[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-2969]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: February 11, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Parts 156 and 165




Standards for Pesticide Containers and Containment; Proposed Rules
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 156 and 165

[OPP-190001; FRL-4168-9]
RIN 2070-AB95

 
Standards for Pesticide Containers and Containment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed Rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to its authority under the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, EPA is proposing container design 
requirements for nonrefillable and refillable pesticide containers. EPA 
is also proposing procedures, standards, and label language to 
facilitate removal of pesticides from containers prior to disposal. 
Additionally, this proposal includes standards for containment of bulk 
pesticide containers and procedures for container refilling operations. 
These proposed regulations are necessary to implement statutory 
authority requiring EPA to develop regulations for the safe storage and 
disposal of pesticides. Also, preliminary issues related to EPA's 
development of effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the 
pesticide formulating, packaging, and repackaging industrial category 
under the Clean Water Act are summarized.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received by EPA on or 
before May 12, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed rule, bearing the 
document identification number OPP-190001, by mail to: Public Docket 
and Freedom of Information Section, Field Operations Division (7506C), 
Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 
M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Deliver comments in person to: Public 
Docket and Freedom of Information Section, Field Operations Division 
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Rm. 1132, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Arlington, VA 22202.
    Information submitted in any comment concerning the proposal may be 
claimed as confidential by marking any or all of that information as 
``Confidential Business Information'' (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 to 
the submitter. Comments will be available for public inspection in Room 
1132 at the address given above, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail for the proposed Standards for 
Pesticide Containers and Containment: Janice Jensen, Pesticide 
Management and Disposal Staff, Office of Pesticide Programs (7507C), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St. SW., Washington, DC 
20460, (703) 305-5288. By mail for the effluent limitations guidelines 
and standards for the pesticide formulating, packaging, and repackaging 
(PFP) industrial category: Ms. Janet K. Goodwin, Engineering Analysis 
Division (4303), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 
20460, (202) 260-7152.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The contents of today's preamble are listed in the following 
outline:
I. Statutory Authority
II. Background
  A. Overview of Amended FIFRA Section 19
  B. Phased Implementation of Section 19
  C. Container Design, Residue Removal, and Labeling
  D. The Container Regulations and their Relationship with the 
Pollution Prevention Act
  E. Today's Proposal
III. Definitions
  A. Definition of Container
  B. Definitions for Nonrefillable Container Standards: Container 
Design and Residue Removal
  C. Definitions for Refillable Container Standards: Container 
Design and Residue Removal
  D. Definitions for Standards for Pesticide Containment Structures
IV. Nonrefillable Container Standards: Container Design and Residue 
Removal
  A. Background
  B. Today's Proposal
V. Refillable Container Standards: Container Design and Residue 
Removal
  A. Background
  B. Today's Proposal
VI. Standards for Pesticide Containment Structures
  A. Background
  B. Today's Proposal
VII. Labeling Requirements for Pesticides and Devices
  A. Background
  B. Today's Proposal
VIII. Upcoming Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Pesticide 
Formulators, Packagers, and Repackagers
  A. Purpose
  B. Applicability
  C. Background
  D. Expected Approach
  E. Pollution Prevention
  F. Schedule
IX. Relationship to Other Programs
  A. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
  B. Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC)
  C. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 
Requirements
  D. Department of Transportation (DOT) Hazardous Materials 
Regulations
X. Statutory Review Requirements
XI. Public Docket
XII. References
XIII. Regulatory Assessment Requirements
  A. Executive Order 12291
  B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
  C. Paperwork Reduction Act

I. Statutory Authority

    These proposed rules are issued pursuant to the authority given the 
Administrator of EPA in sections 3, 8, 19, and 25 of the Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA or the Act), 7 
U.S.C. 136a, 136f, 136q, and 136w.

II. Background

    FIFRA is the law that authorizes EPA to regulate the sale, 
distribution, use, and disposal of pesticides in the United States. The 
Act requires that EPA license by registration (or specifically exempt 
from registration) each pesticide product sold or distributed in the 
United States, to ensure that pesticide products will not cause 
``unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.'' The term 
``unreasonable adverse effects on the environment'' is defined in FIFRA 
section 2(bb) to mean ``any unreasonable risk to man or the 
environment, taking into account the economic, social, and 
environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide.'' As part 
of registration, EPA requires the submission of data demonstrating that 
the product will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the 
environment. Moreover, EPA reviews and approves the labeling of each 
product proposed for registration. The labeling is a fundamental tool 
for enforcement of pesticide use. FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(G) provides 
that it is unlawful to use a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with 
its labeling (commonly called the ``misuse'' provision). Currently 40 
CFR 156.10(i)(2)(ix) requires storage and disposal statements on 
pesticide labeling.

A. Overview of Amended FIFRA Section 19

    Section 19 of FIFRA was amended in 1988, significantly expanding 
and strengthening EPA's authority in the areas of pesticide storage, 
disposal and transportation. Among other things, that section of the 
Act authorizes the Administrator, in conjunction with the registration 
or reregistration of a pesticide, to establish:
    (1) Data requirements to determine methods of safe storage and 
disposal of pesticides [FIFRA sec. 19(a)(1)(A)].
    (2) Labeling requirements for the storage, transportation, and 
disposal of pesticides, excess pesticides, rinsates, and containers 
[FIFRA sec. 19(a)(1)(B)].
    Suspended and canceled pesticides were targeted in the amended Act 
for specific attention, and EPA was given broad discretionary authority 
to prescribe storage, transportation, and disposal requirements by 
order or by regulation. Under FIFRA section 19(b), EPA may require the 
recall of suspended and canceled pesticides, through either a 
``voluntary recall'' by order of the Administrator, or a ``mandatory 
recall'' implemented by regulation. Section 19(c) establishes a scheme 
for sharing costs for storing suspended and canceled pesticides with 
the intent of providing incentives to the manufacturer to expedite safe 
disposal of the materials. On May 5, 1993 (Ref. 87), EPA proposed 
regulations covering:
    (1) Voluntary and mandatory recall plans [FIFRA sec. 19(b)].
    (2) Storage and disposal plans; reimbursement of storage costs 
[FIFRA sec. 19(c)].
    (3) Indemnification, which covers financial losses suffered by end 
users as a result of suspension and cancellation of a pesticide product 
[FIFRA sec. 15].
    Further, section 19 not only authorizes, but mandates the issuance 
of regulations in two areas of particular concern:
    (1) Pesticide container design standards [FIFRA sec. 19(e)].
    (2) Residue removal standards and procedures [FIFRA sec. 19(f)].
    Section 12(a)(2)(S) makes it unlawful to violate any regulation 
issued under section 19.

B. Phased Implementation of Section 19

    The preceding summary illustrates the variety of subjects addressed 
by FIFRA section 19. Because of this variety, EPA is implementing FIFRA 
section 19 provisions in phases.
    Phase I of these regulations, addresses the procedural provisions 
of recall, indemnification of end users, and storage and disposal plans 
for suspended and canceled pesticides.
    Today's Phase II proposal addresses the container design and 
residue removal provisions, as well as associated pesticide labeling 
requirements necessary to container design and residue removal 
implementation. In addition, Phase II addresses containment provisions 
for container refilling operations and refillable bulk containers. In 
Phase III, EPA plans to address section 19 provisions on data 
requirements, additional containment concerns, and storage, disposal, 
and transportation of registered pesticides.

C. Container Design, Residue Removal, and Labeling

    FIFRA sections 19(e) and (f) grant EPA broad authority to establish 
standards and procedures to assure the safe use, reuse, storage and 
disposal of pesticide containers. FIFRA section 19(e) requires EPA to 
promulgate regulations no later than 3 years after the effective date 
of section 19(e) (by December 24, 1991) for ``the design of pesticide 
containers that will promote the safe storage and disposal of 
pesticides.'' The regulations must ensure, to the fullest extent 
practicable, that the containers:
    (1) Accommodate procedures used for removal of pesticides from the 
containers and rinsing of the containers.
    (2) Facilitate safe use of the containers, including elimination of 
splash and leakage.
    (3) Facilitate safe disposal of the containers.
    (4) Facilitate safe refill and reuse of the containers.
    EPA must require compliance with regulations issued under section 
19(e) no later than 5 years after the effective date of section 19(e) 
(by December 24, 1993).
    FIFRA section 19(f) requires EPA to promulgate regulations no later 
than December 24, 1991 ``prescribing procedures and standards for the 
removal of pesticides from containers prior to disposal.'' The 
regulations may:
    (1) Specify, for each major type of pesticide container, procedures 
and standards providing for, at a minimum, triple rinsing or the 
equivalent degree of pesticide removal.
    (2) Specify procedures that can be implemented promptly and easily 
in various circumstances and conditions.
    (3) Provide for reusing, whenever practicable, or disposing of 
rinse water and residue.
    (4) Coordinate with requirements imposed under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for rinsing containers.
    Section 19(f) provides that EPA, in its discretion, may exempt 
products intended solely for household use.
    The underlying concern of these provisions is to provide 
appropriate safeguards for activities or processes involving pesticide 
containers when these activities fall outside the scope of application 
activities that are addressed through labeling. Therefore, EPA 
construes the terms ``storage'' and ``disposal'' in the above 
provisions broadly, to include activities (such as repackaging) that 
affect the safe storage and disposal of pesticide containers. This 
broad interpretation is consistent with the legislative history of 
section 19 that indicates Congress' intent that ``disposal of 
pesticides include preparation for disposal such processes as 
packaging, repackaging, recycling, and decanning of pesticide 
ingredients required to store or dispose of pesticides safely'' (Ref. 
81).
    In addition to the specific authorities in FIFRA sections 19(e) and 
(f), other FIFRA provisions provide EPA with authority relevant to 
regulating pesticide containers:
    (1) Section 19(a)(1)(B) authorizes EPA to require that pesticide 
labeling contain requirements and procedures for the transportation, 
storage, and disposal of the pesticide, its container, rinsate, and any 
material used to contain excess pesticides.
    (2) Section 19(a)(3) authorizes regulations governing, among other 
things, storage, transportation, and disposal of containers of a 
pesticide whose registration has been suspended or canceled.
    (3) Section 3 provides for registration of pesticides.
    (4) Section 8 requires producers, registrants, and applicants for 
registration to keep records.
    (5) Section 25 provides general regulatory authority.
    Today's proposal is issued pursuant to the above authorities and 
implements the mandates in sections 19(e) and (f). Three new subparts 
to 40 CFR part 165 would be created to implement the statutory mandates 
in sections 19(e) and (f): subpart F (nonrefillable container 
standards: container design and residue removal), subpart G (refillable 
container standards: container design and residue removal), and subpart 
H (standards for pesticide containment structures). The regulations in 
40 CFR part 156 (labeling requirements) would be amended to require new 
residue removal instructions.
    In developing this proposed rule, EPA has tended to favor the use 
of performance-based standards rather than design-specific criteria. 
Performance-based standards are preferred because they allow for 
greater flexibility in meeting requirements and can accommodate changes 
in technology.
    Specifically, proposed subpart F would establish requirements under 
sections 19(e) and (f) for nonrefillable containers. The regulations 
would facilitate safe use and disposal of these containers through 
requirements relating to container integrity, elimination of leaks and 
drips during use, and permanent marking of essential information on the 
container. In addition, the regulations would facilitate the safe use 
of certain rigid containers by requiring standardized closures to 
encourage use of closed pesticide dispensing systems. Subpart F also 
would require that rigid containers used with dilutable (i.e., allowed 
by the label to be diluted prior to application) pesticides be tested 
to assure that pesticide residues can be removed from these containers. 
These residue removal requirements assure that containers accommodate 
residue removal procedures in a way that promotes safe storage and 
disposal.
    To facilitate safe use, disposal, refill, and reuse of the 
containers, subpart G would establish standards for refillable 
containers including container integrity and permanent marking. Subpart 
G also would implement sections 19(e) and (f) by including procedures 
for removal of pesticide residue from refillable containers, and 
refilling such containers. These residue removal and refilling 
procedures would promote safe storage and disposal of pesticides.
    Proposed subpart H would establish standards for containment of 
container refilling operations and stationary bulk pesticide 
containers. The design and operating requirements for bulk containers 
and containment structures (pads and secondary containment) would 
promote safe storage by facilitating the safe use, refill, and reuse of 
these containers. Subpart H would address the concerns underlying 
sections 19(e) and (f) by providing appropriate controls for activities 
and processes involving container refill and residue removal that will 
assure safe storage and disposal.
    The proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 156 would require that the 
labeling of dilutable pesticides in rigid nonrefillable containers 
include specified residue removal instructions, in accordance with the 
direction in section 19(f) to prescribe residue removal standards.
    With the exception of the requirements outlined in the preceding 
paragraph, this proposal would not require registrants to incorporate 
the proposed requirements into the labeling of pesticide products. EPA 
recognizes, however, that the pesticide labeling system is generally 
viewed by the public as the definitive source of regulatory 
requirements for pesticides. EPA therefore requests comment on whether 
some or all of the proposed requirements should be referenced by label, 
including the option of referencing the regulation on the labeling as 
was done with the Worker Protection Standards published August 21, 1992 
(Ref. 92).
    Additionally, EPA is proposing minor conforming changes to 40 CFR 
part 165 to reflect the requirements of this proposal. The rule would 
remove outdated or unnecessary definitions from Sec. 165.1, revise or 
remove outdated or duplicative material in Sec. 165.2 and Sec. 165.11, 
and redesignate and transfer the current part 165 regulations into 
subpart A of part 165.
    EPA has specified compliance dates in this rulemaking and requests 
public comment on these proposed compliance dates. Due to the delay in 
promulgating this rule, the statutory time for compliance under FIFRA 
section 19(e)(2) (i.e., the 2-year period between December 1991 and 
December 1993) will not be directly applicable to the final rule. 
Accordingly, as further specified later in this preamble, EPA is 
proposing compliance dates which EPA believes are reasonable and 
reflect the statutory time frames which Congress intended to apply.
    Similarly, FIFRA section 19(f)(2) sets December 24, 1993 as the 
deadline for the State programs to ensure compliance with section 
19(f). Section 19(f)(2) provides that a State must be carrying out an 
adequate program to ensure compliance with section 19(f) by December 
24, 1993 in order for the State to continue to exercise its primary 
enforcement authority under section 26, or its certification authority 
under section 11. Since EPA has not yet promulgated final regulations 
under section 19(f), EPA recently published a policy statement setting 
forth criteria for determining, on an interim basis, the adequacy of 
State programs and a process for States to obtain EPA's interim 
determination of adequacy (Ref. 86). EPA will make an interim 
determination of adequacy based on an initial written commitment by a 
State to conduct several activities that will enable a State to develop 
an adequate program for assuring compliance with the final rule. EPA 
will announce in the Federal Register its interim determination of 
adequacy for the States who submit a written commitment.
    EPA solicits comments and data on all aspects of the proposed rule, 
including comments on the alternatives discussed in the preamble, and 
recommendations (supported by data where appropriate) on alternatives 
not specifically discussed in the preamble that would improve the 
proposal and achieve the goals of this rulemaking. Where appropriate, 
EPA may adopt options other than those included in the regulatory text, 
based on information submitted by commenters.

D. The Container Regulations and their Relationship with the Pollution 
Prevention Act

    Congressional passage of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 
1 (PPA) makes pollution prevention national policy. Section 
6602(b) (42 U.S.C. 13101(b)) identifies an environmental management 
hierarchy in which pollution should be prevented or reduced whenever 
feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled in an 
environmentally safe manner, whenever feasible; pollution that cannot 
be prevented or recycled should be treated in an environmentally safe 
manner whenever feasible; and disposal or other release into the 
environment should be employed only as a last resort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\Enacted as Public Law 101-508, sections 6601 through 6611; 
codified as 42 U.S.C. secs. 13101 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In short, preventing pollution before it is created is preferable 
to trying to manage, treat, or dispose of it after it is created.
    According to PPA section 6603(5), source reduction reduces the 
generation and release of hazardous substances, pollutants, wastes, 
contaminants, or residuals at the source, usually within a process. The 
term includes equipment or technology modifications, process or 
procedure modifications, reformulation or redesign of products, 
substitution of raw materials, and improvements in housekeeping, 
maintenance, training, or inventory control. Source reduction does not 
include any practice that alters the physical, chemical, or biological 
characteristics or the volume of a hazardous substance, pollutant or 
contaminant through a process or activity that is not integral to or 
necessary for producing a product or providing a service.
    Although the PPA focuses largely on industrial pollution 
prevention, EPA is also bringing to bear the concept of pollution 
prevention or source reduction in other sectors of economic activity. 
As EPA's Pollution Prevention Strategy explains, pollution prevention 
in agriculture can be the ``development and adoption of low input 
sustainable agricultural practices that eliminate the wasteful use of 
inputs, such as fertilizers, pesticides, and water,'' and ``soil 
conservation and land management practices that prevent erosion of 
sediment and runoff of pesticides and fertilizers'' (Ref. 98).
    Pertaining to this proposal, section 6604(b)(2) (42 U.S.C. 
13103(b)(2)) of the PPA directs EPA to, among other things, ``review 
regulations of the Agency prior and subsequent to their proposal to 
determine their effect on source reduction.'' EPA believes that this 
proposed rule is consistent with the purpose of the PPA's requirement 
to consider source reduction. EPA's emphasis on source reduction and on 
evaluating rules in light of the environmental management hierarchy is 
also entirely consistent with congressional directives in FIFRA section 
19. In amending FIFRA in 1988, Congress clearly intended to move the 
management of pesticide storage, transportation, and disposal further 
up the environmental management hierarchy toward source reduction.
    In the context of pesticide containers, EPA believes application of 
the environmental management hierarchy has several specific 
characteristics:
    (1) Improving the design of pesticide containers and enhancing 
integrity (Sec. 165.102), and facilitating the removal of residues from 
those containers (Sec. 165.104).
    (2) Encouraging efficient transfer operations 
(Sec. Sec. 165.102(b), (d) and (e)) to increase the amount of pesticide 
reaching the intended target, thereby reducing waste and unwanted 
environmental releases.
    (3) Increasing the efficiency of cleaning operations 
(Sec. 165.104(a) and (b)) to reduce wastes and releases resulting from 
cleaning.
    (4) Improving practices of storing pesticides in bulk containers 
and transferring the pesticides from bulk containers into refillable 
containers to reduce potential releases of pesticides during storage 
(Sec. 165.146).
    (5) Encouraging, whenever feasible, increased use of refillable 
containers (Sec. Sec. 165.120 through 165.139) to reduce the number of 
containers needing disposal, and reduce (Sec. 165.130(b)(1) and 
Sec. 165.134(g)) the pesticide residues commingled with those 
containers.
    (6) Reducing worker exposure during handling by encouraging the use 
of closed pesticide dispensing systems (Sec. 165.102(e)).
    EPA recognizes that source reduction in the context of pesticides 
and agriculture generally has other important components. These include 
improving efficiency in pesticide production and formulating processes, 
improving application efficiencies, encouraging integrated pest 
management and low input sustainable agricultural practices, and 
encouraging the use of safer pesticides when pesticides are necessary. 
Currently, EPA is pursuing efforts in each of these other areas. For 
example, see EPA's Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) on Effluent 
Guidelines for the Pesticide Manufacturing Industry (Ref. 97), and the 
Notice relating to Clean Water Act Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 
Standards for the Pesticide Formulating, Packaging, and Repackaging 
industrial subcategory included in this preamble in Unit VIII. See also 
EPA's Notice in the Federal Register on the policy for reduced risk 
pesticides (Ref. 89).
    In requesting comment on today's proposal, EPA seeks comment on 
whether this rule adequately moves pesticide handling ``up'' the 
environmental management hierarchy set out in PPA section 6602(b), 
specifically to encourage source reduction, and if there are other 
options EPA could pursue to further these efforts.

E. Today's Proposal

    EPA examined the problems associated with using and handling 
containers prior to developing these regulations. Many of the findings 
may be found in ``Pesticide Containers: A Report to Congress'' (Ref. 
65), cited in this preamble as the Report to Congress and ``State of 
the States: Pesticide Storage and Disposal'' (Ref. 70), cited in this 
preamble as the State of the States Report. This section gives a brief 
overview of current pesticide container types and handling practices in 
order to give the reader an understanding of the scope and nature of 
container use and handling problems.
    1. Numbers of containers. The Report to Congress reported that an 
estimated 223 million pesticide containers were manufactured in 1986, 
90 million of which held agricultural pesticides. This was probably a 
substantial underestimate, since a 1988 survey conducted by the 
pesticide industry estimated that 233 million pesticide aerosol 
containers alone were manufactured that year, more than the previous 
estimate for the total number of pesticide containers in 1986. A more 
thorough examination of the diversity of pesticide industries, 
pesticide formulations, and container types and numbers can be found in 
the Report to Congress and the regulatory impact analysis for the 
container design and residue removal regulations (Ref. 67).
    2. Types of pesticide containers. Pesticide containers are made 
from a variety of materials, including stainless steel; several types 
of plastic, including linear high density polyethylene, low density 
polyethylene, and cross-linked high density polyethylene; polyvinyl 
alcohol, in the form of water-soluble packaging; glass; paper; 
cardboard; aluminum; and various combinations of materials, including 
teflon, fiberglass, and foil. Pesticides are sold in two general types 
of containers. Containers not intended for refill or reuse are by far 
the most commonly used container type. This proposal refers to these 
containers as ``nonrefillable containers'' (the definition of 
``nonrefillable container'' proposed in these regulations is discussed 
later in this preamble). Containers intended for refill and reuse are 
used predominantly in the agricultural market, with some applications 
in industrial and institutional markets, and generally are used to sell 
and distribute pesticides in larger quantities. This proposal refers to 
these containers as ``refillable containers'' (``refillable container'' 
is discussed in Unit III of the preamble and defined in proposed 
Sec. 165.3).
    3. Life-cycle of pesticides and containers. The life-cycle of 
pesticides sold and distributed in nonrefillable containers differs 
from that of refillable containers.
    Pesticides sold in nonrefillable containers pass through the 
distribution chain, which varies according to the market, until they 
are purchased by the end user. The end user is generally solely 
responsible for opening the container, dispensing the pesticide, 
removing the pesticide residue from the container (``cleaning'' the 
container), and disposing of the container, rinsates, and excess 
pesticide.
    Pesticides sold in refillable containers have a different life-
cycle. These pesticides are not prepackaged; rather, they are generally 
distributed in large, undivided quantities to dealers and retailers, 
then dispensed into refillable containers, and sold to the end user. 
The refillable container is returned to a dealer repeatedly for 
refilling. The sale and distribution of pesticide in this manner, in 
bulk form, is similar to the way that gasoline is sold.
    Refillable containers may be owned by registrants, dealers, 
farmers, and other users. In the mid-1980s, several registrants began 
providing end users with inexpensive (approximately $50) refillable 
containers or ``minibulks'' in order to encourage their use. As 
discussed in Unit III of the preamble and defined in Sec. 165.3, EPA is 
proposing to define ``minibulk'' and ``bulk'' refillable containers 
into specific size categories. As documented in the Report to Congress 
(Ref. 65), registrants and other producing establishments, however, are 
finding these containers problematic, partly because they do not have 
much control over the farmer-owned containers, and partly because these 
containers are not particularly durable. The current trend is toward 
more durable and better-designed containers that are owned by the 
registrant. These more durable containers cost an average of about 
$300.
    A producing establishment will typically have from 1 to 10 larger 
stationary refillable containers, ranging from 500 gallons to 12,000 
gallons, from which a pesticide is dispensed into smaller refillable 
containers.
    4. Pesticide container integrity. As discussed in the Report to 
Congress (Ref. 65), the integrity of any container may be compromised 
if the container is constructed of materials that are not compatible 
with the pesticide, if the container's design is faulty, if the 
container is handled inappropriately or if it is stored under adverse 
conditions. For example, the walls of containers may weaken because of 
an interaction between the solvent and the container's material of 
construction. When stored outside, sunlight can cause photodegradation 
of the resins in plastic containers. Container fixtures (e.g., hoses, 
valves, sight gauges) may weaken and break at the point where they 
attach to the container, especially if the container is plastic and the 
fixtures are metal. The stresses induced from minor collisions with 
service vehicles, forklifts, and even stresses from normal handling 
have caused weakened containers to leak and even burst.
    5. Spills and leaks from containers. There are many activities 
related to container handling that present a potential for exposing an 
end user to pesticides and/or releasing pesticides into the 
environment. These problems can occur throughout all phases of 
container handling, including opening, dispensing, and closing or 
resealing. Certain container design features, such as the position of 
handles and openings and the size of the openings, promote spilling and 
leaking through splashing and dripping.
    The use of closed systems can reduce spills, leaks, and applicator 
exposure. Although closed systems are becoming more common, the wide 
variety of container opening sizes and designs has restricted the 
expansion of their use. Some end users resort to jury-rigging or 
altering the closed systems to fit the container, with spillage and 
leakage resulting from unsuccessful attempts.
    Refillable containers are intended for frequent refill and reuse, 
and can reduce the number of containers requiring disposal. 
Unfortunately, spills and leaks can occur throughout all phases of 
handling minibulk and bulk containers, including cleaning, filling, 
transportation, dispensing and storage. In the State of the States 
Report (Ref. 70), several States have reported that costly cleanups 
have been required at pesticide facilities as a result of fire, failure 
of refillable containers, and persistent leaking and spilling of 
pesticides at one place over time. Even in light of potential liability 
concerns, a significant number of pesticide dealers have not yet placed 
their larger refillable containers in protective dikes or secondary 
containment structures.
    6. Residue removal from containers. Removing pesticide residue 
after emptying a nonrefillable container is necessary to minimize human 
health and environmental risks, and prepare containers for recycling or 
disposal. Pesticide containers that contain residues, if disposed of 
improperly, present potential risks to humans and the environment 
through contamination of surface and groundwater, direct contact by 
humans (such as trash handlers) and animals, runoff and leaching into 
sensitive habitats from contaminated soil, contamination of landfills, 
and other means. In addition, acceptance of empty containers by 
pesticide recycling programs is highly dependent on the cleanliness of 
the container.
    Container design characteristics may interfere with the removal of 
pesticide residues from the container during the cleaning procedure 
(residue removal). For example, pesticide can be trapped in the seams 
along the top, bottom, and sides of the container, as well as in hollow 
handles and threading in the container's opening. Pesticide may also be 
adsorbed to the interior walls of the container or absorbed in various 
amounts into the container material itself.
    7. Current residue removal label language. Label directions on 
storage and disposal, which encompass residue removal, are addressed in 
40 CFR 156.10(i)(2)(ix). Today's proposal would add additional 
requirements to this provision (see Unit VII of this preamble).

III. Definitions

    EPA is proposing to revise the definitions in 40 CFR part 165 by 
removing a number of the definitions that are outdated or not used in 
the regulations, by revising some existing definitions, and by adding a 
number of new terms. The definitions now used in 40 CFR part 167 for 
``produce,'' ``producer,'' and ``establishment'' would be included in 
part 165. In addition, the definitions set forth below, when used in 
part 165, would have the meanings as explained. Although many of these 
terms are used in more than one of the proposed subparts, the 
discussion below is organized according to the subpart that uses the 
term most extensively.

A. Definition of Container

    EPA proposes to retain the definition of ``container'' that is 
currently in the 40 CFR part 165 regulations and recommended 
procedures. This definition would ensure consistency with the existing 
guidelines on storage and disposal that also will be retained in part 
165. The following language would also be added to the definition of 
container: ``Containers that are used to sell or distribute a pesticide 
product and that are also spray applicator tanks are considered to be 
containers for the purposes of this part.'' Vessels that are used to 
sell or distribute a product and that are also attached to the 
application equipment, for example, the ``Lock and Load'' system or 
small volume returnable containers that are a part of a direct 
injection system, would be considered containers. This language would 
be added to assure that if these types of equipment are used as 
containers, they would be regulated as such under section 19.
    EPA requests comment on whether the definition of ``container'' for 
purposes of FIFRA section 19 should be broadened to accommodate the 
containment provisions included in this proposal in light of the new, 
broader authority granted by Congress in the revisions to section 19. 
In particular, should the definition of container be expanded to 
include the secondary containment structure?

B. Definitions for Nonrefillable Container Standards: Container Design 
and Residue Removal

    EPA proposes that ``nonrefillable container'' be defined as a 
container that is designed and constructed for one-time filling only. A 
nonrefillable container cannot be reused or refilled. EPA intends that 
this definition include, but not be limited to, containers used for the 
following pesticide products: baits, traps, collars, and bars.
    The proposed definition of ``agricultural pesticide'' (also used in 
the other proposed subparts) would apply to pesticides that are labeled 
for use sites described in the definition of ``agricultural commodity'' 
[Sec. 171.2(a)(5)] as follows: ``The term 'agricultural commodity' 
means any plant, or part thereof, or animal, or animal product, 
produced by a person (including farmers, ranchers, vineyardists, plant 
propagators, Christmas tree growers, aquaculturists, floriculturists, 
orchardists, foresters, or other comparable persons) primarily for 
sale, consumption, propagation, or other use by man or animals.'' The 
term ``agricultural pesticide'' would also apply to pesticides intended 
for use in a nursery or greenhouse, in order to more fully include 
pesticide use sectors that currently use closed systems. EPA intends 
the proposed definition to include general and restricted use 
pesticides.
    A modification of the existing definition of ``triple rinse'' and a 
new definition of ``pressure rinse'' are proposed in order to better 
describe the triple and pressure rinsing procedures that are proposed 
in the amendments to 40 CFR part 156.

