, EPA identified 114 active ingredients
which do not appear to pose any significant risks to workers. Based on
substantial data sets (many of the 114 active ingredients have complete
data sets) and a thorough screening of each pesticide, EPA believes
that the 114 active ingredients listed in the Policy Statement present
low risk. This is because of the active ingredients' low acute
toxicity, an absence of reported worker poisonings associated with
their
[[Page 50690]]
use, and because no other toxicity or risk concerns have been
identified with them. For active ingredients lacking complete data
sets, EPA substituted analog data, which the Agency believes is
sufficient for the purpose of the screening. The screening process EPA
employed could be compared to a shortened version of the reregistration
process, in terms of determining potential risk.
EPA is comfortable with the degree of risk posed by the chemicals
that qualify for the reduced REIs. EPA's screening process for active
ingredients and end-use products was designed to eliminate chemicals
that posed too many unknown risks because of data gaps, absence of
chronic effects data, or no analog data. EPA believes that because the
active ingredients associated with 4-hour REIs do not appear to pose
any significant worker risks, decontamination supplies should be
required for less than the current 30-day period. Therefore, the Agency
proposes to reduce the 30-day decontamination requirement for all
pesticides for which EPA approves 4-hour REIs.
2. Proposal. EPA is proposing a range of 1 to 15 days for those
pesticides with 4-hour REIs. However, EPA will consider other lengths
of time if appropriate data are submitted to support any requested
periods. After 45 days from the publication of this proposed rule, EPA
will evaluate public comments, select an interval, and issue its
conclusions in the final rule.
This change is not proposed for situations where two or more
pesticides are mixed together, unless the mixed pesticides have 4-hour
REIs, or have all met or exceeded the criteria in the policy statement,
or are designated by EPA as having the same or lower risk profile as
those chemicals on the list of active ingredients in the policy
statement.
Because of the low costs associated with providing decontamination
sites and the potential risks workers face from exposure to pesticide
residues, EPA is not proposing any other change to the decontamination
requirement. EPA has not made the risk-benefit finding necessary to
eliminate or otherwise alter the length of the decontamination
requirement, except for products with 4-hour REIs.
VI. Solicitation of Comments
EPA is interested in receiving comments and information on the
proposal and on options presented, and is providing 45 days for the
submission of comments.
While stakeholders did not submit any data to support their request
to shorten the period when decontamination sites are required, EPA
believes that there is merit to the assertion that the 30-day
decontamination requirement may be inappropriate for some low-toxicity
pesticides. Therefore, EPA is issuing this proposal to notify the
public about possible changes in the WPS decontamination requirement
and to solicit information and comments. This information will assist
EPA in determining whether the conditions resulting from the proposed
change would pose unreasonable risks to workers. In addition, EPA is
soliciting information about the economic impact of the proposed option
in this document. EPA desires comments on all of the options considered
by the Agency, as presented in this proposed rule.
EPA is especially interested in receiving information about the
potential implications for regulatory compliance and enforcement that
the proposed change might create. Many commenters have requested that
the WPS be changed to better fit actual field situations. EPA has
responded to these requests by making changes to the WPS where they are
justified by weighing the risks and the benefits. However, EPA has
received many comments that the WPS is too complicated as a result of
these changes, and that these changes result in a more complex rule
that is more difficult to comply with and to enforce. Any information
that will help EPA resolve the relative trade-offs between regulatory
flexibility and more complex regulations will be useful.
EPA is also interested in receiving worker exposure data or worker
incident data related to decontamination requirements. Information on
the possible risks to workers that could result from any of the
proposed options is of interest to EPA. Information from sources such
as state incident reporting, poison control centers, hospital surveys,
and worker exposure studies (studies involving passive dosimetry are
particularly desirable) is valuable.
VII. Statutory Requirements
As required by FIFRA section 25(a), this proposed rule was provided
to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and to Congress for review. The
FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel waived its review.
VIII. Public Docket
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number ``OPP-250108 '' (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 CBI, is available for inspection
from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The public record is located in Rm. 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
opp-docket@epamail.epa.gov.
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
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 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. The official rulemaking record is the
paper record maintained at the address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the
beginning of this document.
IX. Regulatory Assessment Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
it has been determined that this is not a ``significant regulatory
action.'' OMB has waived its review.
This proposal does not increase requirements which would increase
costs to any person. Any optional changes implemented would reduce the
regulatory burden.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule was reviewed under the provisions of section
3(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and it was determined that the
rule would not have an adverse impact on any small entities. Moreover,
this proposed rule would provide regulatory relief and would not impose
any additional costs (in fact, it could lower costs). I therefore
certify that this proposal does not require a separate analysis under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
[[Page 50691]]
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposal contains no information collection requirements, and
is therefore not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
List of Subjects in Part 170
Environmental protection, Intergovernmental relations, Occupational
safety and health, Pesticides and pests, and Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: September 25, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 170 be amended as
follows:
1. The authority citation for part 170 would continue to read as
follows:
Part 170--[Amended]
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136w.
In 170.150, by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 170.150 Decontamination.
(a) Requirement. (1) If any worker on an agricultural establishment
performs an activity in an area where a pesticide has been applied, or
a restricted-entry interval (REI) has been in effect, and the worker
contacts anything that has been treated with the pesticide, including,
but not limited to, soil, water, plants, plant surfaces, and plant
parts, the agricultural employer shall provide, in accordance with this
section, a decontamination site for washing off pesticide residues for
a 30-day period following the expiration of the REI.
(2) If the pesticide (end-use product) that has been applied
requires a REI of 4 hours or less, then notwithstanding the requirement
for 30 days in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the agricultural
employer shall provide a decontamination site for not less than [1 to
15] days following the expiration of the REI.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-24213 Filed 9-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