C. Definitions for Refillable Container Standards: Container Design and 
Residue Removal

    The proposed definition of ``design type'' is intended to clarify 
what constitutes a different container design and applies to both 
refillable and nonrefillable containers. If any of the parameters 
listed for defining the design type are different between two 
containers, the containers would have different designs. This is 
important in terms of whether a container would need to be tested. The 
definition of design type is based on the definitions of packaging 
design type and intermediate bulk container (IBC) design type in the 
United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods 
(U.N. Recommendations) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) 
definition of ``different packaging'' in HM-181 [performance-oriented 
packaging standards for the Hazardous Materials Regulations] (Refs. 82 
and 83).
    In section 9.7.1.2 of the U.N. Recommendations (Ref. 76), ``a 
packaging design type is defined by the design, size, material and 
thickness, manner of construction and packing, but may include various 
surface treatments. It also includes packagings which differ from the 
design type only in their lesser design height.'' The definition of IBC 
design type in section 16.1.4.2.1 is similar. DOT regulations, 49 CFR 
178.601(c)(4), state, in part, that:
    A different packaging is one that differs (i.e. is not 
identical) from a previously produced packaging in structural 
design, size, material of construction, wall thickness or manner of 
construction, but does not include: (i) a packaging which differs 
only in surface treatment; ...; (iii) A plastic packaging which 
differs only with regard to additives ...; (v) Packagings which 
differ from the design type only in their lesser design height.

    EPA is proposing to adopt a combination of the criteria in the DOT 
description of different packaging to define a design type. 
Specifically, Sec. 165.3 would specify that a container design type is 
defined by certain parameters: structural design, size, material of 
construction, wall thickness, manner of construction, and, for 
refillable containers as appropriate, pump fittings. With several 
exceptions, a change in any one of these parameters would constitute a 
different design type. The exceptions are that containers with various 
surface treatments and containers that differ only in their lesser 
design height may be included in one design type.
    The term ``structural design'' as used by DOT refers to the general 
shape and appearance of a container, e.g., cylindrical or cubical, as 
well as any recessed areas or otherwise distinctive features of the 
container. ``Manner of construction'' refers to the way the container 
is made and would distinguish, for example, between plastic containers 
that are blow molded and those that are rotationally molded.
    EPA is proposing to add pump fittings to the list of critical 
parameters, because EPA believes this design feature may have a 
significant impact on the drop test performance of a container.
    As an example, a minibulk container design type is characterized by 
its structural design, size, material of construction, surface 
treatment, wall thickness, manner of construction, and pump fittings. 
If any one of these design parameters is different when comparing two 
containers (except design height or surface treatment), the containers 
would be considered to be different design types and each container 
design type would have to be drop tested in accordance with 
Sec. 165.124(d).
    The use of ``one-way valves'' is intended to prevent unauthorized 
persons from placing material into a refillable container. EPA requests 
comment on whether the definition of one-way valve proposed in 
Sec. 165.3 is adequate to describe the technology necessary to prevent 
a person from inserting a substance into a container through that 
valve.
    In this proposed rule, a ``refillable container'' is defined as ``a 
container that is intended to be filled with pesticide more than 
once.'' A container would be ``intended to be filled with pesticide 
more than once'' if it is on a registrant's list of acceptable 
refillable containers for a pesticide product, as specified in proposed 
Sec. 165.130(b)(2).
    The regulations propose definitions for four major types of 
refillable containers: ``liquid minibulk,'' ``liquid bulk,'' ``dry 
minibulk,'' and ``dry bulk.'' The distinctions are based on the kind of 
pesticide (i.e., liquid or dry) the container is designed to hold and 
the size of the container. EPA believes it is appropriate to define 
different container terms for each of the four major types because each 
is designed and handled differently, and the appropriate design or 
performance standards may vary.
    First, refillable containers are distinguished by whether they are 
designed and constructed to hold liquid or dry pesticide. The four 
major types of refillable containers do not include containers for 
pesticides that are gases or that are in a semi-solid state, such as 
gels. EPA does not intend to regulate refillable containers for gaseous 
pesticides at this time because EPA is not aware of problems with this 
type of container. EPA is not aware of any pesticide gels that are 
distributed or sold in refillable containers.
    The second distinction among the types of refillables is based on 
the size of the container, which is usually a good indicator of whether 
the container will be portable or stationary. In general, the term 
``minibulk'' is intended to identify a container that is considered to 
be portable. The term ``bulk'' usually refers to a container that is a 
stationary storage container. However, EPA is proposing a definition 
based on size rather than portability because size is an objective 
criterion, while ``portability'' is a more subjective concept that is 
difficult to describe precisely.
    The size criteria are different for liquid and dry refillables. For 
liquid minibulk containers, the proposed rule would define the 
container as capable of holding up to and including 3,000 liters (793 
gallons), which is based on the United Nations (U.N.) definition of 
intermediate bulk containers (Ref. 76). Section 16.1.2.1 of the U.N. 
Recommendations defines IBCs, in part, as ``rigid, semi-rigid or 
flexible portable packagings, other than those specified in Chapter 9, 
that: (a) have a capacity of not more than 3.0 m3 (3,000 litres), 
....''
    This proposed definition of liquid minibulk container does not have 
a lower quantity limit. Therefore, the proposed regulatory definition 
of liquid minibulk would include those plastic and metal portable 
containers that are currently referred to as minibulks, as well as the 
metal 15- and 30-gallon containers that are commonly called small 
volume returnables, or microbulks. The proposed regulatory definition 
of liquid minibulk would apply to containers with, for example, a 
capacity of several ounces if the container could be refilled.
    The definition of a ``liquid bulk container'' would be similar to 
that of a liquid minibulk, but with a capacity limit of undivided 
quantities greater than 3,000 liters (793 gallons).
    Most portable refillable containers, i.e., those used to transport 
pesticide products from a dealer to a farm, have capacities of 250 
gallons or less. Nearly all the portable containers for pesticides used 
in the agricultural, institutional, and industrial markets are 600 
gallons or less. Most stationary storage tanks have capacities of at 
least 1,000 gallons. Therefore, EPA believes that the size limit of 
3,000 liters (793 gallons) for liquid refillable containers is 
reasonable and appropriate.
    The size separation for dry refillable containers is intended to 
distinguish between minibulk and bulk containers in a similar way. The 
criterion of 2,000 kilograms (4,409 pounds) is based on the capacity of 
containers that are commonly used today. To EPA's knowledge, the 
largest portable refillable container (that is not a transport vehicle) 
currently used for dry pesticides can hold up to 1 ton (907 kilograms 
or 2,000 pounds) of product. To account for the possible development of 
larger minibulk containers through technological advancement, EPA more 
than doubled this quantity to 2,000 kilograms (4,409 pounds). In other 
words, the size criterion is intended to accommodate the refillable 
containers currently used to sell and distribute dry formulations and 
to allow for the development of larger containers in the future. EPA 
requests comment on whether this quantity limit is appropriate or 
whether EPA should base the size criterion for dry refillable 
containers on the capacities of existing containers.
    A ``refiller'' is defined as a person who engages in the activity 
of repackaging pesticide product into refillable containers. A refiller 
could be a registrant, a person operating under contract to a 
registrant, or a person operating under written authorization from a 
registrant.
    A ``refilling establishment'' is defined in the proposal as ``an 
establishment where the activity of repackaging pesticide product into 
refillable containers occurs.'' This definition is intended to include 
every place where a refillable container is filled or refilled with 
pesticide product from another refillable container (that is not a 
transport vehicle). The definition would not include producing 
establishments that fill only nonrefillable containers for distribution 
and sale.
    Refilling establishments are a subset of producing establishments. 
Refilling establishments must be in compliance with all existing 
requirements for producing establishments, including FIFRA sections 7 
and 8 and EPA's regulations in 40 CFR part 167. The part 165 
regulations would place additional requirements on refilling 
establishments.
    EPA is proposing a definition for the term ``repackage'' in 
Sec. 165.3. For purposes of this part, repackage means to transfer a 
pesticide formulation from one container to another without a change in 
the composition of the formulation or the labeling for sale or 
distribution. Transfer of a pesticide from one storage tank to another 
would not be repackaging. ``Repackaging'' covers a broader range of 
activities than ``refilling,'' which refers to repackaging into 
refillable containers, i.e., refilling is a subset of repackaging. For 
example, a registrant can repackage a product from a 55-gallon drum 
into nonrefillable 2.5-gallon jugs, which would not be considered to be 
refilling. Another difference between the two terms is how they are 
used: pesticide products are repackaged, while pesticide containers are 
refilled. This proposal focuses on ``refilling refillable containers 
with pesticide product for distribution or sale'' and ``repackaging 
pesticide product into refillable containers for distribution or 
sale,'' which have the same meaning.

D. Definitions for Standards for Pesticide Containment Structures

    Several definitions proposed in subpart A pertain to standards for 
pesticide containment structures found in subpart H of the proposed 
rule. These definitions, discussed below, include: appurtenances, 
containment pad, containment structure, operator, owner, pesticide 
dispensing area, secondary containment unit, stationary bulk container, 
and 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event.
    The proposed definition for ``stationary bulk container'' would 
include any bulk container that holds pesticide, including transport 
vehicles such as trucks and rail cars, provided that the container 
remains in place at a facility for 14 or more days. Containers holding 
concentrated pesticides or dilute pesticides (e.g., field dilutions or 
rinsates) could qualify as stationary bulk containers.
    The proposed definition of ``appurtenance'' is intended to identify 
the types of conduits that are used when pesticides are dispensed to 
and from containers. For example, all the pipes and associated valves, 
pumps, and meters running from a stationary bulk container to the end 
of the pipe where pesticide is discharged would be considered 
appurtenances.
    Certain stationary bulk containers and their appurtenances would be 
required by subpart H to be protected by a ``secondary containment 
unit.'' The term ``secondary'' refers to the containment structure's 
function as a backup in case of leaks or spills from the bulk container 
or its appurtenances. Such leaks and spills could range from relatively 
small volumes (e.g., slow drips from a poorly sealed valve) to release 
of the entire contents of the bulk container, such as during container 
failure.
    The term ``pesticide dispensing area'' would include any area where 
pesticide is transferred out of or into a container and is intended to 
include direct transfers (e.g., container to container) or indirect 
transfers (e.g., those involving appurtenances) of pesticides. The 
vessel from which or into which the pesticide is transferred could be 
of a wide variety (e.g., container, application equipment, transport 
vehicle, etc.). The pesticide being transferred could be in a form as 
sold and distributed or pesticide that has been diluted (e.g., for 
field application or from container-cleaning operations).
    As described in subpart H, certain pesticide dispensing areas would 
be required to be protected by a ``containment pad.'' A containment pad 
is a structure that provides a means of spill control at a pesticide 
dispensing area, while a secondary containment unit serves as spill 
control for stationary bulk containers. As proposed in subpart H, a 
containment pad could be constructed as an integral component of a 
secondary containment unit, or vice versa.
    The more general term ``containment structure'' would be defined in 
Sec. 165.3 to mean either a secondary containment unit or a containment 
pad.
    The term ``operator,'' as it pertains to subpart H, would mean any 
person in control of, or having responsibility for, the daily operation 
of a facility at which a containment structure is required. The term 
``owner'' would mean any person who owns a facility at which a 
containment structure is required.
    Subpart H refers to the term ``25-year, 24-hour rainfall event,'' 
defined as a rainfall event with a probable recurrence interval of once 
in 25 years, in describing a design criterion to prevent stormwater 
run-on at containment structures. The magnitude of such rainfall events 
is reported as inches of liquid precipitation and can vary 
geographically.

IV. Nonrefillable Container Standards: Container Design and Residue 
Removal

A. Background

    Proposed subpart F would revise 40 CFR part 165 to facilitate the 
safe use and disposal of nonrefillable pesticide containers by 
establishing container design criteria for all nonrefillable containers 
and residue removal laboratory performance standards for rigid 
containers containing dilutable pesticides.
    Nonrefillable containers are the most common type of containers 
used for the sale and distribution of pesticides. Nonrefillables come 
in many types and shapes ranging from small aerosols, 1-quart plastic 
containers, 2.5-gallon jugs, 5-gallon buckets, and bags of all sizes to 
drums (55 gallons and larger). Nonrefillables are used by pesticide 
applicators in every market sector, and are especially prevalent in the 
household market.
    As will be discussed more fully later in this document, the 
problems associated with the use of nonrefillable containers include 
spilling, leaking, and splashing during the handling of the container. 
Unwanted release of pesticide may occur during the opening, closing, 
pouring, and emptying of the container. Pesticide residues may be 
difficult to remove from the inside of containers if the pesticide 
adheres to the container's walls or is trapped in seams, lips and 
handles. These residues may be released to the environment and could 
contaminate surface and groundwater and sensitive habitats as a 
consequence of poor container handling and disposal practices. 
Containers with residues may be difficult to dispose of in municipal 
solid waste facilities or to recycle because facility operators 
regularly reject dirty containers in response to contamination 
concerns. A more thorough examination of the spilling and splashing 
problems associated with current container designs, the impact of 
residues on container disposal and recycling, the diversity of 
pesticide industries, pesticide formulations, packaging practices, and 
quantities and types of containers can be found in the Report to 
Congress (Ref. 65).

B. Today's Proposal

    Subpart F of today's proposed regulations contains the 
nonrefillable container design standards, a residue removal performance 
standard, and certification and recordkeeping requirements.
    The definition section of proposed subpart A of this NPRM contains 
definitions of terms used in proposed subpart F and in related subparts 
of today's proposal. Terms in the proposed definition section that are 
important to the understanding of subpart F include: Agricultural 
pesticide, container, design type, and nonrefillable container.
    1. Scope and applicability. Section 165.100 would provide that 
subpart F includes nonrefillable container design requirements and 
performance standards. These requirements and standards would reduce 
the risks to users and the environment from pesticide containers that 
spill and leak during use or retain pesticide residue upon emptying. 
All nonrefillable containers used for the distribution and sale of 
pesticides would have to meet these performance standards and 
requirements. The requirements in subpart F would apply to registrants, 
which means that containers for unregistered pesticides would not be 
subject to these requirements. EPA requests comment on whether 
unregistered pesticides should be subject to these requirements and, if 
so, whether the requirements should extend to all unregistered 
pesticides.
    Proposed Sec. 165.100 would state that subpart F does not apply to 
manufacturing use products. ``Manufacturing use product'' is defined in 
40 CFR 158.153(h) and ``end use product'' is defined in 40 CFR 
158.153(b).
    In order to be excluded from the scope of this rule, a MUP or 
formulation intermediate would have to be intended solely for 
formulation into other pesticide products and be labeled for 
formulation use only. Any product that bears end uses, including 
industrial products such as cooling towers biocides or paint 
preservatives, regardless of whether they may also bear manufacturing 
uses or could under current policies be used for pesticide formulation, 
would be covered by this rule.
    EPA is proposing to exclude products that are solely MUPs from 
subpart F at this time because EPA has a limited amount of information 
on the kinds of containers used for MUPs and EPA is not aware of any 
problems that have occurred with containers for MUPs. Because MUPs are 
handled by registrants and workers who are used to and trained to 
handle chemicals on a regular basis, it is possible that the 
stewardship of MUP containers is better than the stewardship of end use 
product containers at other levels of the pesticide distribution chain. 
EPA's study of pesticide containers and the resulting Report to 
Congress (Ref. 65) focused on containers holding end use products. EPA 
has data and documentation of problems for end use product containers 
and has drafted these proposed regulations to address these known 
problems.
    While EPA is not proposing to include the containers of MUPs in 
this proposal, EPA is strongly considering expanding the applicability 
of subpart F to include MUPs in the final rule. Because MUPs generally 
are more concentrated than end use products, it may be appropriate to 
require the manufacturing use product containers to meet the 
requirements of subpart F. EPA requests comments and information on the 
problems, handling, and disposal of MUP containers, and on whether MUP 
containers should be subject to the same requirements as end use 
product containers or should be subject to different standards than end 
use product containers.
    2. Container design standards. Proposed Sec. 165.102(a)(1) would 
prohibit a registrant from distributing and selling a pesticide product 
in a nonrefillable container that does not meet the container design 
standards and requirements of subpart F.
    Section 165.102(a)(2) would state that information on container 
failures or other incidents involving pesticide containers that may 
result in releases of pesticide may be reportable under FIFRA section 
6(a)(2). This proposed provision would not establish new reporting 
requirements; the reference to FIFRA section 6(a)(2) provisions is 
included to facilitate the reporting of container failures to EPA. 
Additionally, EPA would delete Sec. 165.2(g), relating to notifying the 
Regional Administrator, because EPA believes that FIFRA section 6(a)(2) 
provides for adequate protection.
    For purposes of regulating under section 19, EPA is interested in 
receiving reports of container failures and other related incidents in 
order to evaluate the effectiveness of the regulations, to discover 
potential problems that may need to be addressed in future rulemakings, 
to identify container design types that may not meet the proposed 
requirements, and to determine if certain container design types have a 
problem with container integrity and strength over time.
    FIFRA section 6(a)(2) requires registrants to report information on 
unreasonable adverse effects of a pesticide. EPA published a policy on 
reporting under section 6(a)(2) in the Federal Register on July 12, 
1979. On September 24, 1992, EPA published a proposal for 40 CFR part 
159, Reporting Requirements for Risk/Benefit Information (Ref. 91), 
that specifically addresses reporting container failures under section 
6(a)(2).
    The part 159 proposal includes the following as an example of 
reportable container failures: ``The registrant receives verifiable 
reports that five cans of the registrant's product leaked 3 years after 
the registrant sold them. The registrant has no information regarding 
incidents of toxic and adverse effects caused by leaks. Nonetheless, 
the registrant should know that such information about container 
failures may raise serious questions about the proper terms and 
conditions of registration of the product, due to the possibility of 
uncontrolled, unpredictable exposure to the product or its residues, as 
demonstrated by the series of incidents. Therefore the information 
would have to be submitted within 30 calendar days of the time the 
registrant possesses or knows of the information. However, if the 
registrant investigates, and, within the time permitted, discovers that 
three cans leaked because they were stored under conditions which were 
neither in accordance with the labeling or commonly recognized practice 
(such as the cans were damaged in a warehouse fire), the series of 
incidents need not be reported unless that registrant has knowledge 
that EPA is considering terms and conditions of registration to which 
such information would be relevant.''
    EPA believes that FIFRA section 6(a)(2) provides an adequate means 
of obtaining information about container failures. However, this 
reporting mechanism is dependent upon registrants being notified about 
container failures by dealers, refillers, and even end users. EPA 
believes that there are many market-based reasons for dealers or 
refillers to notify the registrant of container failures, including:
    (1) By making the registrant (who would be responsible for the 
containers meeting the part 165 standards) aware of the problems, the 
registrant could improve the containers, thus alleviating the dealer's 
or refiller's problems.
    (2) The dealer or refiller may try to obtain financial assistance 
from the registrant to replace the failed container and lost product.
    (3) If the container failure is associated with a pesticide 
release, the dealer or refiller might want to obtain guidance and 
financial compensation on reporting responsibilities, spill 
remediation, and disposal.
    Despite these market pressures, EPA is concerned that registrants 
may not become aware of container failures because it is not mandatory 
for dealers or refillers to report to registrants. EPA considered other 
mechanisms for the reporting of container failures, including requiring 
dealers and refillers to report container failures to the registrant. 
The registrant, of course, is subject to reporting adverse effects 
information under FIFRA section 6(a)(2). This option would ensure that 
registrants receive reports of container failures, thus increasing the 
potential for reporting to EPA. Another option considered by EPA was to 
require dealers and refillers to report container failures directly to 
EPA. This option would ensure that EPA receives reports of container 
failures in a very timely manner.
    EPA requests comments on the proposed approach of relying on market 
forces and the existing FIFRA section 6(a)(2) mechanisms to provide EPA 
with container failure information and on the other reporting options. 
EPA particularly requests comments on the burden to the various parties 
under each of the reporting options.
    Proposed Sec. 165.102(a)(3) would clarify that compliance with the 
proposed part 165 regulations would not be an exemption from DOT's 
Hazardous Material Regulations at 49 CFR parts 171 through 180. If a 
pesticide is a DOT hazardous material, the pesticide would be required 
to be packaged in compliance with both DOT and EPA regulations.
    3. Container integrity. EPA is proposing in Sec. 165.102(b) to 
require that all nonrefillable container design types prevent leakage 
under conditions of normal storage, distribution, sale, and use. In 
choosing a general performance standard, EPA recognizes that not every 
possible storage or use condition can be anticipated, but that normal 
environmental conditions, the effects of long term storage, and 
container/formulation interactions should be considered by the 
registrant when choosing packaging for a pesticide product.
    The risk of exposure to humans, animals, and the environment from 
concentrated pesticides is greatly increased if the pesticide is not 
completely and securely confined in its container during storage. 
Pesticide containers may lose their structural integrity during 
mishandling or when stored under various conditions (especially long-
term storage), including: (1) Storage in extremely high and low 
temperatures, (2) storage of bags and cardboard containers under humid 
conditions (damp basements and regions of the country that regularly 
experience high humidity), and (3) storage of certain plastic 
containers in direct sunlight, resulting in photodegradation of the 
plastic. Incompatibility between the pesticide formulation and the 
construction material(s) may also result in degradation or failure of 
the container.
    A discussion of integrity problems of nonrefillable containers may 
be found in the Report to Congress (Ref. 65).
    Section 165.102(b) would also require that the container's 
construction materials be compatible with the formulation. 
Consideration of any chemical reactions that could occur between the 
container and the formulation will allow the registrant to choose a 
container that is made of materials that will not react with the 
formulation.
    Compatibility is intended to cover a broad range of potential 
occurrences. EPA does not consider a pesticide formulation and 
container to be compatible if, for example, the formulation: (1) Is 
corrosive to the container, (2) causes softening, premature aging, or 
embrittlement of the container, or (3) otherwise causes the container 
to weaken or to create the risk of discharge. A container and 
formulation are not compatible if there is a significant chemical, 
electrolytic, or galvanic reaction between the two. Also, a container 
and formulation are incompatible if there is some interaction between 
the two, such as the active ingredient permeating the container wall, 
that would cause the formulation to differ from its composition as 
described in the statement required in connection with its registration 
under FIFRA section 3. EPA requests comments on whether this 
description of compatibility is adequate and/or whether EPA should 
define compatibility in the regulations.
    EPA requests comments on the ability of registrants to comply with 
the nonrefillable container integrity standard as well as the need for 
additional or alternative requirements, such as a drop test.
    EPA envisions the nonrefillable container integrity standard being 
enforced in situations where significant leakage problems occur for a 
given container design type and formulation. Existing enforcement 
mechanisms, such as a stop sale, use, or removal order (SSURO), could 
be used to prevent the further sale or distribution of that container/
formulation combination.
    EPA is considering the development of a standard for container 
failure frequency to define what would be considered a violation and to 
clearly establish a violation of the proposed container integrity 
standard. Noncompliance would result if containers of a particular 
design type failed at a frequency greater than that established by EPA. 
A nonrefillable container that fails at a rate exceeding the failure 
frequency could be banned from the distribution and sale of pesticide. 
EPA requests comments on the establishment of a container failure 
frequency and requests specific suggestions for methods to determine 
and to set such a standard.
    4. Permanent markings. Proposed Sec. 165.102(c) would require 
certain information, specific to the pesticide sold or distributed in 
the container, to be marked permanently on every nonrefillable 
container. Permanent marking includes, but is not limited to, etching, 
embossing, ink jetting, stamping, heat stamping, mechanically attaching 
a plate, molding, or marking with durable ink. EPA intends that the 
information be visible and fixed on the container for the lifetime of 
the container. This permanent marking would be in addition to the label 
and labeling, unless the label itself is a permanent part of the 
container material (e.g., etched, ink jetted, stamped, or molded). 
Proposed Sec. 165.124(b) of subpart G would require certain information 
to be permanently marked on refillable containers. (See the discussion 
in Unit V.B.3 of this preamble.) While permanent marking means the same 
thing for nonrefillable and refillable containers, EPA anticipates that 
the containers will be permanently marked using different methods. For 
example, EPA anticipates that most nonrefillable containers would be 
permanently marked by ink jetting, embossing, or marking with permanent 
ink, while refillables would be permanently marked by molding or 
mechanically attaching a plate.
    The information proposed to be permanently marked includes the EPA 
registration number of the pesticide [Sec. 165.102(c)(1)] and the name, 
symbol, or code of the material(s) from which the nonrefillable 
container is constructed [Sec. 165.102(c)(2)].
    a. EPA registration number. This will allow for the identification 
of the pesticide even if the label is missing or illegible, 
facilitating the safe disposal of excess pesticide and containers. When 
the EPA registration number of the product cannot be confirmed or 
identified, the current or previous contents of the container and its 
residue are unknown. Identification of the contents by an analytical 
chemistry laboratory can be costly and may not provide complete 
information (for instance, the exact product may not be identifiable). 
Waste management facilities and municipal collection programs usually 
consider the cost of identification to be prohibitive, and may refuse 
to accept unidentified pesticide products because of potential 
liability under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or 
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 
Act (CERCLA). Unidentifiable pesticides have been rejected from 
pesticide collection programs in several States (for example, Maine, 
Minnesota, North Carolina, and Virginia) (Ref. 70). Users may keep 
unidentifiable pesticides and containers in storage indefinitely, or 
may even resort to open dumping. State authorities who find quantities 
of pesticide containers with illegible or missing labels in open dumps 
end up assuming the cost of identification if the user cannot be found.
    b. Material of construction. This will help recycling programs 
identify container materials and encourage the recycling of pesticide 
containers, thereby facilitating safe disposal of containers and 
furthering EPA's waste minimization goals. EPA is not proposing a 
system or code to identify the material of construction, because there 
is no one universally accepted or mandated scheme at this time. The 
construction material should be identified clearly enough so that 
persons who are not container manufacturers can determine the material 
of construction. To EPA's knowledge, there are a limited number of 
materials currently used to produce pesticide containers. Therefore, 
EPA does not anticipate identifying the container material in the 
absence of a specified code to be problematic.
    Several independent organizations have developed material 
identification mechanisms. One well-known organization, the Society of 
the Plastics Industry (SPI), has assigned numbers to certain groups of 
plastics. The numbers are engraved or embossed directly on the 
container to aid in the quick identification of the material. Certain 
beverage can manufacturers print the name of the material (steel, 
aluminum) on the container. EPA anticipates that most registrants will 
use either the SPI code or the material name to mark nonrefillable 
containers with the material of construction. However, there are 
existing packaging regulations and standards that address 
identification of the material of construction. Container standards 
such as the DOT Specifications 56 and 57 for metal portable tanks and 
the Midwest Agricultural Chemicals Association (MACA) voluntary 
standards establish conventions for identifying the material of 
construction for larger, refillable containers, as discussed in Unit 
V.B.3 of this preamble.
    5. Container dispensing capability. EPA believes that a regulation 
that assures the safe use of containers should apply to all aspects of 
normal use of the container, including the elimination of splash and 
leakage during pouring of the pesticide from the container, closing or 
resealing the container, and storage and cleaning of the container. 
Proposed Sec. 165.102(d) would require nonrefillable containers 
containing liquid pesticides to be designed and constructed to:
    (1) Pour from the container in a continuous, coherent stream (i.e., 
without glugging and/or splashing) [Sec. 165.102(d)(1)].
    (2) Dispense without dripping or leaking down the outside of the 
container at any time during the dispensing or after the container has 
been emptied [Sec. 165.102(d)(2)].
    (3) Once the container has been resealed, not allow any pesticide 
or rinsate to escape from the container during storage or while the 
user is agitating the container during the triple rinse residue removal 
procedure [Sec. 165.102(d)(3)].
    The Report to Congress (Ref. 65) concludes that certain container 
design features can result in spilling, splashing, glugging, dripping, 
and leaking during normal use activities, including:
    (1) Solid handles can promote glugging during pouring because of 
inadequate air flow back into the container.
    (2) Handles on top of the container can position the user's hand in 
likely splash areas.
    (3) The design and position of the opening can contribute to 
leakage/drippage of the pesticide down the side of the container during 
and after dispensing.
    (4) Once opened, the lid, cap, or other closure mechanism may not 
securely reclose the container, and may result in leakage and spillage 
of pesticide during storage, transportation, and container agitation 
during the triple rinse residue removal procedure.
    EPA is not proposing specific numerical standards or test methods 
to verify these design standards. The Report to Congress (Ref. 65) 
contains a method to demonstrate glugging based on a variation in 
internal pressure of the container and this method could be adapted for 
use by registrants. The registrant could use the data from this method 
or use photographic evidence to demonstrate dispensing capability, as 
well as for other aspects of the design standards.
    6. Standardized closures. The safe use of pesticide containers 
extends to safe dispensing, and closed systems (also known as closed 
transfer systems) allow for the safest possible transfer consistent 
with typical pesticide dispensing procedures. Applicator exposure, 
spills, leakage, and splashing during the dispensing of pesticide from 
the container have been shown to be reduced when a closed system is 
used. To facilitate and encourage the use of closed systems, EPA is 
proposing in Sec. 165.102(e)(1) to require the standardization of 
container closures for liquid agricultural pesticides.
    Pesticide container closures come in a wide variety of sizes and 
shapes, including pull-off tabs, pop-up funnels, and closures and 
openings with or without threading. The current nonuniformity among 
container closures makes it difficult for a user to incorporate closed 
transfer systems into handling practices. Users may have to purchase or 
obtain many adapter devices to fit all of the container types to the 
closed system(s) they own. Lacking a proper adapter, a user may try to 
secure the closed system to the container using whatever means is 
available. If this jury-rigging fails, leaking and spilling may result. 
Moreover, closed systems are not available for many container opening 
styles. The standardization of the container closure (and therefore the 
opening also) would encourage and facilitate the use of closed systems 
by limiting the number of adapters and/or closed systems a user would 
have to own.
    Closed systems are used predominantly in the agricultural sector, 
although they are growing in popularity in the industrial and 
institutional markets. A growing number of registrants are requiring 
the use of closed systems as a means of reducing applicator exposure. 
Some States (California, notably) are also requiring that closed 
systems be used with certain pesticides in certain application 
situations. EPA is targeting agricultural pesticides with the 
standardized closure requirements. EPA has limited information on the 
use of closed systems in other markets, such as industrial and 
institutional. EPA requests information on the use of closed systems in 
other pesticide sectors, including the types of systems, costs, extent 
of use, and comments on whether a standardized closure requirement 
would facilitate the use of closed systems.
    Section 165.102(e)(1) proposes four closure sizes (two bungs and 
two screw caps) whose design specifications have been adapted from caps 
and bungs commonly found in the agricultural sector and from current 
voluntary industry standards (Ref. 90). Section 165.102(e)(1) also 
proposes that only rigid containers with a capacity greater than or 
equal to 3.0 liters (0.79 gallons) would have to conform to the closure 
specifications due to the constraints of adapting the closure 
specifications to small containers. Also, smaller containers are not 
used as often in the agricultural sectors.
    Section 165.102(e)(2) would permit a registrant to request and 
justify the need for an exemption from the standardized closure 
requirement. EPA recognizes that the use of a nonstandardized closure 
with certain pesticide formulations may result in a further reduction 
of applicator exposure, or may be required for proper mixing, loading, 
or application. Because EPA believes that most agricultural 
formulations can be accommodated using the four proposed closures, EPA 
anticipates a limited number of situations where non-standardized 
closures might be appropriate. However, EPA would consider any requests 
for a waiver from the standardized closure requirement and would 
carefully evaluate them with respect to the criteria set out in 
Sec. 165.119(b).
    The proposed requirement for standardized closures should not 
overlap with the Child-Resistant Packaging requirements for residential 
use pesticides (40 CFR part 157), unless a pesticide product's labeling 
allows both the use on agriculture sites and residential use [as 
defined in Sec. 157.21(e)], and the pesticide is packaged in a 
container larger than 0.79 gallons (3.0 liters) but less than 5.0 
gallons (18.9 liters). EPA would consider the registered use sites when 
considering a request from a registrant to use a non-standardized 
closure.
    Section 165.102(e)(3) proposes to exempt aerosol and pressurized 
containers from the requirement for standardized closures because the 
closures are not appropriate for the typical design used to dispense 
aerosol pesticide from containers. Pesticides packaged in aerosol and 
pressurized containers are considered to be those products that are 
sold under pressure where the pesticide cannot be poured or dispensed 
from the container as a liquid, the container is not designed to allow 
the opening of the container for dispensing as a liquid, and where the 
containers are designed to contain pressurized materials.
    7. Residue removal-- a. The residue removal problem. FIFRA section 
19(e)(1)(B)(i) requires EPA to promulgate regulations that ensure, to 
the fullest extent practicable, that the design of pesticide containers 
accommodates procedures used for the removal of pesticides from the 
containers and the rinsing of the containers. In addition, FIFRA 
section 19(f)(1)(B)(i) states that the regulation may specify pesticide 
residue removal standards providing for, at a minimum, triple rinsing 
or the equivalent degree of pesticide removal. EPA believes it is the 
intent of Congress to ensure that pesticide containers are capable of 
being cleaned at least to a level that is equivalent to triple rinsing. 
In order to fulfill this intent, EPA is proposing to set a residue 
removal performance standard that certain pesticide products would be 
required to meet. The performance standard would act as a benchmark for 
residue removal by specifying the maximum quantity of pesticide active 
ingredient that can be found in rinsate after a specified residue 
removal procedure is used. EPA would require that a specified level of 
pesticide residue removal be achieved in the laboratory before a 
registrant may distribute or sell a pesticide product in a 
nonrefillable container. This performance standard would be applicable 
to all registered products within certain categories of container and 
formulation combinations.
    EPA believes that if pesticide containers are capable of being 
cleaned to a high level, users will be able to achieve a higher degree 
of container cleanliness prior to disposal or recycling. EPA believes 
human and environmental exposure and risks are posed by pesticide that 
is readily available in the container, specifically, the pesticide that 
can escape from an empty container during storage and transportation to 
a disposal facility. Pesticide container recycling programs and 
municipal waste facilities report the frequent rejection of certain 
pesticide formulation and container combinations because of 
unacceptable pesticide residues (Refs. 16, 23, 24, 29, 37, 49 and 65). 
EPA is proposing a performance standard that affords a practicable 
level of residue removal that is achievable for the majority of 
pesticide products, while targeting those pesticide/container 
combinations that have difficulty in achieving an acceptable level of 
residue removal, such as those frequently rejected from recycling 
programs.
    EPA believes that proper residue removal will encourage recycling 
and reduce human and environmental exposures to pesticide residues from 
empty, unrinsed containers. Residues from containers can contaminate 
soil, surface water, and groundwater, posing a risk to wildlife, 
sensitive habitats, and human health (examples: drinking water and 
exposure to empty containers by trash handlers and children) (Refs. 20 
and 65).
    The Report to Congress and other sources conclude that residue 
removal efficiency is a function of the combination of, and interaction 
between, the container variable(s) and the formulation variable(s) 
(Refs. 10, 11, 29 and 65). A performance standard approach would not 
seek to achieve residue removal efficiency through the prohibition of 
certain container types or formulation characteristics that do not 
facilitate residue removal, nor would it require the use of a limited 
set of container types that have been shown to not retain residues; 
rather, a performance standard would consider the residue removal 
efficiency of the container and formulation in combination.
    EPA believes the establishment of a laboratory performance standard 
is the most desirable strategy, as it provides registrants the greatest 
amount of flexibility to achieve the standard. A registrant could 
modify or change the variables of container design and/or formulation 
characteristics as the registrant so chooses, as long as the 
performance standard is met.
    By setting a laboratory performance standard, EPA is laying the 
groundwork for effective residue removal at the user level. When 
effective residue removal is fostered by container designs and 
formulations in conjunction with proper container cleaning procedures, 
EPA believes that containers will be more readily accepted by pesticide 
container recycling and collection programs, and by municipal solid 
waste facilities.
    EPA believes that promulgation of this proposed laboratory 
performance standard will:
    (1) Encourage the use of containers with design features that 
facilitate residue removal.
    (2) Encourage the use of formulations that facilitate residue 
removal.
    (3) Help to assure those involved with the disposition of the 
pesticide containers (i.e., farmers, landfill operators, recyclers, 
etc.) that the containers can be cleaned adequately.
    (4) Discourage or eliminate those container/formulation 
combinations that are known to cause problems.
    b. Rigid/dilutable category targeted for proposed performance 
standard. At this time, EPA is proposing to establish a residue removal 
performance standard and laboratory residue removal testing procedures 
for one type of container/ formulation combination. That container/
formulation combination includes rigid containers with pesticides that 
are required or allowed by the label or labeling to be diluted prior to 
application (referred to as ``rigid/dilutable''). By ``rigid 
containers,'' EPA means containers that have definite retained shape 
and form and that are self-supporting. EPA is not aware of any 
regulatory definitions of rigid in DOT regulations or in U.N. packaging 
standards. For the purposes of subpart F, rigid containers would 
include containers constructed of metal, molded polyethylene, glass, 
and paperboard (cardboard). Rigid containers would also include bag-in-
a-box containers, because the box is an integral part of the package 
and bears the label, and the bag or bladder is considered a liner. The 
bag/bladder liner can and should be rinsed prior to disposal. Water-
soluble packages, containing dilutable pesticide, that are sold in 
cardboard tubes, boxes, or other packaging types would not be 
considered rigid containers for the purposes of these regulations. The 
water-soluble film is not a liner and cannot be rinsed because it 
dissolves to become part of the spray mix. Removal of pesticide 
residues should not be necessary for the outer packaging because the 
pesticide is contained within the water soluble packages. EPA requests 
comments on the proposed description of ``rigid container.''
    c. Future inclusion of other categories. EPA ultimately intends to 
set performance standards for other container/formulation categories. 
The categories may include non-rigid containers with dilutable and non-
dilutable pesticide, rigid containers with non-dilutable pesticide, and 
aerosols. Standards would be based on what is practicable for the 
specific type of container and what residue removal procedure is 
appropriate for the container/formulation combination. Data on residue 
levels for these categories are being investigated. For example, EPA 
and the Paper Shipping Sack Manufacturers Association (PSSMA) conducted 
a study of the residue in paper bags (Ref. 61).
    d. Rigid/dilutable performance standard. EPA is proposing in 
Sec. 165.104(b) to establish a residue removal performance standard 
that represents a practicable level of residue removal for the majority 
of container/formulation combinations currently in use, based on data 
available to EPA. To achieve this goal, the proposal would establish a 
standard through the utilization of a standardized triple rinse 
procedure, and would require that a minimum of 99.9999 percent removal 
of pesticide active ingredient be achieved, expressed in terms of 
reduction of concentration of the pesticide in the residue. In setting 
the standard, EPA evaluated the residue data produced using a 
standardized triple rinse methodology. The data analysis indicates that 
a 99.9999 percent removal standard is practicable for the majority 
(approximately 70 percent) of rigid/dilutable products tested. The 
Report to Congress (Ref. 65) examines the container and formulation 
characteristics that may have resulted in inefficient removal of 
residues for these products.
    EPA is proposing that registrants be responsible for assuring that 
each rigid nonrefillable container design type and dilutable pesticide 
formulation combination meets the 99.9999 percent residue removal 
performance standard before the sale or distribution of the pesticide 
product would be permitted.
    EPA has gathered a number of studies of the efficiency of triple 
and/or pressure rinsing. These studies used a variety of protocols and 
rinsing procedures, making it difficult to compare their results. These 
documents are included in the docket as background information (Refs. 
1, 3, 14, 25, 30, 31, 39, 51, 59).
    Several different dilutable formulation types in rigid containers 
with capacities ranging from 1 pint to 5 gallons were tested according 
to a procedure developed by EPA. The data are summarized in the 
following Tables 1 and 2 below. In Table 1, 70 percent of the 
agricultural pesticide products tested met the standard of 99.9999 
percent removal, while 86 percent achieved 99.999 percent removal. EPA 
believes that the container/formulation types tested and presented in 
Table 1 (including plastic and metal containers ranging from 1 pint to 
5 gallons) are representative of pesticide products for the 
agricultural industry. 

                    Table 1.-- Laboratory Standard - Agricultural Products Data Summary.\1\                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Total     Number Meeting 6-  Percent Meeting 6- Number Meeting 5-  Percent Meeting 5-
   Formulation type       Number\2\        9's\3\               9's              9's\4\               9's       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dry flowable...........       1               1                 100                 1                 100       
Emulsifiable                                                                                                    
 concentrate...........       20              15                 75                 18                 90       
Aqueous solution.......       3               2                  67                 3                 100       
Flowable liquid........       15              10                 67                 12                 80       
Encapsulated...........       4               2                  50                 3                  75       
                                                                                                                
                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Total.............       43              30                 70                 37                86        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This summary is based on data generated in 1990 by an EPA contractor and the National Agricultural Chemicals
  Association (NACA). The data are in the Report to Congress (Ref. 65). The procedure followed was a well-      
  defined, thorough, laboratory triple rinse.                                                                   
\2\ The total number of different container/formulation combinations for a given formulation type.              
\3\ The number of different container/formulation combinations that would meet a standard of 99.9999 percent    
  residue removal (6-9's). Note: container/formulation combinations that were tested in triplicate were         
  considered to meet the standard only if all three data points met the standard.                               
\4\The number of different container/formulation combinations that would meet a standard of 99.999 percent      
  residue removal (5-9's). Note: container/formulation combinations that were tested in triplicate were         
  considered to meet the standard only if all three data points met the standard.                               

    In Table 2 below, 59 percent of the containers representative of 
the industrial, institutional and residential markets that were tested 
met the standard of 99.9999 percent removal, while 89 percent achieved 
99.999 percent removal. EPA believes the container types tested 
(plastic and metal containers ranging from 1 pint to 5 gallons) are 
representative of these industries.
    EPA has received residue removal data from the Chemical Specialties 
Manufacturers Association (CSMA) on containers and formulations that 
CSMA claims are representative of household and institutional products 
(Ref. 77). This information indicated that 2 of the 12 container/
formulation combinations tested would meet a standard of 99.9999 
percent removal. These preliminary results do not appear to be 
consistent with the data in Table 2. EPA requests comments, including 
additional data, on whether household and institutional pesticide 
container/formulation combinations have different characteristics than 
agricultural pesticide containers/formulations or whether there are 
specific reasons for the difference in percentages meeting a standard 
of 99.9999 percent such as a smaller sample size in the CSMA testing. 
Table 2 reads as follows: 

       Table 2.-- Laboratory Standard - Industrial, Institutional, and Household Products Data Summary\1\       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Total     Number Meeting 6-  Percent Meeting 6- Number Meeting 5-  Percent Meeting 5-
                          Number\2\        9's\3\               9's              9's\4\               9's       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formulation type                                                                                                
  Emulsifiable                                                                                                  
   concentrate.........       9               8                  89                 9                 100       
  Flowable liquid......       9               1                  11                 6                  67       
  Encapsulated.........       9               7                  78                 9                 100       
                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............       27              16                 59                 24                89        
                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
Container size                                                                                                  
  1 gallon.............       9               5                  56                 8                  89       
  Less than 1 gal......       18              11                 61                 16                89        
                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............       27              16                 59                 24                89        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This is based on data generated in 1991 by an EPA contractor. The procedures followed was a well-defined,    
  thorough, laboratory triple rinse.                                                                            
\2\ The total number of different container/formulation combinations for a given formulation type or container  
  size range.                                                                                                   
\3\ The number of different container/formulation combinations that would meet a standard of 99.9999 percent    
  residue removal (6-9's). Note: container/formulation combinations that were tested in triplicate were         
  considered to meet the standard only if all three data points met the standard.                               
\4\ The number of different container/formulation combinations that would meet a standard of 99.999 percent     
  residue removal (5-9's). Note: container/formulation combinations that were tested in triplicate were         
  considered to meet the standard only if all three data points met the standard.                               

    EPA believes that the most straight forward method of measuring the 
amount of accessible pesticide is to perform the test on a container 
that has been -properly cleaned using a standardized triple rinse 
procedure. After completion of a triple rinsing procedure, an 
additional rinse of the container (i.e., a fourth rinse) would be 
performed and the concentration of pesticide active ingredient in the 
fourth rinse would be determined.
    The rigid/dilutable performance standard being proposed would 
require that, at a minimum, a 99.9999 percent reduction of active 
ingredient concentration in the fourth rinse must be achieved. A 
99.9999 percent removal of pesticide from the container is achieved if 
the concentration of active ingredient in the fourth rinse is less than 
or equal to 0.0001 percent of the pesticides' original active 
ingredient concentration. Based on data available to EPA, this percent 
removal standard represents a practicable level of residue removal for 
the majority of rigid/dilutable containers currently in use. EPA 
believes that this standard is preferable to a lower standard (e.g., 
99.999 percent removal) because it would provide for a reasonable 
degree of improvement in the level of residue removal achievable by the 
currently most inefficient container/ formulation combinations.
    The purpose of measuring the concentration of pesticide in the 
fourth rinse is to measure the pesticide that is readily accessible 
after a triple rinse. This procedure does not measure the total amount 
of pesticide left in the container after a triple rinse, because it 
does not include the total amount of pesticide that remains trapped in 
the container. Small amounts of pesticide can be adsorbed on and/or 
absorbed into the container (Ref. 65).
    In order to measure conformance to the residue removal performance 
standard, Sec. 165.104(b)(1) proposes that the rigid/dilutable residue 
removal methodology set out in Sec. 165.106 must be followed. The 
residue removal test methodology is a triple rinse procedure with an 
additional rinse (fourth rinse) that is conducted under strictly 
controlled laboratory conditions. EPA developed the methodology through 
the testing of representative rigid/dilutable products. Some of the 
test parameters, such as the drain and shake times and the quantity of 
water used, were based on triple rinse procedures common in many 
current State regulatory definitions of triple rinsing. Section 
165.104(b)(2) proposes that the testing would have to be conducted in 
accordance with the Good Laboratory Practice Standards (GLP) at 40 CFR 
part 160.
    EPA developed the testing and analysis methodologies to provide 
standardized, uniform, and controlled testing of compliance. In the 
testing and analysis methodologies, EPA has set out the specific 
testing elements and standards (such as water temperature) that EPA 
believes are critical to the accurate determination of residue 
quantities. EPA plans to issue ``Nonrefillable Container Residue 
Removal Methodologies: Rigid Containers and Dilutable Pesticide'' in 
EPA's Pesticide Assessment Guidelines, which will give more detailed 
information on the methodologies (such as the recommended orientation 
of the container during the shaking and the draining periods).
    As part of the general testing methodology, EPA would impose a 
statistical performance standard to ensure that a specified percentage 
of containers meet the residue removal performance standard with a 
predetermined level of confidence. A minimum testing of 19 different 
containers would be required to ensure with reasonable confidence that 
the container/formulation combination meets residue removal performance 
standard. This approach employs an adaptation of a statistical model 
used in setting ``Tolerance Limits'' for performance criteria (Ref. 8).
    For pesticide formulations with more than one active ingredient, 
the registrant would have to calculate the percent removal for each 
active ingredient, and each active ingredient must meet the residue 
removal standard.
    EPA is aware that several different nonrefillable container design 
types, as defined in proposed Sec. 165.3, may be used with one 
registered pesticide product (EPA registration number). The regulations 
would require compliance with the residue removal standard by each 
nonrefillable container design type that is used with each registered 
pesticide product. Separate tests must be completed for each 
nonrefillable container design type and registered pesticide product 
combination. EPA requests comment on the proposed requirement that all 
rigid nonrefillable design types used for each registered pesticide 
product must meet the residue removal standard.
    EPA requests comments on the reasonableness of the residue removal 
performance standard as applied to all dilutable pesticide packaged in 
rigid containers, including types of containers or pesticides for which 
a different standard may be appropriate, and on alternatives to the 
proposed standard.
    EPA believes that a large percentage of products can meet the 
residue removal standard, and those that do not initially meet this 
standard may require only a modification of container design in order 
to comply. Larger nonrefillables, such as drums, may have difficulty 
meeting the residue removal standard.
    EPA considered requiring testing at specified intervals during 
production to ensure continued compliance with the residue removal 
performance standard, but elected not to propose such a requirement 
because it did not seem necessary. While the regulations would not 
prohibit production testing, the registrant would be responsible for 
all of his product meeting the residue removal performance standards.
    EPA recognizes that registered pesticide products containing small 
quantities of active ingredient may encounter difficulties in 
documenting a 99.9999 percent reduction of active ingredient 
concentration. Although current laboratory equipment can detect very 
small concentrations of chemicals, there are detection limitations. 
When a residue removal procedure is performed on a pesticide product 
that contains a small initial concentration of active ingredient, the 
active ingredient concentration in the rinsate could fall below the 
detection capability of typical laboratory equipment.
    EPA considered establishing different criteria for those pesticide 
products where the detection of active ingredient concentration in the 
fourth rinse (as set out in the proposed methodology) would exceed 
currently available detection limits. One approach considered was to 
presume that products with active ingredients that are undetectable 
after the fourth rinse using approved analytic techniques meet the 
99.9999 percent removal standard. Another approach that was considered 
was to exempt all products that contain active ingredient less than a 
certain concentration.
    EPA did not propose these approaches because of insufficient 
information about how concentration of undetectable amounts of the 
active ingredient relates to residue risk and due to concerns that 
other chemical components of a product's formulation may hinder active 
ingredient removal to such an extent that it can be determined that the 
product does not meet the proposed 99.9999 percent removal standard. 
EPA requests comments on the exemption of products with low initial 
active ingredient concentrations or the establishment of alternative 
residue removal standards for products with low initial active 
ingredient concentrations (other than the proposed 99.9999 percent 
residue removal standard). EPA also solicits comments on how to address 
setting detection limits for these products.
    EPA considered, but decided not to propose, an exemption from the 
residue removal standard for household use (residential use) pesticide 
products. FIFRA section 19(f)(1)(C) states: ``The Administrator may, at 
the discretion of the Administrator, exempt products intended solely 
for household use from the requirements of this section.'' However, EPA 
is proposing to require rigid/ dilutable household use pesticides to 
comply with the residue removal standard because many of these products 
are the same formulation, contain the same active ingredient 
concentration, and are sold in the same package size as pesticide 
products used in agricultural, industrial, institutional, and other 
commercial markets. Additionally, even if a product is packaged or 
formulated differently for household use than for other uses, it may 
still pose residue removal concerns. EPA believes it may not be 
reasonable to exempt products from the proposed residue removal 
standard just because they are purchased by household users when they 
may pose residue removal concerns the same as, or similar to, non-
household use products.
    EPA recognizes that there are instances where the risks of human 
and environmental exposure from pesticide residues remaining in 
containers may be reduced because of a household or other pesticide 
product's low active ingredient concentration and low toxicity. EPA 
requests comments on the inclusion of all household use pesticides in 
the residue removal requirement, including alternative residue removal 
standards for low active ingredient concentration and low toxicity 
household use products, as well as how to regulate products sold to 
commercial and household users with essentially the same net content. 
EPA also solicits comment on how ``household use'' would be defined for 
purposes of exempting them. In addition, many household use products 
have dual uses in that they can be diluted or used at full strength. 
EPA solicits comments on whether such products should be considered 
dilutable for the purposes of the rule.
    EPA is proposing to allow a waiver of the residue removal 
requirement under certain circumstances. A registrant could submit a 
request to EPA to have the residue removal requirement waived for a 
pesticide product packaged in nonrefillable containers. The waiver 
proposed in Sec. 165.104(c) is a general standard to accommodate the 
circumstances under which EPA would grant a waiver from the residue 
removal standard. EPA is considering several criteria on which to base 
the evaluation of a waiver request, such as whether a registrant can 
show that a waiver is necessary for reasons of practicality or 
feasibility or if a registrant can show that the pesticide residues in 
the container would not present an unreasonable risk to humans or the 
environment. EPA requests comments on criteria that would be 
appropriate to use to evaluate waiver requests. Because EPA's intent in 
establishing a residue removal standard is to reduce human and 
environmental risk from pesticide residues, as well as facilitate the 
reuse and disposal of pesticide containers, EPA believes that a waiver 
based on no unreasonable risk to humans or the environment would be 
appropriate.
    EPA requests comments on the following examples of circumstances in 
which a waiver could be granted:
    (1) The registrant can use validated modelling techniques based on 
the concentration of active ingredients to show that residue levels 
after triple rinsing would result in very low or undetectable residue 
levels.
    (2) The registrant can show that even before triple rinsing the 
active ingredient in question is low in toxicity and is present in low 
concentrations.
    (3) The registrant performs the required triple rinse tests and the 
resulting residues are undetectable with the use of approved analytic 
techniques.
    (4) The registrant has established a returnable container program 
that collects from users all empty containers of the noncomplying 
product. Before granting a waiver, EPA would encourage the registrant 
to switch to smaller nonrefillable containers or refillable containers, 
as described in subpart G of this proposal. EPA also requests comment 
on whether there are other circumstances in which a waiver from the 
residue removal requirement should be granted.
    e. Other options considered. EPA considered several other possible 
options for addressing pesticide residue removal before finally 
electing to propose a laboratory performance standard. Those options 
included: (1) Prohibiting certain container design features or 
formulation characteristics that have been proven to exhibit 
unacceptable cleaning efficiencies, (2) requiring certain container 
designs that have been proven to exhibit acceptable cleaning 
efficiencies, and (3) developing residue removal standards according to 
EPA's established pesticide toxicity categories. EPA requests comments 
on these options and on other alternatives that would achieve the goals 
set out in this proposal.
    EPA does not propose to regulate technical design characteristics 
of containers or formulation characteristics, as would be required in 
options 1 and 2, for the following reasons: (1) Not all variables of 
residue removal would be addressed, (2) technology advances rapidly, 
rendering some design features obsolete and introducing others, (3) 
flexibility to the regulated community is reduced, (4) EPA does not 
have sufficient data supporting benefits or advantages/disadvantages of 
one design feature over another, and (5) some features offer benefits 
in other areas that affect their disadvantages for residue removal (for 
example, while hollow handles on plastic jugs tend to retain pesticide, 
they also facilitate pouring without glugging).
    EPA elected not to develop residue removal standards according to 
EPA's existing categorization of pesticide toxicity [Sec. 156.10(h)(1)] 
because the toxicity categories are primarily based on the risks of 
pesticide exposure to humans. EPA's intent in establishing a residue 
removal standard is to reduce environmental, as well as human exposure 
to residues remaining in pesticide containers, and the toxicity 
categories do not factor in environmental risks. EPA requests comments 
and suggestions on a strategy that could be used to develop residue 
removal standard(s) based on pesticide toxicity.
    f. User conformance in the field to the laboratory performance 
standard is not required. EPA emphasizes that the laboratory residue 
removal performance standard of 99.9999 percent removal is not an 
enforcement standard that would be used in the field to check on user 
compliance with container cleaning instructions set out on the label. 
The proposed performance standard would apply only to registrants. 
Users would be required to follow the residue removal procedure(s) 
specified on the label, as discussed in the proposed amendments to 40 
CFR part 156. EPA believes the proposed performance standard should 
ultimately help users clean containers because certain container design 
and formulation variables affecting residue removal efficiency will be 
eliminated. By designing container/formulation combinations that rinse 
clean to at least a certain minimum level, registrants will increase 
the likelihood of effective residue removal in the field, even if 
conditions in the field vary from controlled laboratory conditions.
    EPA intends to investigate the establishment of field residue 
removal enforcement standard(s) to measure user compliance with the 
residue removal label instructions. Options that may be appropriate 
methods of establishing a field standard include:
    (1) Adopting the residue removal laboratory performance standard 
that EPA is proposing to establish for each container/ formulation 
combination (99.9999 percent removal for rigid/ dilutables). One issue 
with this option is the possible difficulty users would have in meeting 
the standard in the field. The laboratory testing would be performed 
under strictly controlled conditions, whereas field conditions are 
highly variable and in many cases are out of the control of the user 
(e.g., water temperature, pH, salinity, etc. may effect the solubility 
of certain formulations in water).
    (2) Setting a performance standard less than the laboratory 
standard. One issue with this option is that it might not be a 
reasonable measure of user compliance because EPA does not have 
sufficient information or data to determine whether this standard is 
achievable under a wide variety of field conditions.
    (3) Requiring registrants to set the field standard for their 
pesticide products and submit the data used to support the standard. 
One issue with this option is the determination of the methods and 
tests that registrants would be required to submit. Registrants may be 
unwilling to set a stringent field standard because of potential 
liability for user compliance.
    EPA believes it may be appropriate to defer the establishment of a 
field enforcement standard until more information about the benefits 
and advantages/disadvantages of such a standard are identified. EPA 
requests comments on whether to establish field enforcement 
standard(s).
    8. Certification requirements. Section 165.111 proposes to require 
that all registrants who package pesticide in nonrefillable containers 
submit a certification stating that the container design and residue 
removal standards of proposed Sec. Sec. 165.102 and 165.104 have been 
met. A certification would be required for each registered pesticide 
product (i.e., each EPA registration number), and the stated compliance 
must be true for each container design type that is used with the 
registered pesticide product.
    Section 165.111(b) proposes that a certification be submitted for 
all currently registered pesticide products, as well as new pesticide 
products. Section 165.111(c) specifies that the contents of the 
certification must include basic information about the registrant and a 
statement that the registrant is in compliance with the appropriate 
sections of subpart F.
    The certification would be based on tests and documentation. The 
information provided in the certification will identify the pesticide 
product and allow EPA to check compliance with the requirements of 
Sec. Sec. 165.102 and 165.104. Under the proposed Sec. 165.114, EPA may 
perform inspections, and/or require submission, of the data or records 
required to be maintained in Sec. 165.114. For example, if EPA knows 
that a particular container/formulation combination has difficulty 
achieving the residue removal standard, then registrants who submit 
applications for registration of a pesticide product with this 
container/formulation may be required to submit the data they are using 
to support the certification.
    9. Recordkeeping and inspections. Section 165.114 proposes to 
require that registrants maintain certain records showing compliance 
with subpart F for as long as the nonrefillable container design type 
is used with the pesticide formulation and for 3 years thereafter. The 
records would be available for EPA (or its authorized representative) 
or States for inspection and copying, but would have to be submitted to 
EPA only if EPA specifically requested their submission from the 
registrant.
    The records proposed to be kept are as follows:
    (1) Section 165.114(a) and (b). A copy of the certification 
statement and some basic information identifying the pesticide product.
    (2)  Section 165.114(c). Records showing compliance with the 
container dispensing capability requirements of Sec. 165.102(d), 
including documentation of any testing performed. The test data or 
documentation could include data generated through a testing method or 
photographic evidence that demonstrates dispensing capability.
    (3) Section 165.114(d). Records showing compliance with the 
standardized closure requirements of Sec. 165.102(e). In ordering and 
purchasing containers from a container supplier, the registrant could 
require the proposed closure design specifications in the purchase 
contract. Alternatively, the container supplier may have literature 
demonstrating that a certain container design type conforms to the 
proposed specific closure design specifications, or may provide 
relevant information or data in a letter to the registrant.
    (4) Section 165.114(e). Records showing compliance with the residue 
removal requirements of Sec. 165.104, including documentation or 
testing.
    EPA anticipates that many pesticide products will not require 
residue removal testing to determine compliance with the residue 
removal standard because registrants will acquire data that is 
acceptable to EPA from other registrants and sources. Section 
165.114(e)(1)(ii) would allow a registrant to use residue removal test 
data that have been generated for a different pesticide product. The 
registrant may demonstrate that a product shares the same formulation 
characteristics as the one that has met the residue removal standard, 
and is packaged in the same container that has been documented as 
meeting the standard with this type of formulation. The registrant 
would be required to submit a written explanation of why the data for 
the other pesticide product should be allowed to substitute for data 
that would otherwise be generated for his pesticide product. EPA 
requests comments on the circumstances under which submission of 
residue removal data from pesticide products with substantially similar 
container/formulation characteristics would be sufficient in lieu of 
data generation for every pesticide product. EPA also requests comments 
on the factors to be considered in determining when container and 
formulation characteristics should be considered ``substantially 
similar'' for the purposes of this requirement.
    Section 165.114(e)(1)(iii) would allow the registrant to submit a 
letter from the facility or the container manufacturer that conducted 
the testing to provide the registrant with some flexibility. The 
letters would be required to contain information about the specific 
test type, a description of the container, a description of the 
pesticide formulation, and the test results, as well as specify the 
location of the original test data.
    EPA reserves its right, on a case by case basis, to require the 
registrant to submit the residue removal data. The certification that 
the container/formulation combination meets the residue removal 
standard, having been tested by the proposed methodology, is 
information that would be required to be submitted under FIFRA section 
19. The certification, as well as the underlying residue removal data, 
are data necessary to maintain a registration under FIFRA section 3. If 
the registrant has only a letter from the testing facility in its 
records instead of the actual residue removal data as would be allowed 
by Sec. 165.114(e)(1)(iii), the registrant would be responsible for 
assuring that it could obtain the data so that it could submit the data 
to EPA, if required to do so.
    Testing must be conducted in accordance with the Good Laboratory 
Practice Standards (GLP) at 40 CFR part 160. Section 160.15 requires 
the testing facility to permit an authorized employee or duly 
designated representative of EPA to inspect and copy the test data, at 
reasonable times and in a reasonable manner. If the facility denies EPA 
access to the test data, EPA would not consider the data to be reliable 
for purposes of supporting the registration.
    Proposed Sec. 165.114(e)(2) would specify that the registrant would 
have to keep a statement of compliance or noncompliance with respect to 
GLP, as described by 40 CFR 160.12, with the residue removal records. 
Section 160.12 requires a statement of compliance or noncompliance to 
accompany all testing and studies submitted to EPA. However, the 
proposed 40 CFR part 165 regulations would not require registrants to 
submit data as a routine practice; registrants would only have to keep 
the residue removal data or related documentation in their records. 
Therefore, EPA believes that it is appropriate to require registrants 
to keep a copy of the GLP statement of compliance or noncompliance with 
the residue removal data.
    EPA is considering requiring registrants to submit the GLP 
statement of compliance or noncompliance to EPA as part of the 
certification in Sec. 165.111. Receiving the GLP compliance statements 
would provide EPA with information that could be helpful in determining 
which data to request registrants to submit. In addition, the GLP 
compliance statements would give EPA a list of the laboratories that 
have done the residue removal testing, so the laboratories could be 
inspected. EPA requests comments on whether the GLP statement of 
compliance or noncompliance should be kept with the residue removal 
records as proposed, or submitted to EPA.
    10. Compliance dates. In section 19(e) of FIFRA, Congress directed 
EPA to promulgate container design regulations by December 24, 1991 and 
required compliance with these regulations by December 24, 1993. 
However, the compliance dates in the statute no longer apply directly 
because EPA did not meet the statutory deadline for promulgating the 
final rule. EPA is therefore proposing in Sec. 165.117(a) to provide a 
period of 2 years after the date of publication of the final rule in 
the Federal Register before registrants would have to be in compliance 
with subpart F. As a matter of policy, EPA believes some lead time is 
necessary for compliance with these regulations, and a 2-year 
implementation period would provide adequate time for registrants to 
perform the testing and analysis necessary to comply with the 
requirements of subpart F. Additionally, 2 years reflects the time 
frame established in the statute. EPA does not believe Congress would 
have intended to impose major additional compliance burdens on the 
regulated community as a result of EPA's delay in issuing this rule. 
Accordingly, EPA believes it is reasonable to provide a compliance date 
of 2 years after the date of publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register. All pesticides sold or distributed by registrants in 
nonrefillable containers would have to be in compliance at that time.
    Proposed Sec. 165.117(c) would specify that certifications for 
pesticide products registered as of the date of publication of the 
final rule would be required to be submitted to and received by EPA 
within 2 years after the date of publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register.
    In addition, EPA is proposing in Sec. 165.117(b) that as of 5 years 
after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register, persons other than registrants may only sell or distribute 
pesticide packaged in nonrefillable containers that are in compliance 
with the requirements of subpart F. Persons other than registrants 
include, but are not limited to, dealers, retailers, grocery and pet 
stores, veterinarians, garden centers, and merchandise catalog 
companies.
    11. Waiver requiring EPA approval. Section 165.119 contains the 
procedures to be followed when applying for exemption from the 
standardized closure requirement of Sec. 165.102(e) of subpart F.
    Section 165.119(a) would specify the general information that must 
accompany the requests and directions on where to submit the requests.
    Section 165.119(b) would specify the general information that must 
accompany the request for an exemption from the requirements for 
standardized closures of Sec. 165.102(e) of subpart F.

V. Refillable Container Standards: Container Design and Residue 
Removal

A. Background

    This proposal would revise 40 CFR part 165 to facilitate the safe 
refill, reuse, and disposal of refillable containers by establishing 
container design criteria and refilling responsibilities and practices.
    Refillable containers are most commonly used in the agricultural 
pesticide market, but are also used in industrial and institutional 
applications and by pest control operators. Refillables come in a 
variety of types and shapes, ranging from 15-gallon ``keg-like'' 
containers called small volume returnables to huge, 12,000-gallon 
stationary storage tanks.
    Portable refillable containers, generally larger than 100 gallons, 
were introduced into the agricultural pesticide industry in the late 
1970s and early 1980s. Fostered by EPA's Bulk Pesticides Enforcement 
Policy which, under certain conditions, allowed repackaging without a 
registration for the repackaged product, the use of these containers at 
first grew exponentially. Although the rate of growth has slowed, the 
use of these portable refillable containers continues to grow. A 
National Agricultural Chemicals Association (NACA) survey showed a 3 
percent increase in liquid capacity sold in minibulks between 1988 and 
1989, with a similar increase projected for 1990 (Ref. 18).
    The use of minibulks is most common in the Midwest and other 
regions where many acres of the same crop are farmed. It has been 
predicted that the use of minibulks will continue to increase for 
several years and level off when most of the potential monoculture crop 
markets have been tapped. This may be occurring already, because 
relatively few users need 100 or more gallons of a pesticide product at 
any one time.
    The problems and concerns associated with the use of refillable 
containers are different from nonrefillable container problems such as 
spilling, leaking, and splashing because pesticide transfer equipment 
is generally an integral part of refillable containers. Pesticide 
product usually is pumped from a refillable container, forming a closed 
or semi-closed system, instead of being poured from the container, as 
often occurs with nonrefillables. The two major concerns posed by 
refillable containers are the potential for a large release of 
pesticide and the possibility of contamination of the product being 
sold or distributed in the refillable containers. Large releases of 
pesticide to the environment can contaminate surface and ground water 
and sensitive habitats. Contaminated product could cause crop damage, 
illegal tolerances, and possibly unhealthy exposure. A more thorough 
examination of the current practices and problems associated with 
using, cleaning, and disposing of refillable containers can be found in 
the Report to Congress (Ref. 65).

B. Today's Proposal

    Subpart G of the proposed part 165 regulations contains the 
refillable container standards, which can be categorized into two major 
types: container design standards and procedural requirements for 
refilling. The design standards describe the minimum design and 
construction requirements that EPA believes are necessary for the safe 
use and reuse of refillable containers. The refilling requirements set 
out the responsibilities of both registrants and refillers. These 
refilling requirements include the procedures and practices that EPA 
believes are necessary for refillers to follow to ensure the safe 
refill and reuse of these containers.
    EPA considered three different regulatory options for subpart G. 
The options differ mainly in the designation of parties who would be 
responsible for the containers meeting the design standards. The option 
proposed in the regulatory text, option 1, would make the registrants 
responsible for containers meeting the container design standards. The 
general philosophy of the three options and a detailed description of 
each are presented in Unit V.B.8 of this preamble.
    The definition section of proposed subpart A contains definitions 
of terms used in proposed subpart G and in related subparts of today's 
proposal. Terms that are key to the understanding of subpart G include:
    (1) Container.
    (2) Design type.
    (3) Dry bulk container.
    (4) Dry minibulk container.
    (5) Liquid bulk container.
    (6) Liquid minibulk container.
    (7) One-way valve.
    (8) Refillable container.
    (9) Refiller.
    (10) Repackage.
    (11) Tamper-evident device.
    (12) Transport vehicle.
    1.  Scope and applicability. Section 165.120 would cover the scope 
of subpart G, which would set forth design and construction standards 
for refillable containers and would establish standards and 
requirements for refilling such containers.
    Section 165.122 would describe the applicability of the subpart G 
regulations. The subpart in general would apply to three different 
entities: (1) Registrants who distribute or sell a pesticide product to 
refillers for repackaging into refillable containers, (2) registrants 
who distribute or sell a pesticide product in refillable containers 
(i.e., registrants who are refillers), and (3) refillers. As described 
below, however, different sections of subpart G would apply to specific 
subgroups of these three categories.
    Registrants are divided into two categories to distinguish between 
the two scenarios for repackaging pesticide into refillable containers. 
In the first and more common situation, registrants distribute or sell 
product to refillers, generally in large, undivided quantities, and the 
refillers transfer the product into smaller refillable containers that 
go to the end user. In the second situation, the registrant packages 
the product directly into a portable refillable container that is then 
distributed or sold by a refiller or dealer to the end user, or the 
registrant delivers its pesticide product directly to the end user's 
bulk tank. In either of these situations, the registrant is the 
refiller. The key to the distinction is the party who actually 
transfers the pesticide product into the refillable container.
    The container design and construction standards and requirements of 
Sec. Sec. 165.124, 165.126, and 165.128 would apply to: (1) Registrants 
who distribute or sell pesticide product to refillers that, in turn, 
repackage the product into refillable containers, and (2) registrants 
who distribute or sell pesticide product in refillable containers. Unit 
V.B.8 of this preamble discusses in detail the reasons EPA is proposing 
to hold registrants solely responsible for compliance with the 
container design standards and how refillers can determine that 
refillable containers comply with these standards.
    The standards and requirements in Sec. 165.129 would apply to 
registrants allowing transfer of their registered pesticide product 
into refillable containers by refillers for distribution or sale.
    Section 165.130 would establish the responsibilities of registrants 
in terms of the refilling of refillable containers. Section 165.132 
would prescribe related recordkeeping requirements.
    Sections 165.134 and 165.136 would establish comparable 
responsibilities, procedures, and recordkeeping for refillers.
    Section 165.139 would establish a compliance date for the 
requirements to be met by all registrants and refillers.
    Several general exemptions would be included in Sec. 165.122(b). 
Subpart G would not apply to containers that contain manufacturing use 
products or to transport vehicles that contain pesticide.
    Similar to subpart F (see Unit IV.B.1 of this preamble), EPA is 
proposing to exclude manufacturing use products from subpart G because 
EPA has a limited amount of information on the kinds of containers used 
for manufacturing use products and the problems with these containers. 
EPA requests comments and information on the problems, handling 
practices, and disposal of manufacturing use product containers. As 
with subpart F, EPA is strongly considering expanding the applicability 
of subpart G in the final rule to include manufacturing use products.
    EPA's ``Enforcement Policy Applicable to Bulk Shipments of 
Pesticides'' (Ref. 63) dated July 11, 1977 and the subsequent amendment 
to the policy dated March 4, 1991 (Ref. 62) apply to manufacturing use 
products as well as end use products. EPA intends to rescind the Bulk 
Pesticides Enforcement Policy when subpart G goes into effect. As a 
result, manufacturers and distributors that are not registrants of a 
manufacturing use product would no longer be able to repackage that 
manufacturing use product for distribution or sale under the terms of 
the Bulk Pesticides Enforcement Policy. EPA is unsure of the extent to 
which registrants currently are allowing other manufacturers or 
distributors to sell or distribute their manufacturing use products 
under the terms of the Bulk Pesticides Enforcement Policy. Therefore, 
EPA is uncertain about the potential effect of the proposed regulations 
on manufacturing use products. EPA welcomes comments on the impact that 
exclusion from subpart G would have on the distribution of 
manufacturing use products.
    The other exclusion in subpart G is for transport vehicles that 
contain pesticide. Without the exemption, transport vehicles would be 
subjected to the requirements of subpart G because they would be 
included in the proposed definition of refillable container (see 
subpart A). However, EPA does not intend to address the design of 
transport vehicles.
    EPA's intent with the provision in proposed Sec. 165.122(b)(2) is 
to exempt transport vehicles with pesticide-holding tanks that are an 
integral part of the transport vehicle and that are the primary 
containment for the pesticide. For example, EPA would like to exclude 
tank cars and tank trucks used in the distribution of bulk pesticides 
from the container design standards of this subpart. However, EPA is 
concerned that there are situations where the distinction between a 
container and a transport vehicle may not be clear. For example, EPA is 
aware that pesticide product may be sold or distributed in minibulk 
containers on small trailers. In this case, EPA would consider the 
vessel to be a container and therefore subject to the standards of this 
subpart. EPA requests commenters to describe other examples of unusual 
container and/or transport vehicle situations that may cause confusion 
regarding the transport vehicle exclusion in Sec. 165.122(b)(2).
    2. Container design standards. Section 165.124 proposes container 
design standards for refillable containers. EPA is concerned about the 
structural integrity, strength, and durability of refillable 
containers. During repeated refill and reuse, refillable containers may 
be subjected to rough conditions, such as being dropped, bumped, left 
in the sunlight, or subjected to temperature extremes. Even under the 
best circumstances and the most careful handling, a certain amount of 
``wear and tear'' is expected. Therefore, EPA believes that refillable 
containers should have a minimum degree of integrity to provide for the 
safe use, reuse, and refill of these containers.
    Proposed Sec. 165.124(a)(1) would prohibit the distribution or sale 
of a pesticide product in a refillable container unless the container 
meets the standards of Sec. 165.124. Therefore, a container could not 
be refilled with a pesticide product for distribution or sale unless it 
met the standards required by this section. Refillable containers in 
which pesticide product is distributed or sold would include minibulk 
containers and bulk containers at refillers. As also specified in 
Sec. 165.124(a)(1), the registrant would be responsible for assuring 
that the refillable containers in which the registrant's product is 
distributed or sold meet the standards of this section.
    Section 165.124(a)(2) would state that information on container 
failures or other incidents involving pesticide containers that may 
result in releases of pesticide may be reportable by registrants under 
FIFRA section 6(a)(2). This requirement is the same as that in 
Sec. 165.102(a)(2) for nonrefillable containers.
    As discussed in Unit IV.B.2 of this preamble, EPA is relying on 
market forces to ensure that dealers and refillers notify registrants 
of container failures and similar incidents. As a matter related 
specifically to refillable containers, EPA expects that refillers would 
notify registrants of failures of any container that the registrant has 
identified as acceptable under proposed Sec. 165.130(b)(2), and not 
just the containers that the registrant owns.
    Proposed Sec. 165.124(a)(3) would clarify that compliance with the 
proposed part 165 regulations would not be an exemption from DOT's 
potentially applicable Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) at 49 CFR 
parts 171 through 180. The same provision is proposed in 
Sec. 165.102(a)(3) for nonrefillable containers. If a pesticide is a 
DOT hazardous material, the pesticide would be required to be packaged 
in compliance with both DOT and EPA regulations. For specific proposed 
part 165 requirements that may overlap with DOT requirements, such as 
some of the permanent marking requirements and the drop test, EPA is 
proposing that compliance with the DOT requirement would satisfy the 
part 165 requirements. Such compliance would prevent duplicative 
standards or testing.
    3. Permanent marking. Section 165.124(b) proposes permanent marking 
of certain information on refillable containers. The markings would 
provide information to the user and refiller; facilitate the safe 
reuse, handling, and disposal of the container; and facilitate 
enforcement of the regulations. Permanent marking means the same thing 
as it does for nonrefillable containers, although EPA anticipates that 
different permanent marking methods will be used depending on the 
container type, as discussed in Unit IV.B.4 of this preamble.
    EPA is proposing that the following information be permanently 
marked on each refillable container: (1) The name of the container 
manufacturer, (2) the model number assigned to the design type of the 
container, preceded by the phrase ``Model No.:'', (3) the month and 
year (last two digits) of manufacture of the container, (4) the rated 
capacity of the container, in appropriate units of weight or volume, 
(5) the name, symbol, or code of the material(s) from which the 
container is made, (6) a serial number or other identifying code that 
will distinguish each individual container from all other containers, 
and (7) the phrase ``Meets EPA standards for refillable pesticide 
containers.''
    This type of information is typical of that required by DOT, 
recommended by the United Nations, and recommended by the Midwest 
Agricultural Chemicals Association (MACA), a regional trade 
association, to be marked on refillable containers for chemicals and 
substances. MACA's Bulk Pesticide Task Force Committee has developed 
specifications, called the MACA-75 standards, in consultation with 
technical, regulatory, and legal experts. The MACA-75 standards are 
voluntary manufacturer specifications and user guidelines for 
refillable containers for liquid pesticides and other agri-chemicals 
not subject to DOT specification packaging (Ref. 38).
    The following table summarizes the markings representing each of 
the packaging standard schemes. DOT standards listed are those for the 
Specification 57 containers (metal portable tanks). The U.N. 
Recommendations specify certain markings for all intermediate bulk 
containers (IBCs) and additional markings for each individual type of 
IBC; e.g., metallic, rigid plastic, flexible, etc. (Ref. 76). The table 
includes the information that would be on a metallic IBC, including the 
markings common to all IBCs. The table also lists the information 
specified by the MACA-75 standards and proposed by the part 165 
standards. 

    Permanent Marking Required by Representative Packaging Standards    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    U.N. metal                          
  Type of marking       DOT 57         IBC        MACA 75     Part 165  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Container                                                               
 manufacturer.......       X            X            X            X     
Volumetric capacity.       X           X\1\          X           X\2\   
Rated gross weight..       X            X            X           X\2\   
Materials of                                                            
 construction.......       X           X\1\          X            X     
Serial number.......       X           X\1\          X            X     
Date of manufacture.                    X            X            X     
Specification                                                           
 identification.....       X                         X                  
Code identifying IBC                                                    
 type...............                    X                               
Code identifying                                                        
 packaging group....                    X                               
Model number........                                              X     
Design pressure.....       X           X\1\          X                  
Tare weight.........       X           X\1\          X                  
Original (or                                                            
 leakage) test date.       X                                            
Date of last                                                            
 leakproofness test.                   X\1\                             
State authorizing                                                       
 mark...............                    X                               
Stacking test load..                    X                               
U.N. packaging                                                          
 symbol.............                    X                               
Minimum thickness...                   X\1\                             
Date of last                                                            
 inspection.........                   X\1\                             
Test pressure.......                                 X                  
``Meets EPA                                                             
 standards''........                                              X     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These are standards for metallic IBCs only. The other markings      
  identified in this column are for all IBCs.                           
\2\ The proposed part 165 standards would require either the volumetric 
  capacity or the rated gross rate.                                     

    The information EPA is proposing to be marked on refillable 
pesticide containers is a subset of the three examples. Different 
pieces of information are intended to be used for different purposes.
    The name of the container manufacturer and model number are 
necessary for registrants, refillers, and EPA and State inspectors to 
be able to identify acceptable containers. Under this proposed rule, 
registrants would be responsible for refillable containers meeting the 
container design standards. A registrant would also be required to 
develop and provide to refillers a list of containers that are 
acceptable for refilling with the registrant's product(s). Marking the 
container with the container manufacturer and the container model 
number would provide registrants with a way to identify the acceptable 
containers to refillers.
    Each model number should identify one and only one design type. 
This would facilitate EPA's ability to trace a particular minibulk 
container (with a model number) to a design type and then to the 
relevant drop test data. EPA is considering adding a regulatory 
requirement that would prohibit a model number from identifying more 
than one design type. EPA requests comments on the necessity and 
feasibility of this potential requirement.
    Additionally, identifying the container manufacturer, the model 
number, the date of manufacture, and the serial number would help 
registrants or refillers to determine the source of a faulty container 
or batch of containers.
    The container's date of manufacture and material(s) of construction 
are intended to facilitate safe disposal of the containers. The date of 
manufacture is necessary on plastic liquid minibulk containers so a 
refiller could determine if a container's maximum lifetime of 6 years 
after the date of manufacture (as described in Sec. 165.134(f)) has 
expired. While other types of refillable containers do not have a 
maximum lifetime specified in the regulations, the date of manufacture 
would still be useful to manage a container throughout its life.
    The phrase ``Meets EPA standards for refillable pesticide 
containers'' is intended to provide a quick way for registrants, 
refillers, and inspectors to identify a container as one that meets the 
standards of subpart G. Although further inspection would be necessary 
to determine if the container is acceptable for a particular product, 
the phrase could serve as a useful initial check. Also, this phrase 
would provide an easy means for EPA inspectors to identify pesticide 
containers.
    Proposed Sec. 165.124(b)(2) would state that if any of the 
information, such as the date of manufacture, the rated capacity, the 
material of construction, or the serial number, is required by DOT 
regulations or by the terms of a DOT exemption, then compliance with 
DOT's requirement would satisfy the corresponding requirement of this 
paragraph. DOT exemptions are product-specific and include a series of 
container specifications and requirements. ``By the terms of a DOT 
exemption'' means according to the standards contained in an exemption 
approved by DOT under the provisions of 49 CFR part 107. Section 
165.124(b)(2) is included to prevent duplicative requirements between 
the proposed part 165 regulations and the DOT regulations.
    4. Minibulk containers. Section 165.124(c) would establish a 
general integrity standard for minibulk containers under conditions of 
normal storage, distribution, sale, and use. With one exception, this 
standard is the same as the nonrefillable container integrity standard 
proposed in Sec. 165.102(b) and discussed in Unit IV.B.3 of this 
preamble. The difference between the two standards is that 
compatibility between the minibulk container and the pesticide product 
sold or distributed in the container is not included in the integrity 
standard for minibulks because it is addressed by the registrant's 
written list of acceptable containers.
    One goal of the container design standards is to ensure that 
refillable containers have a minimum degree of durability and strength. 
To facilitate this goal, Sec. 165.124(d) would require a drop test for 
minibulk containers (for both dry and liquid formulations). The drop 
test standard proposed in this rulemaking is intended to serve as a 
benchmark indicator of the strength and durability of containers. The 
standard does not serve as a guarantee that a minibulk container will 
be able to withstand the ``wear and tear'' associated with repeated 
refilling and reuse.
    Liquid minibulk and dry minibulk containers generally are portable 
containers that are transported from refillers to the field and back. 
EPA has data on a number of spills that have occurred when minibulk 
containers were damaged when they fell out of vehicles during 
transportation. For example, the Illinois Environmental Protection 
Agency investigated at least four incidents of this type in 1989 (Ref. 
55).
    Also, 11 incidents involving spills from minibulk containers during 
transportation were reported between 1985 and 1989 to the National 
Response Center (NRC) (Ref. 60). The NRC, administered by the U.S. 
Coast Guard, provides a Federal mechanism to receive and refer for 
action and/or investigation reports of oil, chemical, biological, and 
etiological releases into the environment in the United States and its 
territories. Some incidents involving releases of certain hazardous 
substances or materials listed under several statutes, including the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 
secs. 101(14) and 102 (42 U.S.C. 9602) and the Transportation Safety 
Act of 1974 (49 U.S.C. 1802 and 1803), are required to be reported to 
the NRC. These statutes, however, include only some pesticides on their 
list of hazardous substances or materials. Thus, only a portion of the 
incidents involving pesticides must be reported to the NRC, and the 
actual number of spills is probably larger.
    The above data show that minibulk containers can and do fall off 
transportation vehicles. Minibulks also can be dropped while being 
loaded into or out of vehicles or while being handled with forklifts. 
Therefore, EPA believes that minibulk containers should be designed to 
minimize the potential for container damage that could result in a 
pesticide release.
    Portable containers must be durable enough to withstand potential 
stresses and strains that may be encountered during repeated 
transportation, rinsing, and refilling. While this handling is 
difficult to simulate, certain performance tests and criteria can be 
established to ensure that the containers are sturdy enough to 
withstand some potential abuse, such as sudden impacts, jars, or drops. 
Most packaging standards, such as the DOT Hazardous Materials 
Regulations (HMR) and U.N. Recommendations, specify a series of tests, 
which may include bottom lift, top lift, stacking, leakproofness, 
hydraulic pressure, drop, and vibration tests.
    EPA considered a number of different tests as indicators of 
minibulk container durability and integrity, including leakproofness, 
pressure, drop, vibration, stacking, and lift tests. In this proposed 
rule, EPA has chosen to focus on the drop test. EPA's intent is to set 
a minimum number of standards to address the problems specific to 
pesticide containers and to have these standards apply to all pesticide 
minibulk containers, regardless of the hazard classification of the 
pesticide in the container. The drop test was selected because the data 
available to EPA indicate that the drop test best simulates the type of 
incidents that commonly result in pesticide releases from minibulk 
containers. As EPA gains experience and knowledge of the problems with 
pesticide containers, EPA may reconsider the necessity of some of the 
other tests.
    EPA would like to be consistent with existing packaging 
requirements, which would minimize the potential for duplicative 
testing. EPA considered adopting a drop test standard from three 
different organizations -- U.N., DOT, and MACA. EPA has chosen to 
incorporate U.N. drop tests into the proposed regulations because U.N. 
tests are the most universally accepted and used of the three drop 
tests discussed in this preamble. Additionally, DOT has published a 
proposed rule that would incorporate U.N. standards for IBCs into the 
HMR (Ref. 84). Therefore, proposing the U.N. standard is consistent 
with EPA's goal of minimizing the potential for duplicative testing.
    In the DOT regulations, the drop tests are designated for each 
individual type of container. For example, the Specification 57 metal 
portable tank must be capable of passing a 2-foot drop test (49 CFR 
178.253-5). A Specification 34 container, a reusable polyethylene drum 
for use without overpack, must be capable of passing two different 4-
foot drop tests, where one is at a low temperature (49 CFR 178.19-7).
    In December 1990, DOT published HM-181, a significant revision of 
the previously existing HMR. One of the goals of HM-181 is to align the 
HMR with U.N. Recommendations (Ref. 82). The performance standards in 
HM-181 apply to non-bulk packagings with liquid capacities of 450 
liters (119 gallons) or less or, for solids, capacities of 400 
kilograms (882 pounds) or internal volumes of 450 liters or less. These 
requirements could apply to minibulk containers that are smaller than 
400 kilograms or 450 liters.
    HM-181 will not change the testing requirements for minibulk 
containers with capacities of greater than 450 liters or 400 kilograms. 
In other words, HM-181 does not incorporate U.N. standards for IBCs. As 
mentioned above, however, DOT recently published a NPRM that would 
incorporate the standards for IBCs in Chapter 16 of U.N. 
Recommendations into the HMR (Ref. 84).
    EPA estimates that about one-third of all pesticide active 
ingredients are classified as DOT hazardous materials. Specification 57 
metal portable tanks often are used for pesticides that are DOT 
hazardous materials. However, any plastic minibulk that currently is 
being used for a pesticide classified as a DOT hazardous material must 
receive an exemption from DOT, because there are no specifications 
established by regulation for plastic portable tanks. For plastic 
portable tanks, the specifications and requirements set out in the 
exemptions are generally based on the requirements in Specification 34.
    EPA chose not to incorporate any of DOT's drop tests, because the 
tests were too specific to certain containers. EPA's goal is to set one 
drop test standard for all minibulks for all pesticides. Incorporating 
the DOT drop tests and ensuring consistency would require making the 
same quantity, material of construction, and hazard class distinctions 
that are in the HMR. EPA believes this would be too complicated and 
inconsistent with the goal of establishing minimum standards applicable 
to all pesticide containers. In addition, many of the detailed 
specifications are being phased out over the next several years, 
according to the schedule set out in HM-181.
    EPA also considered the drop test recommended in the MACA-75 
standards. The MACA-75 standards detail a 2-foot drop test and specify 
that nonmetallic tanks be tested at a low temperature. While this drop 
test has the benefit of being developed by a segment of the 
agricultural industry and having industry support, EPA has decided not 
to propose the MACA-75 drop test because it would not be consistent 
with either the DOT regulations or U.N. standards. Also, while the 
MACA-75 standards are well known and commonly used in the agricultural 
pesticide market, they are virtually unknown in other markets, such as 
the institutional and industrial segments, and the part 165 
requirements would apply to containers for pesticides used in all of 
these markets.
    U.N. Recommendations specify drop tests for each type of IBC 
[containers with capacities greater than 450 liters (119 gallons) but 
less than or equal to 3,000 liters (793 gallons)], including metallic, 
flexible, rigid plastics, composite with plastic inner receptacles, 
fiberboard, and wooden containers. Many minibulk containers would be 
classified as IBCs.
    Many dry minibulk containers are refillable bags and therefore have 
flexible bodies, although EPA is aware of at least one dry minibulk 
design type with a rigid plastic body. Liquid minibulk containers have 
metal or rigid plastic bodies. Therefore, EPA has incorporated U.N. 
drop tests for IBCs with flexible, metal, and rigid plastic bodies into 
the proposed rule.
    Section 165.124(d)(1) would require each liquid and dry minibulk 
container design type to pass successfully the appropriate drop test. 
In addition, Sec. 165.124(d)(2) would require that each minibulk 
container be capable of passing the appropriate drop test, even though 
each minibulk container would not have to be tested.
    Section 165.124(d)(3) would require the drop tests to be conducted 
in accordance with the Good Laboratory Practice Standards in 40 CFR 
part 160.
    Proposed Sec. 165.124(d)(4) would state that if a pesticide product 
is required to be packaged according to DOT standards and the DOT 
requirements include a drop test, then compliance with the DOT drop 
test would satisfy the part 165 minibulk drop test requirement. 
However, the registrant still would have to comply with the 
certification and recordkeeping requirements concerning the drop test 
in Sec. Sec. 165.126 and 165.128.
    The registrant would not necessarily have to conduct the drop test; 
the container manufacturer or another entity could actually conduct the 
testing. However, the registrant would be responsible for ensuring that 
the container meets the drop test standard. The actual methodology for 
the drop tests is proposed in Sec. 165.125 and discussed in Unit V.B.7 
of this preamble.
    5. Apertures. Section 165.124(e) would address the potential 
problem of contamination in liquid minibulk containers by requiring 
each aperture of a liquid minibulk to have a one-way valve and/or a 
tamper-evident device. EPA's concern about contamination of pesticide 
product in liquid minibulks arises partly because refillers and 
registrants have little or no control over what happens to these 
containers when they are in the field. EPA has received anecdotal 
evidence of end users removing pumps from minibulks in efforts to 
remove all of the pesticide from the containers (Ref. 74). This 
situation is problematic for the refiller, because the refiller has no 
assurance about whether the end user simply tried to remove all of the 
product or used the container to store a substance other than the 
pesticide product.
    EPA believes that tamper-evident devices are needed on all liquid 
minibulk container openings unless access into the container is 
prevented by other design features, such as one-way valves. One-way 
valves and tamper-evident devices (both terms are defined in proposed 
Sec. 165.3) would not prevent pumps and closures from being removed 
from containers. However, EPA believes that one-way valves and tamper-
evident devices would give refillers reasonable indication about 
whether substances other than the pesticide product for which the 
containers are labeled may have been introduced into the containers. 
These design requirements would be an important part of ensuring the 
safe refilling and reuse of liquid minibulk containers.
    Many liquid minibulk containers have several openings, or 
apertures, including a vent, an opening used for filling and/or 
cleaning the container, and an opening used for withdrawing products. 
However, some of the smaller liquid minibulk containers (small volume 
returnables) have a single opening that serves as a filling and 
withdrawal port and may also provide a venting mechanism.
    Many liquid minibulk containers that are currently being produced, 
particularly those that meet MACA-75 standards, already have tamper-
evident devices. Many of the liquid minibulk containers that are 
currently used have one-way valves on the withdrawal port, because 
container manufacturers and registrants are concerned with preventing 
users from introducing foreign materials into the opening from which 
pesticide is dispensed. EPA believes that all minibulks should have 
these minimal protective measures.
    The most common type of tamper-evident device currently used in the 
agricultural pesticide industry is a wire that is attached to the 
closure and then hooked through a slot, like the eye of a needle. The 
refiller seals the wire to form a loop after the container is refilled. 
The wire loop is broken if anyone attempts to remove the closure from 
the container. Other types of tamper-evident devices include cables, 
heavy tape, or plastic rings that are broken or removed if the closure 
is removed from the container.
    One issue regarding one-way valves is the location of the valve. 
Specifically, would the valve have to be part of the container, or 
could the one-way valve be part of the equipment attached to the 
container to withdraw pesticide? This is an important consideration for 
small volume returnable containers, because there is often only one 
opening on the container. If a one-way valve allowing pesticide 
withdrawal were placed in the container, this valve would have to be 
braced open to fill the container, which is difficult to accomplish. 
Instead, many small volume returnables are designed with the one-way 
valve in the coupler that must be used to withdraw product from the 
container.
    EPA's intent with the requirement for one-way valves is to prevent 
any person other than the refiller from placing material into the 
container. Therefore, it would be acceptable to have the one-way valve 
in a coupler that attached to the container if the coupler is the only 
reasonably foreseeable way to withdraw pesticide from the container. 
EPA requests comment on the issue of locating the one-way valve.
    Another question regarding tamper-evident devices and one-way 
valves is whether these requirements should apply to dry refillable 
containers as well. EPA encourages the incorporation of tamper-evident 
devices and one-way valves into the design of dry minibulk containers. 
However, EPA does not believe it is appropriate to require them at this 
time. EPA has no information indicating that there is a problem with 
contamination caused by dry minibulk containers being used to store or 
transport substances other than pesticide and then being returned for 
refilling. EPA requests comments on whether a requirement for tamper-
evident devices and one-way valves should apply to dry minibulk 
containers.
    6. Bulk containers. Section 165.124(f) proposes standards for 
liquid and dry bulk containers at refilling establishments of refillers 
operating under contract to or written authorization from a registrant. 
EPA is interested in the integrity, strength, and durability of bulk 
containers, which are generally used for stationary storage of large 
quantities of pesticides. Bulk containers are often located outside and 
therefore may be subjected to rough weather conditions, including 
direct sunlight, precipitation, and temperature extremes. Because bulk 
containers are larger than minibulk containers, the potential for a 
large release exists if container integrity is breached.
    Because of the possible costs and inherent dangers associated with 
large volumes of pesticides, bulk containers usually are designed and 
constructed to be strong and durable. However, some refillers have 
experienced problems with leakage from the fittings on liquid bulk 
containers, particularly when corrosive pesticides are being stored.
    As stated earlier, subpart G does not apply to the design of 
transport vehicles. In this proposal, EPA intends to regulate the 
design of large, stationary containers that are used for the 
distribution or sale of pesticide. Specifically, the opening paragraph 
in Sec. 165.124(f) would specify that the standards in Sec. 165.124(f) 
would apply only to bulk containers at the refilling establishments of 
refillers operating under contract to or written authorization from a 
registrant.
    The standards for bulk containers in Sec. 165.124(f) would not 
apply to bulk containers at a registrant's facility. A bulk container 
at a registrant's facility could be used for many purposes, including 
storing raw materials (active ingredients or inerts), formulating a 
product, storing a product before it is packaged into nonrefillable 
containers, and storing a product that will be transferred into tank 
trucks. Without limiting the applicability of Sec. 165.124(f), the 
proposed container design standards for bulk containers would apply to 
registrants' bulk containers used for storing a pesticide product that 
will be transferred into tank trucks or directly into portable 
refillable containers. EPA does not have enough information at this 
time on whether there are bulk container problems at registrant 
facilities. EPA believes that many of the registrants' bulk containers 
are located indoors, and therefore are not subjected to the 
deteriorating effects of the weather. As discussed in Unit IV.B.1 of 
this preamble regarding manufacturing use products, it is possible that 
the stewardship of containers at registrant facilities is better than 
that at other levels of the pesticide distribution chain, because 
containers at registrant facilities are handled by workers who are used 
to and trained to handle chemicals on a regular basis. Additionally, 
EPA believes that economic considerations would push registrants to 
having containers of sufficient integrity to hold the product.
    However, EPA is considering applying the standards of 
Sec. 165.124(f) to registrants' bulk containers that are used to sell 
or distribute a pesticide product, because there is an inherent risk 
associated with bulk containers due to the quantity of product they 
hold. EPA requests comment on whether it is appropriate to apply the 
standards in Sec. 165.124(f) to those bulk containers at registrants' 
facilities that are used to sell or distribute pesticide products in 
refillable containers.
    Also, the standards of Sec. 165.124(f) would not apply to bulk 
containers at custom blenders or independent custom applicators if 
these facilities are not refilling establishments where a refiller is 
operating under contract to or under written authorization from a 
registrant. However, proposed subpart H would require bulk containers 
at independent custom applicators and custom blenders to be secondarily 
contained. EPA believes that the number of bulk containers at custom 
blenders and custom applicators that would be subject to subpart H but 
not subpart G is limited -approximately 340 containers. However, since 
EPA has no reason to believe that the bulk containers at refilling 
establishments are different from those at the facilities of 
independent custom applicators or custom blenders, EPA is considering 
expanding the scope of subpart G to apply the standards in 
Sec. 165.124(f) to all bulk containers used to store or to sell or 
distribute a pesticide product at independent custom applicators and 
custom blenders in the final rule. EPA requests comments on any reasons 
why the standards should not be expanded.
    Many current State regulations for bulk pesticide storage address 
the integrity of the containers used to store pesticide (Ref. 70). 
Generally, these State specifications are performance standards that 
address the stresses and conditions that a container most likely would 
have to withstand. EPA is proposing to regulate the integrity of bulk 
containers in a manner similar to that of many States. In fact, the 
language that EPA is proposing for the container integrity of dry and 
liquid bulk containers in Sec. 165.124(f)(1) is based, in part, on bulk 
pesticide storage regulations in Wisconsin and Minnesota (Refs. 40 and 
79).
    Proposed Sec. 165.124(f)(1)(i) would specify that bulk containers 
would have to meet the integrity standards except during a civil 
emergency or an act of God. By act of God, EPA means any unanticipated 
grave natural disaster or other natural phenomenon of an exceptional, 
inevitable, and irresistible character, the effects of which could not 
have been prevented or avoided by the exercise of due care or 
foresight. This proposal incorporates the definition of act of God from 
section 101(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act [92 U.S.C. 9601(1)].
    Proposed Sec. 165.124(f)(1)(ii) would require all bulk containers 
and their appurtenances to be resistant to extreme changes in 
temperature. Also, all bulk containers and their appurtenances would 
have to be constructed of materials that are adequately thick to not 
fail and that are resistant to corrosion, puncture, and cracking. Under 
Sec. 165.124(f)(1)(iii), the containers would have to be capable of 
withstanding all operating stresses, taking into account static head, 
pressure buildup from pumps and compressors, and any other mechanical 
stress to which the containers may be subjected in the foreseeable 
course of operations.
    In addition to the containers' integrity, EPA is concerned about 
the potential development of high internal pressures in liquid bulk 
containers. Because the bulk containers are often located outside, they 
may be subjected to direct sunlight and high temperatures.
    Many States with bulk pesticide storage regulations require the 
storage containers to be equipped with vents. In Sec. 165.124(f)(2), 
EPA is proposing that each liquid bulk container be equipped with a 
vent or other device designed to relieve excess pressure, prevent 
losses by evaporation, and exclude precipitation. This proposed 
requirement is similar to that in Minnesota's bulk pesticide storage 
regulations (Ref. 40).
    One kind of vent that would meet this requirement is a conservation 
vent. Such a vent is normally closed, but will open under either vacuum 
or internal pressure. Wisconsin's bulk pesticide storage regulations 
require each fixed storage container used for liquid bulk pesticide to 
be equipped with a conservation vent (Ref. 79).
    EPA also is proposing to prohibit external sight gauges on liquid 
bulk containers. As described in Sec. 165.124(f)(3), external sight 
gauges are pesticide-containing hoses or tubes that run vertically 
along the exterior of the container from top to bottom. External sight 
gauges are vulnerable to damage and could cause all of the contents of 
a container to be released if they are broken. Therefore, EPA believes 
it is necessary to prohibit external sight gauges to ensure the safe 
use, reuse, and refilling of liquid bulk containers. There are other 
ways to determine the volume of liquid pesticide in a container, 
including float gauges, calibrations on the side of translucent plastic 
containers, calibrated dip sticks, and electronic devices (Ref. 79).
    In Sec. 165.124(f)(4), EPA proposes to require all connections on 
liquid bulk containers, except for vents, to be equipped with shutoff 
valves that can be locked closed. A shutoff valve is a valve that 
allows the flow of pesticide from the container connection to be 
stopped. EPA believes it is necessary to have shutoff valves to 
decrease the potential for a large spill. For example, if a hose broke 
during the transfer of pesticide from a container in the absence of a 
shutoff valve, pesticide would continue to be released from the 
container until the container was empty or until the hose could be 
replaced, which could be a very risky mechanical intervention. However, 
if the connection had a shutoff valve, a person could stop the flow of 
pesticide simply by closing the valve. EPA is proposing that the 
shutoff valve has to be able to be locked to prevent releases due to 
vandalism. Many currently available valves can be locked closed with a 
simple padlock.
    EPA is not currently proposing to regulate the location of the 
shutoff valve. The Wisconsin pesticide bulk storage regulations, 
however, specify that the shutoff valve be ``located on the storage 
container or at a distance from the storage container dictated by 
standard engineering practice'' (Ref. 79). In a guidance document 
explaining the regulations, Wisconsin clarifies that ``the valve should 
be no farther from the container than 3 times the diameter of the 
plumbing being used to connect the valve to the container. For cone 
bottom tanks the first valve can be located within three pipe diameters 
of the tank skirt or frame, provided the pipe is rigidly connected to 
the skirt or frame'' (Ref. 79). EPA believes it may be necessary to 
specify the location of the shutoff valve to ensure that it is located 
within the secondary containment structure, if containment is required. 
EPA requests comments on whether it is necessary to regulate the 
location of shutoff valves, and if so, what the location should be.
    7. Minibulk container drop test methodology. Proposed Sec. 165.125 
would prescribe the drop test methodology for flexible, metal, and 
rigid plastic minibulk containers. Wherever possible, EPA has used the 
exact wording in U.N. Recommendations. Significant changes and 
additions are discussed below.
    Section 165.125(b) describes the preparation and general 
requirements that would be necessary for all of the specific drop 
tests. A difference between the proposed tests and U.N. tests is the 
requirement in Sec. 165.125(b)(2) that any pump, valve, meter, hose, or 
other hardware that is attached to the container during transportation, 
storage, or use would also be attached during the test. EPA is 
proposing this requirement because, as discussed previously, minibulk 
containers usually are transported from the dealer to the field with 
the associated hardware attached to the containers. Unless minibulk 
containers are designed to provide protection, the appurtenances can be 
damaged or sheared off of the containers in the case of sharp blows or 
jolts to the containers. As a result, the pesticide could spill from 
the ruptured container.
    Preventing a spill when a container is dropped with hardware 
attached can be achieved in several ways. The pump can be recessed; 
e.g., the liquid minibulk can be designed with a depression or area in 
which the pump fits without protruding from the contour of the 
container. Another type of protection is a 10- to 12-inch lip or ridge 
on the top of the container that extends above the level of the pump. 
An alternative design with the same purpose is a spring-loaded check 
valve in the connection between the pump and the minibulk. If the pump 
is sheared off or jolted out of place, the spring automatically closes 
the valve and leakage is prevented. Both of these options -- hardware 
protection and the use of a spring-loaded check valve -- offer equal 
environmental protection, although the extent to which pumps are 
damaged may vary considerably.
    Sections 165.125(b)(4) through (b)(6) would set out the conditions 
under which a container could be drop tested with a test material other 
than the pesticide product that will be transported in the container. 
The registrant would be responsible for selecting an appropriate test 
substance. Section 165.125(b)(4) would allow a substance to be 
substituted for a dry pesticide if it has the same physical 
characteristics, such as mass and grain size, as the pesticide to be 
carried. Section 165.125(b)(4) also would allow the use of additives 
such as lead shot to achieve the requisite total package mass, as long 
as they are placed so that the test results are not otherwise affected. 
Section 165.125(b)(5) would allow a container for a liquid pesticide to 
be tested with another substance, if the other substance's relative 
density and viscosity are similar to those of the pesticide to be 
carried. Section 9.5 of the U.N. Recommendations states that relative 
density and specific gravity are considered to be synonymous (Ref. 76). 
Section 165.125(b)(6) would set out the conditions where water could be 
used as the test substance.
    EPA is not proposing numerical standards to define ``similar 
relative density and viscosity.'' Instead, EPA is placing the 
responsibility for determining the similar relative density and 
viscosity of a test substance on the registrant. EPA anticipates that 
most registrants will test their containers using water as the test 
substance, in accordance with Sec. 165.125(b)(6), and therefore won't 
have to determine whether a test substance has similar relative density 
and viscosity. EPA requests comments on whether ``similar'' relative 
density and viscosity should be defined.
    Sections 165.125(b)(4) through (b)(6) propose requirements based on 
the relative density or another characteristic of the pesticide to be 
sold or distributed in the container. In other words, the testing would 
be specific to a single formulation and container combination, which 
could be problematic if the minibulk container is not going to be 
dedicated to a specific product. However, the tests in 
Sec. Sec. 165.125(c) through (e) are written to allow a test done at a 
drop height higher than the required minimum to satisfy the drop test 
conducted at the minimum height. Therefore, a registrant could drop 
test a minibulk container based on the most dense pesticide product to 
be sold or distributed in the minibulk container and satisfy the drop 
test requirement for any of its products to be sold or distributed in 
the container.
    For example, a test for a pesticide with a relative density of 1.4 
that is conducted with water as the test substance would require a drop 
height of 1.4 meters, according to proposed Sec. 165.125(b)(6)(ii). 
(Drop height = 1.4/1.2 x 1.2 meters = 1.4 meters). A container that 
passed this 1.4-meter test could also be used to package a pesticide 
product with a relative density of 1.3, because the testing height of 
1.4 meters would be greater than the required height (1.3 meters). 
Therefore, if a registrant intends to use a container to sell or 
distribute several products, the container would only have to be tested 
(with water) at a drop height based on the pesticide product with the 
largest relative gravity.
    Section 165.125(b)(7) would require the test records to include the 
number of containers of each particular design type that were tested 
for the design type to successfully pass the drop test. This would 
indicate whether a registrant simply continued to test a container 
design type until one container passed. EPA believes that there are 
market incentives to prevent registrants from continuing to test 
containers of a design type that fails more than once or twice, 
including the cost of the minibulk containers and, more importantly, 
the liability and associated problems of containers failing in the 
field. However, EPA is considering establishing a regulatory limit on 
how many times a design type could be tested. For example, EPA could 
set a standard such that if two containers of a design type fail the 
drop test, the entire design type would fail and would have to be 
modified. This would ensure that a maximum of two containers would be 
tested unsuccessfully for a given design type. EPA requests comments on 
whether it is necessary to limit the number of containers of each 
design type that can be tested before one container passes and, if so, 
whether the approach discussed above is appropriate.
    Sections 165.125(c) through (e) would provide specific details for 
the drop tests. These specifications would mandate the capacity to 
which the container is to be filled, the type of surface to receive the 
drop, the drop height, and the criterion for passing the test. Section 
165.125(c) would apply to dry minibulk containers with flexible bodies, 
but not to liquid minibulk containers, because EPA is assuming that 
liquid pesticides would not be transported in refillable containers 
with flexible bodies. EPA requests information on any liquid pesticide 
products that are distributed or sold in flexible refillable 
containers. As proposed in Sec. 165.125(c)(1), EPA considers a minibulk 
container with a flexible body to consist of a body constituted of 
film, woven fabric, or any other flexible material or combination 
thereof. This description of flexible bodies is based on the U.N. 
definition of flexible IBCs in section 16.3.2.1 of the U.N. 
Recommendations (Ref. 76).
    Section 165.125(d) would apply to minibulk containers (for either 
liquid or dry product) with metal bodies. Different filling 
requirements and drop heights would be used for testing containers for 
liquid or dry formulations. Similarly, Sec. 165.125(e) would apply to 
minibulks (for either liquid or dry product) with rigid plastic bodies, 
with different filling requirements and drop heights for liquid or dry 
minibulk containers. The different filling requirements in 
Sec. Sec. 165.125(d) and (e) -- to 95 percent of the capacity for dry 
minibulks and to 98 percent of the capacity for liquid minibulks -- are 
the same as specified in U.N. Recommendations.
    Proposed Sec. Sec. 165.125(d)(4) and (e)(5) would require the 
container to be dropped ``on that part of the base considered to be the 
most vulnerable.'' EPA anticipates that this would require the 
containers to be dropped onto a corner or edge of the base rather than 
flat on the base of the container to fulfill this requirement.
    The drop heights in U.N. specifications vary according to the 
hazard level (packing group number) of the substance to be transported 
in the container (Ref. 76). The drop height is 1.2 meters (3.9 feet) 
for packing group II substances and 0.8 meters (2.6 feet) for packing 
group III. EPA is proposing different drop heights, depending on 
whether the pesticide formulations to be sold or distributed in the 
containers are dry or liquid. For liquid minibulks, EPA is proposing 
the packing group II test -- a drop of 1.2 meters. For dry minibulk 
containers, EPA is proposing the packing group III test, which is less 
stringent - a drop of 0.8 meters.
    EPA is proposing a higher drop height for liquid minibulks to 
ensure environmental protection. EPA believes that a higher drop height 
for liquid minibulk containers is appropriate because it is more 
difficult to contain and recover a release of liquid material than a 
release of dry material.
    In some ways, U.N. drop tests are not as rigorous as some of the 
DOT and MACA drop tests. The orientation in which the container is 
dropped in the drop tests in the DOT Specification 57 and MACA-75 
standards is more demanding than the orientation in U.N. IBC drop 
tests. For example, Specification 57 requires a ``free drop onto a flat 
unyielding horizontal surface, striking the target surface in the 
position and attitude from which maximum damage to the tank (including 
piping and fittings) is expected'' [49 CFR 178.253-5(a)(2)]. In order 
to comply with this requirement, the container generally would be 
dropped on its top -- either on the fittings or a corner -- which would 
cause the force of the container contents to impact directly on the 
closures. The closures are often on the top of the container and are 
one of the container parts most likely to fail. On the other hand, the 
drop test for IBCs with metal or rigid plastic bodies in U.N. standards 
(section 16.2.8.6.3) specifies a drop ``in such a manner as to ensure 
that the point of impact is on that part of the base of the IBC 
considered to be the most vulnerable'' (Ref. 76). In this orientation, 
the initial force of the container contents would impact upon the 
bottom of the container. The base of the container is generally less 
likely to fail than a closure, given similar conditions (wall 
thickness, container material, etc.)
    Considering the difference in severity between the orientation of 
the U.N. IBC drop test (also the proposed part 165 test) and the DOT 
Specification 57 drop test, EPA believes it is appropriate to propose a 
drop height of 1.2 meters (3.9 feet) for liquid minibulk containers 
instead of 2 feet, like the DOT Specification 57.
    EPA requests comments on whether the drop tests being proposed are 
appropriate.
    8. Container design responsibility. A significant issue regarding 
these proposed regulations is who should be held responsible for 
ensuring that the refillable containers would meet the standards in 
Sec. 165.124. This proposal includes three different regulatory options 
for who would be held responsible for doing so. The parties that 
potentially could be held responsible include registrants, refillers, 
container owners, and container manufacturers. However, before these 
options are presented, it is necessary to provide background 
information on the pesticide registration regulations in 40 CFR part 
152, the usual distribution chain for products that are repackaged into 
refillable containers, and the way in which refillable containers enter 
the distribution chain.
    A registrant must submit, among other things, formulation 
information, data, and labeling to EPA to obtain a registration for a 
pesticide product. A ``pesticide product,'' as defined at 40 CFR 
152.3(t), includes the composition, packaging, and labeling of the 
pesticide in the form in which the pesticide is, or is intended to be, 
distributed and sold. In the typical nonrefillable chain of commerce, 
the registrant produces the pesticide formulation, packages it or 
contracts for the packaging, labels it, and releases it for 
distribution or sale. The package is not opened until it reaches the 
end user. If a second producer wishes to repackage that pesticide, that 
producer must obtain a separate registration for the product that 
includes the formulation and the second registrant's package and label.
    In the refillable chain of commerce, pesticide products distributed 
or sold in refillable containers and the containers themselves often 
enter the pesticide distribution chain separately.
    As discussed in Unit V.B.1 of this preamble, there are at least two 
ways for product sold in refillable containers to enter the pesticide 
distribution chain. First, some registrants package the products 
initially into the refillable containers for distribution or sale. In 
this case, the refillable containers and the products enter the 
pesticide distribution chain together, much as a pesticide product in a 
nonrefillable container would.
    Second, and more commonly, pesticide products that are distributed 
or sold in refillable containers are sold or distributed in ``bulk 
form'' (large undivided quantities) by a registrant to a dealer who has 
obtained written authorization to repackage the registrant's product 
and to use the registered product's label. Such dealers are refillers 
as defined in this proposal. The pesticide product is transferred from 
tank cars or trucks to bulk containers at the dealer's facility. The 
dealer then transfers the pesticide formulation from the bulk 
containers into minibulk containers, generally for sale to end users. 
In these situations, the containers and products may enter the 
distribution chain at different times. Containers can be purchased from 
container manufacturers by any party in the pesticide distribution 
chain, including registrants, distributors, dealers, and end users.
    While EPA has not been able to determine accurately the number of 
liquid minibulk containers that are owned by each group nationwide, a 
survey of refillers (dealers) in Iowa during the 1990 Iowa less-than-
56-gallon pilot project reported the following data:
    (1) Seventy-five percent to 85 percent of liquid minibulk 
containers were dealer-controlled (owned by registrant, owned by 
dealer, owned by registrant and leased by dealer, etc.).
    (2) Fifteen percent to 25 percent of liquid minibulk containers 
were owned by farmers (Ref. 17).
    In general, the minibulk containers that are purchased by 
registrants and then loaned, leased, or sold to refillers are of 
significantly better quality than other minibulks, including those 
owned by end users or purchased directly by dealers.
    Most liquid bulk containers are owned by refillers. Refillers may 
purchase liquid bulk containers independently. Alternatively, a 
registrant might give a refiller a liquid bulk container as part of an 
incentive program to buy and sell the registrant's products in bulk. 
For example, some pesticide manufacturers provide bulk storage tanks to 
dealers, who then ``earn'' the cost of the container by meeting a 
certain obligation for the volume of pesticide sold. Refillers also may 
lease liquid bulk containers from pesticide registrants.
    Dry minibulk and dry bulk containers generally are purchased and 
owned by registrants, because currently, refillers repackage 
predominantly liquid pesticide products. However, the number of 
refillers that handle dry pesticide in large quantities is increasing. 
Therefore, the number of refillers who purchase dry minibulk and dry 
bulk containers also may increase.
    a. Introduction to the options considered by EPA. As previously 
discussed, any person in the pesticide distribution chain may provide 
the container for refilling. The question is ``Who should be 
responsible for assuring that refillable containers meet the container 
design standards of part 165?'' EPA is proposing that registrants be 
held responsible for meeting the container design standards for 
minibulk and bulk containers.
    In making the choice, EPA considered the following three regulatory 
options.
    (1) Registrants would be responsible for containers meeting the 
proposed design standards. Registrants would identify the acceptable 
containers to refillers and EPA by specifying the container 
manufacturer and model number. In a variation to this option, 
registrants would identify the acceptable containers to refillers and 
EPA by specifying design type parameters.
    (2) Anyone could request EPA's approval to use a certification 
seal. This could be container manufacturers, but it also could be 
registrants, refillers, or even end users. The seal would indicate that 
a person had certified to EPA that the container meets the part 165 
standards. Registrants would address container/formulation 
compatibility by identifying design type parameters to refillers and 
EPA.
    (3) Container manufacturers would be responsible for containers 
meeting the proposed design standards. Registrants would address 
container/formulation compatibility by identifying design type 
parameters to refillers and EPA.
    In evaluating the options for container design responsibility, EPA 
considered the differences among the options in terms of seeking the 
least burdensome approach that is also effective, practicable, and 
easily enforceable. EPA believes that Option 1 is more effective, more 
practicable, and significantly more easily enforceable than the other 
two options.
    EPA also considered whether the proposed regulations would 
encourage refillable containers. For the following reasons, EPA 
considers it desirable to encourage the use of refillable containers 
with the proposed part 165 container regulations:
    (1) FIFRA section 19(e)(1)(B)(iv) encourages the use of refillable 
containers; it directs EPA to promulgate regulations on container 
design to facilitate safe refill and reuse.
    (2) Refillable containers are consistent with the concept of 
pollution prevention and waste minimization.
    (3) The demand from end users for refillable containers is strong 
and growing.
    EPA believes there may be a difference among the options in terms 
of whether the regulations would encourage refillable containers. EPA 
requests comments on whether each option would encourage refillable 
containers, as well as the reasons why or why not.
    On the other hand, EPA does not believe there would be a 
significant difference among the containers that are designed and 
produced under the various options. EPA anticipates that container 
manufacturers will make containers that meet the standards in order to 
fulfill a market demand, regardless of who is responsible under EPA's 
regulations.
    Similarly, there may not be a big difference among the options in 
terms of the costs to design complying containers. The containers 
likely would be designed similarly regardless of who was responsible. 
Also, the recordkeeping requirements and the associated costs would be 
similar for all of the options. However, the party responsible for 
recordkeeping varies, which may alter the burden of the proposed 
regulation.
    EPA requests comments on the differences in the risks, benefits, 
and costs among the options, and on ways in which these options could 
be improved.
    b. Option 1-- Registrants, model numbers. In option 1, which is 
preferred by EPA, registrants would be responsible for the containers 
meeting the proposed design standards. The containers would be marked 
with the phrase ``Meets EPA standards for refillable pesticide 
containers.'' The phrase would not imply any degree of review or 
acceptance by EPA. In proposed Sec. 165.126, registrants would be 
required to certify to EPA that the refillable containers that are 
refilled with their products meet the design standards. Under 
Sec. 165.128, registrants would be responsible for maintaining records 
on the refillable containers used to distribute or sell their products.
    Registrants would be required by Sec. 165.130(b)(2) to develop a 
written list of acceptable containers for each product. This list would 
identify those refillable containers that could be used for selling or 
distributing the registrant's product. Acceptable containers would be 
those that the registrant has determined meet the standards of 
Sec. 165.124 and are compatible with the pesticide formulation to which 
the list applies. As described in Sec. 165.130(b)(2)(ii), the 
containers would be required to be identified by, at a minimum, the 
container's manufacturer and model number. Section 165.130(c) would 
require registrants to provide this written list of acceptable 
containers to refillers. Under the proposed Sec. 165.132, registrants 
would be required to keep a copy of the list of acceptable containers. 
EPA would have access to this list because the registrant would be 
required to make the records available for inspection and copying and 
to submit them upon request.
    Refillers would be required by Sec. 165.134(c)(1)(i) to refill 
product only into refillable containers that are identified on the 
registrant's list of acceptable containers. The refiller would know 
that the registrant had ensured that the containers on the list met the 
standards of Sec. 165.124 and were compatible with the formulation.
    Option 1 is sensible for several reasons. Under FIFRA, registrants 
are responsible for the containers as part of the registered pesticide 
product. Registrants already submit data and other information as 
required to show that their pesticide products do not cause 
unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. Registrants are in the 
best position in terms of technical knowledge to determine which 
containers are most suitable for their products. Also, between 
registrants and nonregistrant refillers, registrants are generally 
larger organizations and thus financially more capable of being 
responsible for container testing.
    Refillers would be able to identify allowable containers because 
they could only repackage products into containers specified on the 
lists of acceptable containers. It would be easy for refillers to 
recognize the acceptable containers because the containers would be 
identified by model numbers.
    EPA inspectors easily would be able to determine whether a product 
was refilled into a container meeting the requirements of part 165 
because they would know (or have access to) the acceptable model 
numbers. Similarly, EPA inspectors would be able to determine that 
containers had been properly tested by inspection of registrants' 
records.
    Requiring registrants to be responsible for container design 
standards may not encourage the use of refillable containers. The 
regulatory approach of holding registrants responsible for container 
design standards could have the effect of encouraging registrants to 
dedicate containers to a specific pesticide product. With dedicated 
containers, the number of minibulk and bulk containers needed by each 
refiller could increase, which could place an increased storage, 
handling, and maintenance burden on refillers. Another possible effect 
could be to discourage farmer-owned containers, which may represent 
about 15 percent to 25 percent of the current number of liquid minibulk 
containers. EPA specifically requests comments on whether option 1 
would encourage refillable containers.
    The specific requirements of this option are discussed in greater 
detail in Units V.B.9 through V.B.13 of this preamble.
    As a variation to option 1, EPA considered requiring containers to 
be identified by design type parameters rather than by the container's 
manufacturer and model number. Under this variation, registrants would 
still: (1) Be responsible for the containers meeting the proposed 
design standards, (2) certify to EPA that the refillable containers 
meet the design standards, and (3) maintain records for the refillable 
containers. Refillers would be required to refill product only into 
refillable containers that the registrant identifies as acceptable.
    Similar to option 1, this variation has the potential to discourage 
the use of generic refillable containers obtained independently by 
refillers or users.
    Another disadvantage of this variation is that refillers and EPA 
inspectors may have difficulty identifying acceptable containers if 
they are given only a description of the design type parameters instead 
of a definitive list of acceptable models. EPA rejected this variation 
partly because of this potential difficulty in identifying acceptable 
containers.
    In addition, EPA does not believe the container design parameters 
could be described so that refillers would know what to look for in 
determining acceptable containers. Therefore, EPA also rejected this 
variation because it doesn't appear practicable or easily enforceable.
    c. Option 2.-- Certification seal. Under option 2, any person would 
be allowed to produce a container meeting EPA's design standards. In 
addition, any person would be allowed to certify to EPA that the 
container meets the part 165 standards. EPA would grant the person 
permission to mark the container permanently with a seal (``the 
certification seal''). The seal, which would indicate that a person had 
certified to EPA that the container meets the part 165 standards, could 
be a phrase such as ``Meets 40 CFR part 165 container standards.'' This 
statement would be the only one that could be used as the seal. EPA 
envisions that principally container manufacturers or registrants would 
avail themselves of this option, but refillers or end users could also. 
The submission to EPA would include a certification that the container 
meets the part 165 container design standards, a description of the 
container (including its design parameters, the container manufacturer, 
and the container model number), and a citation to the location of the 
test data and records. Use of the seal would be denied if the owner of 
the data and records did not provide EPA access to inspect and copy the 
data and records. The person who certifies compliance with the standard 
would be required to maintain a copy of the certification submission.
    EPA would grant permission to mark refillable containers 
permanently with the seal if all of the certification submission 
criteria were met. EPA would notify the person making the certification 
of EPA's approval or disapproval to use the seal. EPA would not be 
approving the refillable container, but rather, allowing the seal to be 
used based on the certification. EPA could compile a list of the model 
numbers for which approval to use the seal was granted.
    This option could include persons other than registrants or 
refillers. Section 19(e) of FIFRA does not restrict its applicability 
to any particular persons, and there is no express statement of an 
intent to limit applicability of FIFRA section 19(e) to registrants.
    Refillers and registrants would be required to repackage product 
only into containers that had the certification seal.
    With this option, registrants would be required to address 
compatibility between the containers and the pesticide formulations. 
Compatibility depends to a great extent on the container's material(s) 
of construction. Therefore, the registrant would be required to 
develop, for each product, a list of container construction materials 
that would be acceptable for the containers in which its product could 
be distributed or sold. This would be similar to the list of acceptable 
containers in option 1.
    Registrants would be required to provide this written list of 
acceptable container construction materials to refillers and to keep a 
copy of it. Refillers would be required to repackage a pesticide 
product only into refillable containers that are marked with the 
certification seal and that are made from materials identified as 
acceptable by the registrant.
    Option 2 has several advantages. It allows more flexibility than 
option 1, because refillers wouldn't be bound to specific container 
models selected by the registrant, unless the registrant required its 
pesticide to be sold or distributed in dedicated containers. This 
flexibility might help encourage refillable containers because, in not 
being limited to specific manufacturers and model numbers, it may be 
easier for parties in the distribution chain to obtain acceptable 
containers. It would be easy for refillers to identify allowable 
containers, because they would look for the seal and also ensure the 
container is made from a material the registrant has identified as 
acceptable. Similarly, EPA inspectors could determine if a pesticide 
had been repackaged into an improper refillable container by looking 
for the seal and reviewing the registrant's list of acceptable 
container materials. The inspectors would know or would have access to 
a list of the model numbers of containers that have been certified to 
meet the standard through the information supplied to EPA. EPA also 
would have a list of the locations of the data and records. This 
approach to data and recordkeeping would be similar to the inspection 
of laboratories under the Good Laboratory Practice Standards in 40 CFR 
part 160. As a condition for using the certification seal, permission 
would have to be given for EPA to inspect testing facilities and the 
data.
    A disadvantage of this option is that the need to certify and to 
obtain EPA permission to mark a container permanently with the 
certification seal may discourage some persons from seeking approval of 
a wide number of containers or from seeking improvements in existing 
containers. Moreover, the disadvantage to EPA is the need to establish 
and maintain what is, in essence, a licensing program for pesticide 
containers with its accompanying costs and administrative requirements. 
EPA believes an option that creates such administrative burdens for the 
industry and EPA is a less desirable option.
    Also, it could be more difficult to enforce this option because the 
records and data could be held by container manufacturers, testing 
facilities, registrants, refillers, or end users. EPA routinely 
inspects registrants and registered establishments. EPA's enforcement 
program, which is carried out in cooperation with the States, is 
directed to registrants, producers, and users. In other words, EPA has 
a framework for and experience in regulating registrants and producers, 
but not for handling container manufacturers or other parties.
    d. Option 3-- Container manufacturers. Under option 3, container 
manufacturers would be responsible for containers meeting the design 
standards in the proposed Sec. 165.124. The container manufacturer 
would mark the containers permanently with a seal, which would be a 
certification that the container meets the standards of part 165. As in 
option 2, the seal could be a phrase such as ``Meets 40 CFR part 165 
container standards.'' The container manufacturer would be responsible 
for keeping records for the containers. Refillers would be required to 
repackage product only into containers that were marked with the seal.
    Similar to option 2, registrants would be required to address 
compatibility between the containers and the pesticide formulations. 
The registrant would be required to develop, for each product, a list 
of construction materials that would be acceptable for the refillable 
containers and provide this list to refillers. Registrants would keep 
the requisite list of acceptable container materials, and would make 
the list available to EPA and the states.
    Refillers would be required to repackage pesticide product only 
into refillable containers that are marked with the seal and that are 
made from materials identified as acceptable by the registrant.
    Option 3 makes sense for several reasons. It allows more 
flexibility than Option 1, mainly because refillers wouldn't be bound 
to specific container models selected by registrants, unless the 
registrant required specific containers for its pesticide products. 
This flexibility might help encourage the use of refillable containers 
because it may be easier for parties in the pesticide distribution 
chain to obtain acceptable refillable containers. Refillers could 
identify allowable containers by looking for the seal and checking to 
be sure that the container is made from a material the registrant has 
identified as acceptable. Similarly, EPA inspectors could determine if 
pesticide has been repackaged into an improper refillable container by 
looking for the seal and reviewing the registrant's list of acceptable 
container materials.
    Because this option assigns responsibility for container design 
standards to container manufacturers, it departs from the traditional 
FIFRA regulatory scheme that places the burden of registrability of 
pesticides on pesticide registrants. However, section 19(e) of FIFRA 
does not restrict its applicability to any particular person. Neither 
FIFRA section 19 nor the legislative history for the 1988 amendments to 
FIFRA indicate Congress intended to preclude regulation of container 
manufacturers for container design.
    Under option 3, EPA would be entering an industry sector it has 
never regulated before under FIFRA. The disadvantage and the main 
reason this option was rejected is that EPA lacks information and 
experience in this industry, and has no regulatory infrastructure in 
place. Also, EPA's enforcement capability could be limited because 
there is no link between responsibility for container design and sale 
or distribution of the pesticide.
    Again, EPA welcomes comments on the merits and drawbacks of these 
options.
    9. Certification, recordkeeping, and inspection. As discussed 
regarding option 1, registrants would be required to certify that the 
containers meet the container design standards and to maintain records 
regarding these standards.
    Proposed Sec. 165.126(a) would require registrants to certify, for 
each product sold or distributed in refillable containers, that all 
refillable containers in which that product is distributed or sold meet 
the standards of Sec. 165.124. This would apply both to registrants who 
distribute or sell pesticide product to refillers for refilling and to 
registrants who distribute or sell pesticide product in refillable 
containers. Section 165.124(b) would specify the contents of the 
certification, including an acceptable certification statement.
    Proposed Sec. 165.126(c) would specify that a certification be 
submitted with each application for a new registration. For currently 
registered pesticides, as proposed in Sec. 165.139, a certification 
would be required to be submitted no later than 2 years after the date 
of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
    Section 165.128 would specify the container design recordkeeping 
requirements for registrants. This section would apply to registrants 
who distribute or sell pesticide product to refillers for refilling and 
to registrants who distribute or sell pesticide product in refillable 
containers. The records would have to be maintained for as long as the 
registrant allows the container to be used; that is, for as long as the 
container is identified on the registrant's list of acceptable 
containers, and for 3 years thereafter. Registrants would be required 
to make the records available for inspection and copying and to furnish 
them upon request.
    Section 165.128(a) would require that a description of the 
container be a part of the records for all refillable containers. A 
description of the container is necessary to link the records to the 
actual containers. Specifically, the description would be required to 
include, but not be limited to, the kind of refillable container 
(liquid minibulk, liquid bulk, etc.), the model number of the 
container, the container manufacturer, and the container's design type 
parameters, including the structural design, size (capacity and 
dimensions), material of construction, wall thickness, manner of 
construction, and (for minibulks) pump fittings.
    Proposed Sec. 165.128(b) would specify the records pertaining to 
the drop test that would be required for dry minibulk or liquid 
minibulk containers. For minibulk containers, the records would be 
required to include at least one of three different kinds of records. 
The first kind of record, as described in Sec. 165.128(b)(1)(i), would 
be a copy of the test data, including a description of the test, a 
description of the container tested, the test results, the date and 
location of the test, and the test operators' names. ``A description of 
the test'' would include the exact details of the drop test that was 
performed, including which procedure was followed [i.e., the test 
specified in Sec. 165.125(c), (d), or (e)], the drop height, and the 
characteristics of the material that was used to fill the container for 
the tests, such as the relative density of the material. The 
description of the container is necessary to verify that the correct 
container was tested. The rest of the information in proposed 
Sec. 165.128(b)(1)(i), i.e., the test result, the date and location of 
the test, and the test operators' names, is similar to the type of 
information included in the recordkeeping specified by DOT's HM-181, 
specifically in 49 CFR 178.601(k). As discussed in Unit V.B.7 of this 
preamble, the test records would have to include the results of failed 
tests of the same design type.
    Two other kinds of records are included to allow the registrant 
flexibility. EPA does not expect that all registrants will do the drop 
test themselves. Therefore, Sec. 165.128(b)(1)(ii) would specify that a 
letter from the container manufacturer would be acceptable. Similarly, 
Sec. 165.128(b)(2)(iii) would specify that a letter from the facility 
that conducted the test would be acceptable. The letters would be 
required to contain much of the same information as that specified for 
the first kind of record, including the specific test type, a 
description of the container, and the test results. Instead of 
including the date and location of the test and the test operators' 
names, the letters would be required to specify the location of the 
original test data.
    Section 165.128(b)(3) would specify that EPA reserves the right, on 
a case by case basis, to require submission of the drop test data. EPA 
considers these data necessary to maintain a registration under FIFRA 
section 3. Therefore, while registrants would not be required to 
maintain a copy of the test data, registrants would still be 
responsible for assuring that they could obtain the data so that they 
could submit the data to EPA, if required to do so. Since the testing 
must be done according to the GLP standards, EPA would also have the 
right to inspect the testing facility and copy the data under 40 CFR 
160.15. If EPA were denied access to the testing facility or the data, 
then EPA would not consider the test data reliable for supporting the 
registration.
    Proposed Sec. 165.128(b)(2) would require that the registrant keep 
a statement of compliance or noncompliance with respect to the GLP 
standards, as described by 40 CFR 160.12, with the drop test records. 
Similar to the approach for the residue removal data (as discussed in 
Unit IV.B.9 of this preamble), EPA is considering requiring registrants 
to submit the GLP statement of compliance or noncompliance for the drop 
testing. As in Unit IV.B.9 of this preamble, EPA requests comments on 
whether the GLP statement of compliance or noncompliance should be kept 
with the drop test records as proposed, or submitted to EPA.
    10. Transfer of registered pesticide products into refillable 
containers. FIFRA section 3(a) provides in pertinent part that ``... no 
person ... may distribute, sell, offer for sale, hold for sale, ... to 
any person any pesticide which is not registered with the 
Administrator.'' Registration is the principal means of ensuring that a 
product is brought under the FIFRA regulatory scheme. The registrant 
must demonstrate to EPA's satisfaction that the product meets the 
statutory criteria for registration with respect to composition, 
labeling, and the lack of unreasonable adverse effects. The registrant 
must take responsibility for quality control of the product's 
composition and for adequate labeling describing the product, its 
hazards, and its uses. Repackaging of a pesticide produces a new 
pesticide product that must be registered before it can be distributed 
or sold.
    In 1977, EPA issued an enforcement policy for bulk shipments of 
pesticides. The policy describes certain conditions in which EPA allows 
the transfer and repackaging of bulk pesticides to occur without 
requiring registration of the repackaged pesticides (Ref. 63). The 1977 
Bulk Pesticides Enforcement Policy (the Policy) defined ``bulk'' for 
the purposes of the Policy as ``any volume of pesticide greater than 55 
gallons or 100 pounds held in an individual container.'' EPA developed 
the Policy to accommodate business practices of manufacturers and 
distributors who handle pesticides in large undivided quantities rather 
than in small individual containers because EPA believed:
    (1) The need to properly dispose of excess numbers of containers 
would be reduced.
    (2) Less warehouse space would be required.
    (3) Labor and handling costs would be reduced.
    (4) Inventories could be more accurately controlled.
EPA also recognized that encouraging the use of refillable containers 
would aid in minimizing waste.
    In the Policy, EPA determined that repackaging of bulk pesticides 
could occur without a separate registration if certain conditions were 
met that would assure that the purposes of registration would be 
satisfied. The conditions are that repackaging of the registered bulk 
pesticides could involve nothing more than changing the product 
container; i.e., no change in: (1) The pesticide formulation, (2) the 
pesticide's labeling except to add an appropriate statement of net 
contents and a registered establishment number, and (3) the identity of 
the party accountable for the product's integrity.
    The Policy elaborated on the accountability requirement. The 
pesticide has to be: (1) Transferred at an establishment owned by the 
registrant, (2) transferred at a registered establishment operated by a 
person under contract with the registrant, or (3) transferred at a 
registered establishment owned by a party not under contract to the 
product registrant, but who had been furnished written authorization 
for use of the product label by the registrant. The requirement for 
written authorization assures that the registrant remains responsible 
for quality control of the product's composition and adequate labeling 
describing the product, its hazards, and its uses.
    The 1977 Policy only addressed the transfer of a volume of 
pesticide greater than 55 gallons or 100 pounds held in an individual 
container. In March 1991, the Policy was amended to allow repackaging 
of any quantity of pesticides into refillable containers, provided:
    (1) The container is designed and constructed to accommodate the 
return and refill of greater than 55 gallons of liquid or 100 pounds of 
dry material.
    (2) Either: (a) the containers are dedicated to and refilled with 
one specific active ingredient in a compatible formulation, or (b) the 
container is thoroughly cleaned according to written instructions 
provided by the registrant to the dealer prior to introducing another 
chemical into the container, in order to avoid cross-contamination.
    (3) All other conditions of the July 11, 1977 Policy are met (Ref. 
62).
    Container disposal is a growing problem in some areas of the 
country. The 1991 amendment to the Policy that allowed refillers to 
repackage less than 55 gallons of product into containers with 
capacities greater than 55 gallons was envisioned as a step toward 
encouraging greater use of refillable containers and thus reducing the 
number of containers for disposal.
    In FIFRA section 19(e), Congress directed EPA to promulgate 
container design regulations that facilitate safe reuse of containers, 
thus indicating that Congress considered encouraging the use of 
refillable containers important. Now that EPA is proposing container 
design standards for refillables and requirements for refillers, EPA 
believes it should expand the practice permitted by the Policy to allow 
repackaging into any refillable container that meets the part 165 
standards. Accordingly, EPA intends to replace the Bulk Pesticides 
Enforcement Policy with Sec. 165.129. The proposed Sec. 165.129 
provides that a registrant may allow a refiller to repackage the 
registrant's pesticide product into any size refillable container and 
to distribute or sell such repackaged product under the registrant's 
registration, provided all conditions set out in the rule are met. In 
other words, the refiller would not have to obtain a separate 
registration to distribute or sell the repackaged product.
    One of the proposed conditions is that the transfer of the 
pesticide product into refillable containers must be done at a 
registered establishment. This is based on the regulations at 40 CFR 
part 167, governing registration of establishments, which require that 
repackaging of pesticides occur at registered establishments. 
Registrants, distributors, or dealers who deliver pesticides to farmers 
or other end users are responsible for assuring that the site where the 
transfer occurs is a registered establishment.
    The proposed rule would not change the existing law; the Bulk 
Pesticides Enforcement Policy would be replaced by a regulation. The 
registrant would remain responsible for the integrity, labeling, and 
packaging of the repackaged product. Both the registrant and refiller 
may be held liable for violations pertaining to the repackaged 
pesticide. For example, the registrant and the refiller both would be 
responsible if the product was adulterated. Both the refiller and the 
registrant would be the ``person'' who distributed or sold an 
adulterated product. The registrant would be responsible because the 
registrant authorized the refiller to repackage the pesticide. The 
proposed requirements in Sec. Sec. 165.130 and 165.134 would address 
the responsibilities of registrants and refillers for labeling, 
container inspection, and residue removal. In order to assure the 
registrant's accountability for the repackaged product, EPA is 
considering adding to Sec. 165.129 a requirement that registrants 
submit to EPA an acknowledgement that: (1) They have entered into a 
repackaging agreement with a refiller and (2) they are responsible for 
the integrity of the repackaged product.
    The Bulk Pesticides Enforcement Policy would remain in effect until 
the date specified for compliance in Sec. 165.139, at which point it 
would be rescinded.
    Proposed Sec. 165.129 would apply to registrants authorizing 
distributors and/or dealers (refillers) to repackage the registrants' 
registered pesticide products into refillable containers. Refillers 
operating under contract to a registrant and refillers operating under 
written authorization by a registrant would be regulated the same under 
subpart G. Section 165.129 would not apply to registrants repackaging 
their own pesticide products solely at their own establishments. Under 
40 CFR 152.46(b), the registrant can modify the package size and label 
net contents statement without notifying EPA. This would be an 
amendment to the registration not requiring EPA notification or 
approval.
    As a result of recent compliance monitoring efforts, EPA has 
received information that indicates there may be a significant 
contamination problem with repackaged products. Despite considering it 
desirable to encourage the use of refillable containers as outlined in 
Unit V.B.8.a of this preamble, EPA may consider the alternative of not 
allowing the practice of bulk repackaging to continue, and invites 
comments and information on contamination incidents or other problems 
associated with bulk repackaging. If registrants could not authorize 
repackaging of their pesticides by refillers, then refillers would have 
to obtain a registration to sell or distribute the repackaged product.
    As producers, registrants and refillers are required to comply with 
the section 8 recordkeeping and section 7 reporting regulations in 40 
CFR parts 169 and 167, respectively.
    11. Registrant responsibilities concerning refilling activities. 
Section 165.130 would prescribe the requirements for registrants to 
promote safe refilling and reuse of containers. These requirements 
would include providing refillers with written authorization or a 
written contract, developing a written refilling residue removal 
procedure for each product, developing a written list of acceptable 
containers for each product, and ensuring that the label and labeling, 
residue removal procedure, and acceptable container list are available 
at the establishments where the registrant's product is repackaged into 
refillable containers.
    Note that registrants also would be subject to the proposed 
requirements in Sec. 165.134 for all refilling operations they conduct. 
Additionally, repackaging by the registrant must be done at a 
registered establishment, as required by 40 CFR part 167. Currently, 
the Bulk Pesticides Enforcement Policy provides an exemption from the 
requirement for the transfer of pesticides to be conducted at 
registered establishments for registrants that deliver bulk pesticides 
directly to commercial applicators, if the pesticides are metered off 
into the applicator's tanks without being put into a dealer's holding 
tank. EPA sees no reason to continue this exception from the registered 
establishment requirement. Accordingly, when the Bulk Pesticides 
Enforcement Policy is rescinded, this practice will no longer be 
allowed. EPA requests comments on the effect of discontinuing this 
exception.
    The proposed Sec. 165.130(a) would set out the general 
responsibilities of a registrant. Under Sec. 165.130(a)(1), a 
registrant would be required to provide a written contract or a written 
authorization to a refiller prior to distribution or sale of the 
pesticide product to the refiller. The requirement for the written 
contract or written authorization would not apply if the registrant of 
the repackaged product is the sole refiller.
    Proposed Sec. 165.130(a)(2) would hold the registrant responsible 
for product integrity of the pesticide product repackaged by the 
refiller under written authorization or contract. Product integrity 
means that the pesticide product is not adulterated or different from 
the composition as described in the statement submitted by the 
registrant in connection with registration under section 3 of FIFRA. 
This proposed requirement reflects current law. Under FIFRA section 
12(a)(1), it is unlawful for any person to distribute or sell to any 
person a pesticide which is adulterated or whose composition differs 
from the composition described in the statement required in connection 
with registration. Both the registrants and the refillers are selling 
or distributing the product. The registrant is responsible because the 
registrant has authorized the refiller to repackage the registrant's 
pesticide product and to use the registrant's label according to the 
terms of the written authorization or contract. The registrant remains 
accountable for its repackaged product which is distributed or sold in 
the refillable container.
    Registrants have raised the issue of whether there should be an 
exception from liability for adulteration or contamination of the 
pesticide product if registrants can show that the adulteration or 
contamination occurred solely because of actions or lack of actions by 
the refiller. EPA believes it is appropriate for registrants to be held 
responsible for acts by the refillers because the repackaging is being 
done under the registrant's registration and the refillers are agents 
of the registrants for purposes of carrying out the written 
authorization or contract.
    Proposed Sec. 165.130(b) would require registrants to develop 
written procedures for residue removal from refillable containers in 
preparation for refilling (the refilling residue removal procedure) and 
written lists of acceptable containers. Both the residue removal 
procedures and acceptable container lists would be product-specific. 
Section 165.130(b) would apply to registrants who distribute or sell 
pesticide products to refillers for repackaging into refillable 
containers and to registrants who distribute or sell pesticide products 
in refillable containers.
    Under Sec. 165.130(b)(1), registrants would be required to develop 
a written refilling residue removal procedure for each pesticide 
product. The refilling residue removal procedure would describe the 
procedures for removing pesticide residues from a container before it 
is refilled with the registrant's product.
    Proposed Sec. 165.130(b)(1)(i) would set the performance standard 
for residue removal before refilling a container. Specifically, 
Sec. 165.130(b)(1) would require the refilling residue removal 
procedure to be adequate to ensure that the composition of the 
pesticide does not differ at the time of its distribution or sale from 
its composition as described in the statement required in connection 
with its registration. To obtain a registration, applicants must submit 
a statement of formula and product chemistry data that includes, among 
other things, certified limits for active ingredients, inerts, and 
impurities of toxicological significance (40 CFR part 158). 
Additionally, any impurity that exceeds 0.1 percent by weight of the 
active ingredient must be identified and the nominal concentration of 
the impurity in the product must be furnished [40 CFR 158.155(d)].
    If any impurity were to be introduced into the pesticide 
formulation from some external source, such as the previous product in 
the container, the result could be adulteration of the pesticide 
product. Contamination from previous pesticide formulations is a 
concern with refillable containers.
    Contamination of pesticides from failure to clean out previously 
held pesticides properly can lead to crop damage, residues exceeding 
the tolerances, or illegal applications of pesticides to foods for 
which there are no tolerances. This could lead to unanticipated risks 
from the use of the pesticide. Also, such contamination from 
mismanagement of refillable containers could be very costly, due to 
reimbursing growers for crops that have been damaged and/or cannot be 
sold.
    In 1990, Iowa ran a pilot project in which dealers were allowed to 
repackage less than 56 gallons of product into containers with 
capacities of 56 gallons or larger (Ref. 32). As part of the project, 
the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship sampled 
representative minibulks to test the product repackaged into the 
container for the presence of the active ingredient(s) previously in 
the container.
    Twelve minibulk containers were tested and 4 of the 12 were 
determined to be contaminated (i.e., they contained active ingredients 
other than those specified on the containers' labels). No contamination 
from the previous active ingredient was detected in six samples. 
Contamination of the active ingredient could not be determined in two 
other samples, because the second pesticide product contained the same 
active ingredient as the previous product. Of the four contaminated 
samples, the active ingredient previously contained in the minibulk was 
detected in two. The other two samples, both from the same dealer, were 
contaminated with an active ingredient other than that of the 
previously held product.
    Despite the limited number of containers sampled, the Iowa project 
shows that there can be a problem with contamination and product 
integrity with refillable containers.
    As a result of recent compliance monitoring efforts, EPA has 
received information that indicates there may be a significant 
contamination problem with repackaged products. The results of sampling 
pesticides in refillable containers in Region 7 indicated that about 60 
percent of the samples from bulk storage tanks contained contamination 
and about 80 percent of the samples from minibulk containers contained 
contamination (Ref. 7).
    Contamination of a pesticide in the refillable container that 
results from the container not being properly cleaned before refilling 
would be a violation of FIFRA section 12(a)(1)(E) if the pesticide is 
adulterated, or section 12(a)(1)(C) if the product composition differs 
from the registered product.
    Another possible source of contamination is the use of common 
piping, pumps, meters and discharges hoses to distribute pesticide 
product from bulk tanks. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture 
conducted a survey of 40 refillers in Minnesota and found that 29 of 
these facilities had dedicated (separate) plumbing systems, while 11 
had common plumbing systems (Ref. 35). If the pipes, pumps, meters and 
hoses are not properly purged between transfers, the residue from the 
first product can contaminate the second product. EPA requests comments 
on the potential contribution of common plumbing systems to 
contamination and whether EPA should address plumbing systems in the 
final rule.
    Under proposed Sec. 165.130(b)(1)(ii), if the refilling residue 
removal procedure requires the use of a solvent other than the diluent 
used for application of the pesticide as specified on the label under 
``Directions for Use,'' or if there is no diluent used for application 
(examples: granules, some ultra-low-volume concentrates), the refilling 
residue removal procedure would be required to describe how to manage 
the rinsate resulting from the procedure in accordance with applicable 
Federal and State regulations. The rinsate management instructions are 
intended to encourage the reuse of rinsates by application in 
accordance with label instructions, rather than having to dispose of 
them. In situations where registrants recommend or require cleaning 
with a solvent that would result in rinsate that could not be applied 
to any labeled site, registrants would have to describe how to manage 
that rinsate. An example of acceptable rinsate management instructions 
for a solvent that can be reused to rinse containers would be: 
``Collect the solvent solution in a designated container and reuse it 
to clean other containers. After using the solvent to clean 25 
containers, contact the registrant for disposal instructions.''
    The requirement for a residue removal procedure in proposed 
Sec. 165.130(b)(1) would apply only to cleaning the containers before 
they are to be refilled. Residue removal prior to disposal (by users or 
refillers) is addressed in the proposed modifications to labels in part 
156 of this chapter (see the discussion in Unit VII.B.7 of this 
preamble). Proposed Sec. 156.144(e)(2) would require registrants to 
provide a label statement giving instructions on cleaning refillable 
containers prior to disposal.
    Proposed Sec. 156.144(e)(2) would allow the registrant a number of 
options for a residue removal label statement, as long as the chosen 
procedure is appropriate for the characteristics and formulation of the 
pesticide product and is adequate to protect human health and the 
environment, as provided in Sec. 156.144(e)(2)(ii).
    One option under Sec. 156.144(e)(2)(iii)(A) would be the refilling 
residue removal procedure developed by the registrant. EPA anticipates 
that in most cases registrants would be able to use the same procedure 
for residue removal both before refilling and prior to disposal, 
although the language placed on the label for cleaning prior to 
disposal would most likely be a condensed and simplified version of the 
refilling residue removal procedure. EPA believes that residue removal 
procedures sufficient to ensure that the product subsequently sold in a 
container would not differ from its composition as described as a 
condition of registration most likely would clean containers well 
enough to be safely disposed, whether that would be recycling, 
incinerating, landfilling, or another management option. EPA 
anticipates that the procedures proposed by registrants for the label 
would generally provide for triple rinsing or the equivalent degree of 
pesticide removal from refillable containers.
    Under Sec. 156.144(e)(2)(iii)(B), registrants also could base their 
label language on standard industry practices that they use to prevent 
adulteration during refilling, as long as the general standard is met.
    Proposed Sec. 156.144(e)(2)(iii)(C) includes a potentially 
acceptable label statement for residue removal from refillable 
containers prior to disposal. EPA developed this statement by compiling 
key components of current industry practices. The residue removal 
procedure described in Sec. 156.144(e)(2)(iii)(C) would include filling 
the container 10 percent full with water, agitating the container 
vigorously or recirculating the water with the pump, emptying the 
container and repeating the process two more times. This procedure 
involves rinsing the refillable container three times, although it is 
different from the description of triple rinsing for nonrefillable 
containers as proposed in Sec. Sec. 156.144(d)(1)(ii)(A) and (iii)(A). 
EPA believes that the procedure for cleaning refillable containers in 
proposed Sec. 156.144(e)(2)(iii)(C) would provide for triple rinsing or 
the equivalent degree of pesticide removal from the refillable 
container.
    Finally, the registrant could propose a different residue removal 
statement that the registrant considers appropriate.
    The proposed approach for cleaning refillable containers before 
disposal is different from that of nonrefillable containers. At this 
time, EPA is not proposing to set a numerical performance standard for 
the amount of residue that can remain in a refillable container. EPA 
does not have sufficient information on the amount of residue remaining 
after refillable containers are cleaned. Also, currently there are no 
established, standardized refillable container cleaning procedures 
which would assist in developing the data to set a laboratory 
performance standard.
    The situation with refillable containers does not parallel that 
with nonrefillables because of the larger range of sizes for the 
refillable containers that may be used to distribute or sell the 
pesticides. The effectiveness of cleaning a container, if measured by 
the concentration of pesticide in the rinsate, depends on the amount of 
product retained when the container initially is emptied. The amount of 
product retained depends, in part, on the internal surface area of the 
container, which is related to the container size. Different procedures 
may be necessary or appropriate, depending on the size of the 
containers. For example, residue removal procedures for cleaning a 110-
gallon liquid minibulk container may not be appropriate for a 10,000-
gallon liquid bulk container. Similarly, a given residue removal 
standard may be appropriate for a limited range of container sizes. For 
example, EPA expects that larger nonrefillable containers, such as 
drums, may have difficulty meeting the residue removal standard in 
Sec. 165.104. (See the discussion in Unit IV.B.7 of this preamble).
    EPA also anticipates that, unlike nonrefillable containers, many 
plastic refillable containers will be incinerated rather than recycled. 
Metal refillables can be recycled at steel reclamation facilities. 
Because the incineration of plastic containers and the recycling of 
metal containers occur at high temperatures that offer a high degree of 
pesticide destruction, the amount of pesticide remaining in the 
containers may not be as crucial.
    Unit VII.B.4.a of this preamble discusses the proposed label 
statement that would require end users to rinse nonrefillable 
containers immediately after emptying out the useful contents of the 
container. EPA is not proposing to require cleaning refillable 
containers immediately upon emptying the useful contents. It may not be 
practical to require refillables to be cleaned immediately since the 
refillers, the parties required to clean the refillable containers, are 
generally not the people emptying the containers. In addition, EPA is 
not as concerned about pesticide product drying inside a refillable 
container because the container should remain closed until the refiller 
is ready to clean and/or refill it.
    Therefore, EPA believes it is appropriate to regulate residue 
removal from refillable containers differently than residue removal 
from nonrefillable containers, and specifically, not to set a 
performance standard for refillable containers at this time. However, 
EPA also believes that refillable containers, like nonrefillables, 
should be designed to facilitate draining and residue removal. To 
accomplish this, EPA is considering the development of a laboratory 
residue removal procedure and a numerical standard for refillable 
containers. EPA requests comment on the appropriateness of the proposed 
approach to regulating residue removal from refillable containers 
before disposal. EPA also solicits comments on the possibility of 
setting a numerical residue standard for refillable containers and 
suggestions for developing such a standard.
    Proposed Sec. 165.130(b)(2) would require registrants to develop a 
written list of acceptable containers (bulk and minibulk) for each 
registered product. Proposed Sec. 165.130(b)(2)(i) would specify that 
acceptable containers would be those that the registrant has identified 
as meeting the standards in Sec. 165.124 and being compatible with the 
pesticide formulation to which the written list of acceptable 
containers applies. Registrants would have to determine which 
containers would be compatible with each formulation so as to reduce 
the possibility of an adverse interaction between the formulation and 
container. Product-specific lists of acceptable containers would be 
required because of the requirement for the container and formulation 
to be compatible.
    The concept of compatibility between a container and formulation is 
the same for refillable and nonrefillable containers and is discussed 
in Unit IV.B.3 of this preamble.
    Section 165.130(b)(2)(ii) would require the registrant to identify 
the containers by specifying, at a minimum, the container's 
manufacturer and model number. This scheme of specifying containers 
would provide a relatively simple way for registrants, refillers, and 
inspectors to identify containers.
    The proposed definition of container in Sec. 165.3 would include 
some spray applicator tanks. EPA has received reports that some 
refillers transfer product directly into farmers' spray applicator 
tanks. Under the proposed regulation, this practice could take place 
only if a farmer's spray applicator tank was included on a registrant's 
written list of acceptable containers. EPA believes that it is unlikely 
that a registrant would include spray applicator tanks on a list of 
acceptable containers. EPA is considering prohibiting registrants from 
including spray applicator tanks on their written list of acceptable 
containers because EPA does not believe that having a refiller 
repackage product directly into a farmer's spray applicator tank is a 
safe practice. EPA requests comments on whether the regulations should 
be revised to prohibit registrants from including spray applicator 
tanks on their list of acceptable containers.
    Proposed Sec. 165.130(c) would require registrants to provide 
certain documentation to refillers. Specifically, a registrant whose 
pesticide product is repackaged by a refiller into refillable 
containers would be required to provide refillers with all of the 
documentation described in Sec. 165.130(c)(2). A registrant would be 
required to provide the documentation before or at the time of sale or 
distribution of the pesticide product to the refiller.
    By proposed Sec. 165.130(c)(2), a registrant would be required to 
provide a refiller with: (1) The written refilling residue removal 
procedure for the pesticide product; (2) the written list of acceptable 
containers for the product; and (3) the pesticide product's label and 
labeling.
    The requirement for the registrant to provide labels and labeling 
to refillers would help ensure that the end user receives relevant 
product information. The refiller would attach the label to the 
container into which the product is repackaged. Refillers would need a 
copy of the label and labeling for each container used to distribute or 
sell the registrant's product.
    The other documentation, i.e., the refilling residue removal 
procedure and the list of acceptable containers, would be required to 
be provided to refillers to ensure that the refillers have the 
information necessary to refill and reuse the containers safely.
    12. Registrant recordkeeping and inspection. Section 165.132 would 
specify the recordkeeping requirements for registrants. The specific 
recordkeeping requirements would be different for registrants who 
distribute or sell pesticide products in refillable containers (i.e., 
those who refill themselves) and registrants who distribute or sell 
pesticide products to refillers for repackaging into refillable 
containers. A distinction is made between these two groups because 
different records and different lengths of time for record retention 
are appropriate for each group. However, in both cases, the registrants 
would be required to make the records available for inspection and 
copying and to furnish them to EPA upon request.
    By Sec. 165.132(a), a registrant who distributes or sells a 
pesticide product to a refiller for repackaging into refillable 
containers would be required to maintain the records for as long as the 
pesticide is distributed or sold to a refiller, and for 3 years 
thereafter. These registrants would be required to maintain copies of: 
(1) Each written authorization or written contract provided to a 
refiller for repackaging the registrant's pesticide product into 
refillable containers, (2) the written refilling residue removal 
procedure for the pesticide product, and (3) the written list of 
acceptable containers for the pesticide product.
    Section 165.132(b) would require a registrant who distributes or 
sells a pesticide product in refillable containers to maintain the 
records for as long as the registrant distributes or sells the product 
in refillable containers, and for 3 years thereafter. These registrants 
would maintain the same records, except for the written authorizations.
    13. Refiller responsibilities and procedures. Section 165.134 would 
set out the responsibilities of a refiller that are intended to ensure 
a sufficient degree of product and container integrity. EPA is 
proposing these procedural requirements for refillers because the 
refillers are actually doing the refilling and container handling.
    The requirements of Sec. 165.134 would apply to all refilling 
operations, which could include any of the following situations: (1) A 
registrant refilling a container for a refiller who is operating under 
contract to or authorization from that registrant, (2) a refiller 
operating under contract to or authorization from a registrant 
refilling a container for an end user (regardless of the establishment 
where that refilling takes place), and (3) a registrant refilling a 
container for an end user (regardless of the establishment where that 
refilling takes place). EPA requests comments on whether the proposed 
requirements are appropriate in all of these situations.
    Custom blenders provide the service of mixing pesticides with 
fertilizer, feed, or another pesticide to a customer's specification. 
(See 40 CFR 167.3). Custom blenders that fill refillable containers at 
the end user's request with a blended mixture of pesticide would be 
refillers under subpart G and subject to the refiller responsibilities 
and procedures in Sec. 165.134. Although EPA has limited information 
about the practices of custom blenders, EPA recognizes that some of the 
proposed requirements in Sec. 165.134 may cause problems for custom 
blenders. For example, custom blenders may blend a pesticide that they 
obtained in nonrefillable containers, and therefore the registrant may 
not have developed a list of acceptable containers or written residue 
removal procedures.
    For the final rule, EPA is considering two options: (1) Issue a 
regulation on refilling practices that is tailored specifically to 
custom blenders that distribute pesticide mixtures, or (2) exempt 
custom blenders from the requirements of subpart G. The latter option 
would be consistent with EPA's past practice. Currently, custom 
blenders are exempted from the establishment registration requirements 
and the production reporting requirements in part 167. However, custom 
blenders that fill refillable containers with blended pesticides for an 
end user are performing activities very similar to dealers that are 
repackaging pesticides into smaller refillable containers for end use. 
EPA has the same concerns about contamination of the repackaged 
pesticide, and the integrity of the container for custom blends as for 
other pesticides being repackaged in refillable containers. 
Additionally, custom blenders would be subject to the secondary 
containment requirements being proposed in subpart H. EPA requests that 
commenters provide information on how the requirements of Sec. 165.134 
could be revised to address the specific practices of custom blenders.
    If the final rule regulates the refilling practices of custom 
blenders and requires that the repackaging of the pesticide by custom 
blenders occur only at registered establishments, Sec. 167.20, which 
exempts custom blenders from the establishment registration 
requirement, would be amended to be consistent with the part 165 
requirements.
    Section 165.134(a) would require a refiller to possess certain 
items from a registrant before repackaging the registrant's pesticide 
product into refillable containers. These items include the written 
authorization or contract and other information that the registrant 
would be required to provide to the refiller as specified in 
Sec. 165.130. Registrants and refillers would be jointly responsible 
for the exchange of these items; registrants would be responsible for 
providing them and refillers would be responsible for obtaining them.
    By proposed Sec. 165.134(a), a refiller would be required to 
possess: (1) The written authorization or contract from the pesticide 
product's registrant, if required, (2) the product's label and 
labeling, (3) the registrant's written refilling residue removal 
procedure for the pesticide product, and (4) the registrant's written 
list of acceptable containers for the pesticide product.
    The written authorization or contract would be required if the 
refiller is repackaging the pesticide product for the registrant under 
the conditions of Sec. 165.129. A written authorization or contract 
would not be required if the registrant of the product is the refiller, 
as discussed in Unit V.B.11 of this preamble.
    These items are necessary for different reasons. As discussed 
earlier, a written authorization or a written contract is necessary for 
the refiller to be able to rely on the registrant's registration to 
repackage the registrant's pesticide product for distribution or sale. 
Requiring the refillers to obtain the product's labeling would assure 
that the label for the registered products would be available for the 
refilled container. The written refilling residue removal procedure for 
the pesticide product would provide instructions so that the refiller 
would know how to clean the containers. The written list of acceptable 
containers is necessary so the refiller would know which containers 
could be used for repackaging a registrant's product.
    Section 165.134(b) would clarify that a refiller is responsible for 
the product integrity of the pesticide product that the refiller 
repackages into refillable containers. By product integrity, EPA means 
that the pesticide product must not be adulterated or differ from the 
composition as described in the registrant's statement submitted in 
connection with registration under section 3 of the Act. Refillers 
would be responsible for product integrity in addition to the 
registrants, as specified in Sec. 165.130(a)(2).
    EPA considered exempting refillers from responsibility for the 
product integrity under a narrow range of conditions. Specifically, EPA 
considered an exemption from responsibility for product integrity if 
the refiller could show that it repackaged the product into a container 
on the registrant's list of acceptable containers for the product, 
followed the registrant's refilling residue removal procedure for the 
product, and complied with the requirements of Sec. 165.134, including 
the container inspection procedure at Sec. 165.134(e). If these 
conditions were met, the refiller would have done everything according 
to the registrant's instructions. However, EPA rejected this idea. Even 
if the refiller followed the registrant's instructions and complies 
with the regulations, there could be other actions a refiller should 
have taken or refrained from taking to avoid contamination. 
Additionally, EPA believes that holding refillers responsible for 
product integrity for all repackaged product would improve product and 
container stewardship. EPA requests comments on the refiller's proposed 
responsibility for product integrity and on the exemption therefrom 
considered by EPA.
    Proposed Sec. 165.134(c) would set out several general conditions 
that a refiller must meet. Section 165.134(c)(1)(i) would require 
refillers to repackage a pesticide product only into a refillable 
container that is identified on the registrant's list of acceptable 
containers for that product. This requirement is included for 
enforcement purposes. If a refiller repackages a registrant's product 
into a container that is not on the list of acceptable containers, the 
refiller would violate proposed Sec. 165.134(c)(1)(i).
    Proposed Sec. 165.134(c)(1)(ii) would prohibit refillers from 
changing the pesticide formulation, unless the refiller has a 
registration for the new formulation. Refillers operating under written 
authorization or contract from a registrant would not be allowed to 
change the formulation, which is consistent with proposed 
Sec. 165.129(a).
    Section 165.134(c)(2) would refer refillers to the potentially 
applicable standards for secondary containment units and containment 
pads located in proposed subpart H of part 165. EPA believes that 
secondary containment structures and containment pads are necessary for 
the safe reuse and refill of containers, as described in Unit VI.A of 
this preamble, the background discussion for subpart H. As discussed 
briefly in Unit V.B.6 of this preamble, the scope and applicability of 
subpart G (refillable containers) and subpart H (containment 
structures) are different. For example, the requirements of proposed 
Sec. 165.134 would apply to refillers, which include both registrants 
and pesticide retailers. However, proposed Sec. 165.141(b) would 
specify that subpart H applies to refilling establishments whose 
principal business is retail, i.e., only a subset of refillers' 
facilities.
    Section 165.134(d) would require a refiller to identify the 
pesticide product previously contained in the refillable container. The 
refiller could identify the previous product by reference to the label 
or labeling. The purpose of this requirement is to determine whether a 
residue removal procedure would have to be conducted according to 
Sec. 165.134(g).
    Section 165.134(e) would require refillers to inspect each 
refillable container before repackaging a pesticide product into that 
container. Container inspections would promote the refilling of sound 
containers, which is necessary for safely refilling and reusing 
containers. The container design standards, such as the drop test for 
minibulks, would ensure that the containers had a certain minimum 
degree of strength. However, having a container design type that passes 
the relevant drop test does not ensure that a container will remain 
sound after years of use.
    The condition and integrity of a refillable container may be 
affected by factors specific to that container and its history, such as 
the original design, the material(s) of construction, storage and 
handling conditions, and exposure to sunlight, precipitation, and 
temperature extremes. Industry representatives and container users have 
expressed concern regarding the effect of ultraviolet light on the 
integrity of plastic refillable containers that are exposed to sunlight 
for extended periods of time. Ultraviolet light can cause stress 
cracking on the surface of plastic containers and can cause the 
containers to become brittle.
    EPA believes that the inspection of containers each time they are 
refilled is necessary to detect problems with each specific container. 
Section 165.134(e) would specify the conditions under which a container 
would fail an inspection. The inspection primarily would be to make 
sure the container does not have any major structural problems. The 
person doing the inspection would not need to be a packaging expert.
    The visual inspection would be expected to consist of at least the 
following three steps. First, the exterior and interior (if possible) 
of the refillable container and the exterior of the appurtenances would 
be visually inspected for signs of corrosion or ultraviolet light 
damage; structural defects, such as cracks, holes, dents, defective 
welds, or weakened welds; and damage to the fittings, valves, tamper-
evident devices, or other appurtenances that could affect the integrity 
of the container. Second, the exterior of the container would be 
visually inspected to determine if the information proposed to be 
marked permanently on the container in Sec. 165.124(b) is present and 
legible. Third, liquid minibulk containers would be visually inspected 
to determine if each appurtenance has an intact and functioning one-way 
valve and/or a tamper-evident device.
    Proposed Sec. 165.134(e) would prohibit a refiller from repackaging 
product into a refillable container that fails the inspection. 
Paragraphs 165.134(e)(1)(i) through (e)(1)(iii) set out the conditions 
that define how a container fails the inspection.
    By proposed Sec. 165.134(e)(1)(i), a container would fail the 
inspection if there is significant corrosion or ultraviolet light 
damage. The term ``significant'' is included to differentiate between 
small rust spots and an amount of corrosion or ultraviolet light damage 
that could cause the container to leak under a reasonably expected 
jolt, such as a drop of several inches on its base.
    Under proposed Sec. 165.134(e)(1)(ii), a container would fail the 
inspection if there are structural defects including, but not limited 
to, significant cracks, visible holes, bad dents, defective welds, or 
weakened welds. Again, ``significant'' is included to differentiate 
minor surface stress cracks from cracks that compromise the ability of 
the container to hold the product. ``Visible holes'' could cause 
product to leak from the container; these are different from tiny 
pinholes that are not visible. ``Bad'' is included to differentiate 
between minor indentations and dents that may indicate that the 
container may not be able to contain the product. A similar criterion, 
i.e., whether or not the container could hold product under reasonably 
foreseeable conditions, can be applied to determine if welds are 
``defective'' or ``weakened.''
    By Sec. 165.134(e)(1)(iii), a container would fail the inspection 
if there is damage to any of the fittings, valves, tamper-evident 
devices, or other appurtenances that could affect the integrity of the 
container. The criterion of whether or not the container could hold 
product under reasonably foreseeable conditions can be applied to 
determine if there has been damage that would cause the container to 
fail the inspection.
    By Sec. 165.134(e)(2), a container would fail the inspection if the 
information required in Sec. 165.124(b) to be permanently marked on the 
refillable container is not legible or is not permanently marked on the 
refillable container. This criterion for failing the inspection is 
included because if this information is not readily available, the 
refiller may not have the information necessary to refill and reuse the 
container safely. This part of the inspection also would affirm that 
the container meets the Sec. 165.124 container design requirements.
    Under Sec. 165.134(e)(3), a container would fail the inspection if 
the refillable container is a liquid minibulk container and it does not 
have an intact and functioning one-way valve or a tamper-evident device 
on each aperture.
    EPA understands that many of the proposed criteria for defining 
when a container fails the inspection, such as ``significant corrosion 
or ultraviolet light damage,'' ``significant cracks,'' and ``bad 
dents'' are subjective. EPA requests comment on whether the proposed 
criteria are appropriate and whether they are written in a manner that 
can distinguish between containers that are and are not acceptable to 
be refilled.
    A part of the container inspection procedure would include looking 
at the date of manufacture of the container, which would be required as 
permanent marking. Under proposed Sec. 165.134(f), a refiller would be 
prohibited from repackaging pesticide product into a plastic liquid 
minibulk container more than 6 years after the date of manufacture of 
the container, which would limit the lifetime of these containers. The 
6-year limit is intended to give plastic liquid minibulks a year to get 
into the pesticide distribution chain and a 5-year lifetime.
    EPA is concerned about the long-term durability of plastic minibulk 
containers. From many discussions with industry representatives, 5 
years is generally accepted as a ``safe'' lifetime of one of these 
containers. As discussed in the Report to Congress (Ref. 65), many 
minibulk containers have been in the field successfully for 5 years 
(since the late 1980s). However, after that point, the integrity of the 
container is questionable. Several registrants have instituted programs 
to pull the 1980s models from the field and replace them with new 
minibulks.
    Limiting the lifetime of plastic minibulks is consistent with the 
recommendations in both the MACA-75 voluntary industry standards and 
U.N. Recommendations for rigid plastic IBCs. For example, section 
16.4.11.1 (regarding specific requirements for rigid plastic IBCs) of 
the U.N. Recommendations (Ref. 76) states, ``Unless otherwise approved 
by the competent authority, the period of use permitted for the 
transport of dangerous liquids should be five years from the date of 
manufacture of the receptacle except where a shorter period of use is 
prescribed because of the nature of the liquid to be transported.''
    EPA is considering incorporating into the regulations a waiver that 
would allow plastic liquid minibulk container design types to be used 
for longer than 6 years. The waiver would be for a specific time period 
based on information submitted by the registrant. It is possible that 
future plastic liquid minibulk containers may be significantly better 
than current designs due to improvements in technology, such as a new 
resin or a different manufacturing method. To EPA's knowledge, nearly 
all plastic liquid minibulk containers are constructed of linear high 
density polyethylene (HDPE) or cross-linked HDPE and are manufactured 
by either a blow molding process or a rotational molding process. It is 
possible that a change in either the plastic resin used and/or the 
manufacturing process could lead to a significant change in the 
sturdiness and durability of the containers.
    Some of the potential criteria EPA could use for evaluating 
requests for waivers from the 6-year lifetime limit include whether the 
container design type: (1) is constructed of a plastic resin other than 
linear HDPE or cross-linked HDPE that can be shown to be more durable 
and sturdy; (2) is manufactured by a process other than blow molding or 
rotational molding that can be shown to be more durable and sturdy; or 
(3) utilizes some other advance that contributes to a significant 
increase in the sturdiness and durability of the containers. In 
addition, EPA would expect the registrant to provide data, a revised 
container lifetime expectancy and a justification for the different 
life span. EPA would have to review and approve the waiver before the 
design type could be added to the registrant's list of acceptable 
refillable containers. EPA requests comments on whether such a waiver 
should be included in the final rule and, if so, whether the approval 
criteria discussed above are appropriate or if they should be modified.
    EPA is also considering an option of allowing plastic liquid 
minibulk containers to be tested after the 6-year lifetime has expired 
in order to extend the useful life of the container. EPA realizes that 
a container that is handled carefully and protected from detrimental 
conditions (such as extremely hot temperatures, freezing conditions, 
precipitation and sunlight) may be able to continue to be used safely 
for more than 6 years. Specifically, EPA is considering incorporating a 
test procedure similar to the DOT retest procedure set out in 49 CFR 
173.32(e). Section 173.32(e) of the DOT hazardous materials regulations 
specifies that a pressure test and a visual inspection of the container 
under pressure be conducted at a specified time interval (every 1, 2 or 
5 years depending on the container type). The pressure test specified 
in the DOT regulations is a relatively simple and inexpensive test that 
utilizes a small air compressor (if air is to be used) or the existing 
water line (if water is to be used) to increase the pressure inside the 
container. The person who conducts the test must mark the test data on 
the container and maintain records of the test until the next test 
date.
    EPA requests comments on whether a similar test procedure should be 
incorporated into the final rule as a means to extend the life of 
individual plastic liquid minibulk containers. EPA also requests 
comments on the details of the test, such as: (1) Who should be allowed 
to conduct the testing (registrants and/or refillers?); (2) how long 
should the life of a container be extended if it passes the test (e.g., 
one or two years?); and (3) how should the extension of the container 
lifetime be indicated on the container? (e.g., should the test date be 
marked on the container or should a notation that specifies the ``new'' 
expiration date be marked on the container?).
    Section 165.134(g) would require the refiller to follow appropriate 
refilling residue removal procedures. This section describes the 
situations in which a refiller would have to clean containers before 
using them for repackaging pesticide products. Refillable containers 
would not always have to be cleaned before they are refilled. However, 
EPA is concerned that the pesticide product being repackaged into the 
container could become contaminated with impurities from previously 
contained products. EPA believes that specifying the conditions under 
which a refillable container needs to be cleaned would help minimize 
the potential for contamination. Also, specifying these conditions 
would set out consistent ground rules for when the refilling residue 
removal procedures would need to be conducted, which would benefit 
refillers.
    EPA also would like to minimize the amount of rinsate that is 
generated, which is consistent with EPA goals of waste minimization and 
pollution prevention. Management or disposal of the rinsate can be 
burdensome to a refiller. EPA believes that minimizing the cleaning of 
containers may help encourage refillable containers because it would be 
less burdensome for refillers in terms of rinsate management and 
handling costs. On the other hand, a desire to minimize container 
cleaning is secondary to maintaining the integrity of the products.
    When EPA amended the Bulk Pesticides Enforcement Policy in 1991 to 
allow repackaging of any quantity of pesticide product, EPA was 
concerned about contamination of the products sold in refillable 
containers (Ref. 62). To address this concern, the policy allows the 
repackaging of any quantity of a pesticide product into refillable 
containers, provided that either:
    (1) The containers are dedicated to and refilled with one specific 
active ingredient in a compatible formulation, or
    (2) The container is thoroughly cleaned according to written 
instructions provided by the registrant to the dealer prior to 
introducing another chemical to the container in order to avoid cross-
contamination. EPA proposes to follow this approach in Sec. 165.134(g), 
with some expansion.
    Section 165.134(g)(1) would specify that a refiller would have to 
conduct the pesticide product's refilling residue removal procedures 
before repackaging the pesticide product into a refillable container, 
except under the conditions specified in Sec. Sec. 165.134(g)(1)(i) - 
(iii). In general, refillers would be required to clean containers in 
situations other than those where a container previously held a product 
with a single active ingredient and is being used to repackage a 
product with the same active ingredient.
    If the three conditions specified in Sec. Sec. 165.134(g)(1)(i)-
(iii) are met, a refiller could repackage product into the container 
without conducting the refilling residue removal procedure.
    The first condition would be that each tamper-evident device is 
intact, if the refillable container has a tamper-evident device. An 
intact device would provide reasonable assurance to the refiller that 
the container had not been tampered with, and had contained only the 
product identified on the label.
    The second condition would be that the container previously held a 
product with a single active ingredient and is being used to repackage 
a product with the same single active ingredient.
    The third condition would be that there is no reaction or 
interaction between the product being repackaged and the residue 
remaining in the container that would cause the composition of the 
product being repackaged to differ from its composition as described in 
the statement required in connection with its registration under 
section 3 of the Act.
    Under the second and third conditions, a container could be 
refilled with the same product as it previously held or with a product 
that has the same active ingredient ``in a compatible formulation,'' as 
specified in the 1991 amendment to the Bulk Pesticide Enforcement 
Policy.
    EPA considered specifying other situations in which the refilling 
residue removal procedure would not have to be conducted. For example, 
if the original product contains one active ingredient and the 
container is to be refilled with a product with two active ingredients, 
including the one in the original formulation, there should be no 
contamination of the active ingredients. In this case, if the 
conditions in proposed Sec. Sec. 165.134(g)(1)(i) and (iii) were met, 
it may be that the container would not need to be rinsed. Nevertheless, 
to ensure product integrity, EPA is proposing a limited universe of 
situations where refilling is allowed without cleaning the container. 
In particular, EPA is concerned about the effect the inert ingredients 
may have in causing the product being sold in the refillable container 
to differ from the registered product.
    Proposed Sec. 165.134(g)(2) would state that in addition to 
conducting the refilling residue removal procedure, in all cases where 
the container has a broken (not intact) tamper-evident device, other 
procedures may need to be taken to assure that product integrity is 
maintained. EPA is concerned that the refilling residue removal 
procedure may not be thorough enough, because with broken tamper-
evident devices, a refiller would have no reasonable assurance about 
the identity of the container's previous contents. The container may 
have been used to store a substance other than a pesticide, such as 
gasoline or motor oil. EPA anticipates that refilling residue removal 
procedures developed by registrants will not be designed to account for 
situations such as these.
    EPA considered another option for cleaning containers with broken 
tamper-evident devices. EPA considered requiring the refiller to 
identify the container contents by sampling the residue remaining in 
the container, to clean the container if necessary, and to verify that 
the container has been sufficiently cleaned by sampling the residue in 
the container. EPA rejected this option because the refillers may not 
have the expertise to conduct the testing of the samples drawn from the 
residue and the testing could be costly. In addition, EPA does not have 
sufficient information to set a standard for what would be considered 
``sufficiently clean.''
    EPA requests comments on whether additional procedures beyond those 
set out in Sec. 165.134(g) are needed to clean containers with broken 
tamper-evident devices.
    Regardless of whether the container would be required to be cleaned 
or not, the product distributed or sold in the refillable container 
must not be contaminated so that it differs from the composition of the 
registered product, as discussed earlier. EPA is concerned that there 
may be a problem with the conditions proposed in Sec. 165.134(g) if a 
container previously holding a product with a high concentration of one 
active ingredient is to be refilled with a product having a 
significantly lower concentration of the same active ingredient. Such a 
container would not be required to be cleaned under the proposal (if 
the formulations were compatible and the container's tamper-evident 
devices were intact). The second formulation could differ from its 
composition defined in the registration statement not by a different 
active ingredient, but by the higher concentration that may result. In 
this case, the active ingredient may exceed its certified limits and 
could be subject to enforcement. EPA requests comments on the potential 
problem of significantly different concentrations of the same active 
ingredient.
    EPA also requests comments on whether the proposed conditions for 
conducting the refilling residue removal procedures are appropriate. 
The proposed conditions in Sec. 165.134(g) would apply to all types of 
refillable containers, as specified in the proposal. EPA requests 
comments on whether it is appropriate to subject liquid bulk containers 
to the same conditions as liquid minibulk containers.
    Section 165.134(h) would allow a refiller to repackage any quantity 
of pesticide product into a refillable container up to the rated 
capacity of the container. Currently, under the Bulk Pesticides 
Enforcement Policy, refillers can only repackage registered pesticide 
products into containers with capacities greater than 55 gallons liquid 
or 100 pounds of dry material. EPA believes that any container that 
meets the requirements of Sec. 165.124 can be safely refilled and 
reused, regardless of the capacity of the container.
    Smaller refillable containers are desirable for the many 
applications that do not require 55 gallons of pesticide, such as 
treatments of small fields and uses of pesticides that are applied at 
low rates. Smaller refillables may become increasingly important if the 
trend toward selling more highly concentrated pesticide formulations 
continues.
    The provision to allow the repackaging of any quantity of product 
into a refillable container should lead to increased use of refillable 
containers, thereby decreasing the number of nonrefillable containers 
requiring disposal.
    EPA believes that by allowing any quantity of product to be 
repackaged into acceptable containers and not defining a minimum 
capacity for refillable containers, EPA will encourage the use of 
refillable containers. EPA requests comment on whether this is an 
accurate assessment of the effect of loosening the quantity 
restrictions involved with refilling.
    Section 165.134(i) would require a refiller to label the refilled 
container properly. A refiller would be required to securely attach the 
new label. The label would have to be attached in such a manner that 
the label can reasonably be expected to remain affixed during the 
foreseeable conditions and period of use. EPA expects that a refiller 
would first remove the previous label and labeling, if any, to ensure 
that the pesticide product is not misbranded. The refiller would be 
attaching labels provided by the registrant of the pesticide product 
which is being repackaged. To comply with the labeling requirements of 
Sec. 156.10, the refiller would include the EPA assigned establishment 
number and the net contents statement. A pesticide product is 
considered misbranded if its label does not bear the registration 
number, assigned under section 7, of the establishment in which it was 
produced [FIFRA sec. 2(q)(1)(D)]. Also, it is misbranded if the net 
weight or measure of the contents is not affixed to the container 
[FIFRA sec. 2(q)(2)(C)(iii)]. The proposed blank spaces on the label 
would accommodate this information.
    14. Refiller recordkeeping and inspection. Section 165.136 
describes the records that a refiller would be required to maintain. 
Section 165.136(a) would require a refiller to maintain copies of the 
agreement and information obtained from each product's registrant. 
These records would be required to be maintained for as long as the 
refiller distributes or sells a pesticide product in refillable 
containers, and for 3 years thereafter. By proposed Sec. 165.136(a), a 
refiller would be required to maintain copies of: (1) The written 
contract or written authorization from the registrant of the pesticide 
product, as described in Sec. 165.129(a), (2) the registrant's written 
refilling residue removal procedure for the pesticide product, and (3) 
the registrant's written list of acceptable containers for the 
pesticide product.
    Section 165.136(b) describes the records that a refiller would be 
required to maintain each time a refillable container that has been 
used to distribute or sell a pesticide product is delivered to the 
refiller to be refilled. By proposed Sec. 165.136(b), the information 
would include the name and address of the person providing the 
refillable container, the serial number of the container, the date the 
container was received, and the name and EPA registration number of the 
pesticide that was last distributed or sold in the refillable 
container.
    These records would create a link between the container and the 
previous formulation sold in the container. These records, in addition 
to the records specified in proposed Sec. 165.136(c) which would link 
the container to the next product repackaged into it, would help assure 
the safe refill and reuse of containers. EPA believes the records in 
proposed Sec. Sec. 165.136(b) and (c) would minimize the potential for 
contamination of the product sold or distributed in the container and 
make the regulations more easily enforceable. For example, whether or 
not a refillable container needs to be cleaned depends on both the 
previous product and the product to be repackaged in that particular 
container. In general, the records in Sec. Sec. 165.136(b) and (c) are 
intended to ensure that a refiller effectively manages, handles, and 
tracks containers within its own facility by making available a minimum 
amount of information regarding the container's history.
    The records in Sec. 165.136(b) would have to be kept only for those 
containers that the refiller is going to refill; i.e., only those 
containers delivered to the refiller to be refilled. A refiller would 
not have to keep records for those refillable containers that the 
refiller returns to a registrant. In other words, this section would 
not establish a nationwide container tracking system.
    A log that includes the specified information would be sufficient 
to satisfy the requirements of proposed Sec. 165.136(b).
    Section 165.136(c) specifies the information a refiller would have 
to record and maintain each time a product is repackaged into a 
refillable container for sale or distribution. One record would be 
required for each container for each instance of filling or refilling. 
The records specified in proposed Sec. 165.136(c) generally are 
intended to verify that the refiller is complying with the Sec. 165.134 
requirements regarding containers, including repackaging, inspection, 
and residue removal.
    The first three pieces of information specified in proposed 
Sec. 165.136(c) would identify the specific sale or distribution of a 
pesticide product. These records would include: (1) The name, EPA 
registration number, and amount of the pesticide product distributed or 
sold in the refillable container, (2) the date of the distribution or 
sale, and (3) the name and address of the consignee. Section 
165.136(c)(4) would require a refiller to record the serial number of 
the container, which would link the specific pesticide formulation to a 
specific container.
    The connection between the specific product and the container in 
which it is sold or distributed is important in several ways. The 
records in proposed Sec. 165.136(c) would help substantiate that the 
refiller took proper steps in refilling containers. While the refiller 
would be required by proposed Sec. 165.134(i) to place its EPA 
establishment number on the label, the Sec. 165.136(c) records would 
provide a connection between the container, the product, and the 
refiller, in case the refiller did not put its EPA establishment number 
on the label or if the label fell off the container.
    In addition, the information required in Sec. 165.136(c)(1) through 
(c)(4) would allow an inspector to spot check whether the refiller is 
repackaging product only into refillable containers identified on the 
list of acceptable containers provided by the registrant, as required 
by proposed Sec. 165.134(c)(1)(i). An inspector could compare the 
refillable container (which would be permanently marked with the serial 
number and the model number) at the refiller's facility with the 
Sec. 165.136(c) records and the registrant's list of acceptable 
containers to determine compliance or noncompliance with proposed 
Sec. 165.134(c)(1)(i).
    Refillers may already be required to keep some of the information 
specified in Sec. 165.136(c) -- the identity and amount of the 
pesticide product, the date of distribution or sale and the identity of 
the consignee -- under 40 CFR part 169 or 40 CFR part 171. Section 
169.2(d) requires that this information be kept for the shipment of all 
pesticides, devices, and active ingredients used in producing 
pesticides; and, in states where EPA administers the certification 
plan, Sec. 171.11(g) requires restricted use pesticide dealers to 
maintain this information, for each transaction involving a restricted 
use pesticide.
    In general, a log that includes the specified information would be 
sufficient to satisfy the requirements of proposed Sec. 165.136(c).
    As specified in Sec. 165.136(c)(5), a refiller would be required to 
record that the container inspection procedure was conducted and the 
results of the inspection, which would indicate compliance with 
Sec. 165.134(e).
    Refillers would be required under Sec. 165.136(c)(6) to record 
whether a refilling residue removal procedure was conducted and if not, 
the reasons why the container was not cleaned. This information, in 
addition to the records specified in Sec. Sec. 165.136(b) and 
165.136(c)(1) through (c)(4), could be used to indicate whether the 
refiller cleans containers when necessary, as specified in 
Sec. 165.134(g).
    In addition, the information specified above -- whether a refilling 
residue removal procedure was conducted, the container identification, 
the previous product identification, and the repackaged product 
identification -- is important in case the product in the container is 
determined to be contaminated. This information could aid in 
determining who is responsible for contaminated product and how the 
product got contaminated.
    15. Compliance date. In section 19(e) of FIFRA, Congress directed 
EPA to promulgate container design regulations by December 24, 1991 and 
required compliance with these regulations by December 24, 1993. For 
the reasons set out in Unit IV.B.9 of this preamble for proposed 
subpart F, Sec. 165.139(a) would provide a period of 2 years after the 
date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register before 
compliance with subpart G would be required. This would apply to both 
the container design and the refilling requirements. In other words, 
within 2 years of the publication date of the final rule, pesticides 
could only be distributed or sold in containers that meet the 
requirements of subpart G. Also, within 2 years of the publication 
date, registrants and refillers would have to meet the refilling and 
recordkeeping requirements of subpart G. The Bulk Pesticides 
Enforcement Policy will be in effect until the compliance date; i.e., 2 
years after the final rule promulgating subpart G is published in the 
Federal Register.
    Proposed Sec. 165.139(b) would specify that certifications for 
pesticide products registered as of the publication date of the final 
rule would be required to be submitted to and received by EPA within 2 
years of the date subpart G is published as a final rule.
    EPA believes that a 2-year implementation period would provide 
enough time to comply with the procedural requirements of subpart G 
including the exchange of information between the registrant and the 
refiller.
    Container and equipment (e.g., pump and meter) manufacturers have 
indicated that it takes about a year for the designing and testing that 
is necessary to go from a set of specifications to a final product. 
Therefore, EPA does not anticipate a problem with the availability of 
acceptable containers and appurtenances.
    Additionally, EPA believes that many containers currently being 
used meet the proposed requirements, with the possible exception of 
some of the proposed permanent marking. EPA believes that existing 
containers that meet most of the standards (such as the drop test) can 
be retrofitted; e.g., permanently marked with information such as a 
serial number.
    EPA is concerned that there may be containers that could not be 
used after the 2-year phase-in period, although the containers may be 
structurally sound. For example, a sound minibulk container may not be 
permanently marked with the phrase ``Meets EPA standards for refillable 
pesticide containers'' and, for some reason, may not be able to be 
retrofitted. EPA is aware that prohibiting the use of containers such 
as these may create a disposal problem and cause a financial burden to 
the owners of these containers.
    One option EPA considered was a ``grandfather'' provision, which 
would allow existing containers to be used for a specified period of 
time, such as 5 years. However, the proposed regulatory scheme clearly 
makes registrants responsible for the containers in terms of both 
meeting the proposed standards of Sec. 165.124 and ensuring 
compatibility with the pesticide formulation. Extending an automatic 
regulatory exemption for existing refillable containers could allow a 
refiller to repackage a product into a container other than a container 
on the registrant's list of acceptable containers, if the registrant 
allowed its product to be distributed or sold in such containers. 
Therefore, EPA rejected the option of a grandfathering provision for 
all refillable containers because of the potential problems with 
incompatibility and substandard containers, as well as the possible 
confusion caused by inconsistency between the regulations and the 
registrant's list of acceptable containers.
    EPA also considered an option where registrants could 
``grandfather'' existing containers that met minimum standards. Under 
this option, EPA would allow registrants, under certain conditions, to 
have containers on their list of acceptable containers that don't meet 
all of the standards in Sec. 165.124. Some conditions that EPA might 
consider appropriate include: (1) The container is currently in use in 
the field, i.e., it is an ``existing'' container, (2) EPA approves a 
date suggested by the registrant, such as 5 years after the date the 
regulations are published, after which the container cannot be used. 
(Plastic minibulk containers could not be used after they are more than 
6 years old), and (3) the container meets a set of standards, that 
would have to be approved by EPA. While this option would provide a 
registrant some flexibility, it could still cause confusion for 
refillers who are trying to comply with the regulations. For example, 
if an existing container without a serial number was allowed to be 
used, the refiller could not comply with the recordkeeping 
requirements. In addition, this option could impose a considerable 
burden on EPA resources for administering an approval program for each 
registrant.
    EPA requests comment on whether a 2-year phase-in period for 
compliance with subpart G is appropriate or whether an alternative, 
such as the option described above, should be incorporated into the 
final rule. EPA requests commenters to be as specific as possible about 
suggesting alternatives, including information on the number of 
existing containers that might need to be grandfathered, suggestions 
for the standards that might be appropriate for the grandfathered 
containers, and the potential confusion and conflicts the use of the 
grandfathered containers might have on other parts of the regulations 
and the regulated community.

VI. Standards for Pesticide Containment Structures

A. Background

    1. Introduction. Subpart G of this proposed rule introduces 
container design and residue removal standards for pesticide refillable 
containers, including liquid bulk containers and dry bulk containers. 
In subpart H, EPA proposes standards for containment structures to 
intercept and contain spills and leaks from stationary bulk containers, 
areas where pesticides are dispensed from and into stationary bulk 
containers, and areas where containers are refilled. These containment 
standards would apply to facilities of agricultural pesticide refilling 
establishments and custom blenders (as defined in Sec. 167.3), and to 
facilities of businesses that apply agricultural pesticides for 
compensation (also referred to as for-hire applicators in this 
preamble).
    The proposed requirements include criteria for design, maintenance, 
and operation of containment structures. They are intended to introduce 
basic safeguards in States that currently lack containment regulations 
and to harmonize with containment requirements in States where adequate 
containment safety programs already exist. EPA believes that the 
proposed Federal containment standards, together with proposed 
requirements for container design and residue removal, are essential 
for ensuring the safe use, reuse, and refill of containers as required 
by FIFRA section 19.
    These proposed standards are intended to prevent pesticide 
contamination of soil and water resources at pesticide bulk container 
storage facilities and at facilities where container refilling 
operations occur. Although spills can occur throughout the chain of 
pesticide commerce (from manufacturer to user), the accumulated 
evidence points to agrichemical dealerships, custom blenders, and for-
hire applicators as facilities where pesticide contamination of ground 
and water is most frequently documented. Bulk pesticide containers are 
located at many of these facilities, and agrichemical dealerships often 
serve as refilling establishments for refillable agricultural pesticide 
containers. Failure of stationary bulk containers at such facilities 
can result in significant environmental contamination, but so too, can 
failures of hoses and pipes (appurtenances), operational errors (e.g., 
overfilling), improper containment systems, improper disposal of 
pesticide rinsates, and vandalism. These findings lead EPA to conclude 
that unless storage of bulk containers and refilling operations are 
addressed as integrated systems, the FIFRA section 19 mandate for 
regulations that ensure safe reuse and refill of pesticide containers 
cannot be satisfied.
    These proposed standards are designed to supplement the proposed 
subpart G standards addressing design, structural, and residue removal 
standards for refillable containers. EPA believes that additional 
standards are necessary for containment structures because the safety 
of use, reuse, and refill depends on a number of factors that affect 
the refilling activity, particularly in situations where pesticides are 
stored in large refillable containers and where refilling operations 
routinely occur.
    The remainder of Unit VI.A of this preamble describes pesticide 
bulk container storage facilities and refilling operations and 
characterizes their sources of pesticide leaks and spills. The nature 
of environmental problems for such operations is also discussed, as are 
efforts by States to prevent further environmental problems.
    2. Pesticide bulk containers and refilling operations: sources of 
leaks and spills. Bulk containers are used at many levels in the 
pesticide distribution network -- from registrants, formulators, 
distributor tank farms, and dealerships to for-hire and private 
applicators. The categories of bulk pesticide container facilities for 
which EPA has accumulated the most substantial evidence of soil and 
ground-water contamination, and thus the focal point of the proposed 
containment regulations, are the facilities of refilling establishments 
and for-hire applicators of agricultural pesticides. Facilities where 
agricultural pesticides are custom blended from bulk containers are 
also proposed for regulation. Typically, bulk containers for 
agricultural pesticide refilling establishments, for-hire application 
services, and custom blending operations are maintained at the 
facilities of agrichemical dealerships. However, bulk containers are 
also used at the facilities of independent for-hire applicators and may 
also be used at the facilities of independent custom blenders, though 
EPA believes that independent custom blenders are likely to be rare.
    Refilling establishments whose principal business is retail, custom 
blenders and for-hire applicators of agricultural pesticides (referred 
to collectively as ``commercial agrichemical facilities'' in this 
preamble) may use pesticide bulk containers for many purposes. For 
example, they may refill minibulk pesticide containers for sale and 
distribution or for use as shuttles to transport pesticides from the 
dealership to the field for their for-hire application services. They 
may also use bulk containers to supply pesticides to custom blending 
services where pesticide is mixed with material such as fertilizer, 
another pesticide, or seed on a customer-order basis. Commercial 
agrichemical facilities may also use bulk containers to store 
fertilizers, but unless such fertilizers are mixed with and therefore 
labeled as pesticides, they are not subject to FIFRA.
    Pesticide bulk containers at these facilities usually hold 
herbicides. Liquid bulk containers typically range in capacity from 
1,000 to 5,000 gallons, though some dealers may have containers with a 
capacity of 30,000 or more gallons. Dry bulk containers that hold as 
much as 90,000 pounds can be found at dealerships.
    At commercial agrichemical facilities, pesticides generally are 
transferred to and from bulk containers via appurtenances (pipes, 
hoses, pumps, and/or meters) that terminate at a dispensing area. This 
dispensing area may serve as a site to clean or refill containers, 
nurse tanks, or application equipment, and it may also be used to 
transfer pesticides from delivery vehicles into bulk containers. In 
some cases, pesticide rinsates resulting from cleaning operations are 
collected and stored in bulk containers. Depending on State and local 
regulations and registrant requirements, bulk containers and dispensing 
areas may or may not be located inside a protective containment 
structure.
    A number of potential sources of pesticide spills exist at 
refilling operational sites and facilities that store or dispense 
pesticides from bulk containers. Available information suggests that 
chronic small leaks from containers and appurtenances or recurrent 
improper pesticide waste disposal are responsible for environmental 
contamination in many cases (see later discussion). Larger, sudden 
releases of concentrated product probably occur less frequently, but 
perhaps due to their more dramatic nature and to existing release 
reporting requirements such as CERCLA section 403 and EPCRA section 
304, their occurrence is better documented than chronic spills. Causes 
for such major spills include: (1) Bulk container failure (due to 
structural defects, corrosion of the containers by incompatible 
pesticides, improper installation, fire, collisions with equipment, 
etc.), (2) failure of pipes, hoses, valves, or pumps, (3) operator 
errors (e.g., neglecting to shut off valves, overfilling, leaving 
transfer operations unattended), and (4) vandalism.
    Insight into the causes of these mishaps can be gained from Federal 
and State spill incident reports and from comments by industry. The 
National Response Center (NRC, administered by the U.S. Coast Guard) 
provides a Federal mechanism to receive and refer for action and/or 
investigation reports of oil, chemical, biological, and etiological 
releases into the environment in the United States and its territories. 
Some incidents involving releases of certain hazardous substances or 
materials listed under several statutes, including the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, secs. 101(14) 
and 102 (42 U.S.C. 9602) and the Transportation Safety Act of 1974 (49 
U.S.C. 1802 and 1803), are required to be reported to the NRC. These 
statutes, however, include only some pesticides on their list of 
hazardous substances or materials. Although only a portion of the 
incidents involving pesticides are reportable, the NRC database does 
include a number of incidents in which significant quantities of 
pesticides were released.
    In analyzing incident data provided by the NRC for a reporting 
period of 1982 through May 1991, EPA identified 40 incidents in which 
spills appeared to be associated with bulk pesticide containers (Ref. 
60). Transportation incidents, other than those involving mishaps 
during transfers into or from delivery vehicles, were excluded from 
this analysis. Seventy percent of the spills (28 of 40) involved 
herbicides. The reported quantities of pesticide released ranged from 2 
gallons to an estimated 1,000 gallons. The most frequently listed 
causes of spills, in descending order, were:
    (1) Transfer mishaps (hoses or couplings failing or dislodging 
during load-in or load-out, etc.) (38 percent).
    (2) Appurtenance failure (leaks or breaks in pipes or valves, 
valves left open, sight gauge failure, etc.) (30 percent).
    (3) Container failure (corroded, collapsed) (12 percent).
    (4) Overfilling (13 percent).
    (5) Vandalism (5 percent).
    (6) Unspecified (2 percent).
    The Nebraska Department of Environmental Control also maintains a 
spill incident database that includes reports of pesticide spills. 
During a 10-year reporting period (May 1981 through March 1991), 20 
incidents were reported that appeared to involve bulk pesticide 
operations. The quantities of pesticides reported spilled (all 
herbicides) ranged from a few gallons to 1,400 gallons. Failure of 
appurtenances was the most commonly encountered cause of discharge (six 
cases; 30 percent). Vandals were reported responsible for spillage in 
four incidents and operator errors (e.g., overfilling containers and 
allowing hoses to become dislodged during transfers) caused four 
incidents. Container failures (e.g., container tipped over and burst) 
accounted for three other spills. The causes of incidents were not 
reported in three cases (Ref. 34).
    In documenting the need for containment regulations for large 
pesticide containers, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade 
and Consumer Protection (WDATCP) cited nine pesticide spills that 
occurred from 1981 to mid-1984. Volumes released ranged from a few 
gallons to 1,700 gallons. Causes included four transfer mishaps (hose 
and valve failure), four container-related incidents (valve failure, 
container rupture, overflow from rain into an open container) and one 
fire (Ref. 78).
    Subsequently, the WDATCP noted several additional bulk-related 
spills of herbicides, including (Ref. 42):
    (1) A 4,600-gallon spill when ice sheared off a container valve.
    (2) A 550-gallon loss when a hose outside of containment ruptured.
    (3) A 3,000-gallon release into a warehouse (cause not specified).
    (4) A 40-gallon spill due to a plumbing failure (containment 
allowed recovery and use of the herbicide).
    The WDATCP also indicated that installation of containment 
structures enabled many commercial operations to detect small spills 
that previously eluded notice (Ref. 42).
    Some pesticide registrants whose agricultural pesticides are sold 
and distributed from bulk containers at refilling establishments cite 
appurtenance failure as a leading cause of leaks and spills. Other 
common causes they identify are hoses/couplings dislodging during load-
out, human error (e.g., leaving valves open on unattended equipment), 
and overfilling. Pinhole leaks in bulk containers, sight gauge failure, 
vandalism, and fire also have been noted as sources of spills. Spills 
from bulk containers or appurtenances that were reported to companies 
range from 1 gallon to 5,000 gallons, but quantities of several hundred 
gallons are typical (Ref. 66).
    The above information from Federal, State and industry sources 
consistently indicates that in addition to container failures, leading 
causes of sudden spills at bulk pesticide storage and dispensing 
operations are failures of appurtenances and/or human errors during 
pesticide transfers, vandalism, and fire. In addition to these larger 
and more noticeable spills, small chronic leaks of pesticide 
concentrate and improper management of pesticide rinsates also can 
occur and contribute to environmental contamination. These findings 
underscore that regulations promoting safe container reuse and refill 
should address not only the structural integrity of bulk containers, 
but also should include safeguards for appurtenances, dispensing 
operations, and container refilling operations.
    3. Frequency of leaks and spills. Although several databases on 
chemical spill incidents are available, none provides a comprehensive 
outlook on pesticide-related incidents. As mentioned previously, a 
Federal reporting mechanism is in place at the National Response 
Center, but as this applies only to releases of specified substances 
above a threshold quantity, many incidents involving pesticides could 
be exempt from reporting. Chronic small spills may go unnoticed and 
uncontrolled discharges of dilute pesticide rinsates may not be 
recognized as a significant source of environmental contamination by 
facility owners and operators. Reluctance of operators to bring spills 
to the attention of environmental or other authorities also may lead to 
under-reporting.
    Despite reporting limitations, EPA has obtained independent rough 
estimates of the frequency with which spills are noted at facilities 
that store pesticides in bulk containers or conduct loading/refilling 
operations. These estimates pertain only to spill incidents that were 
clearly noticeable, i.e., relatively large quantities of pesticides 
were involved; many of the cases were reported as a result of 
complaints. They were not derived from environmental sampling surveys 
of facilities for pesticide contamination.
    The Michigan Department of Agriculture has compiled a summary of 
agriculture-related pollution emergency incidents (such as reported 
spills of agrichemicals and improper disposal of farm wastes, including 
pesticide rinsates) from 1987 through early 1991. Based on reports of 
180 incidents, EPA estimates that about 1 of every 75 Michigan 
pesticide dealers (1.3 percent) experiences a reported release each 
year (Ref. 68).
    The Nebraska Department of Environmental Control requires the 
reporting of spills of threshold quantities of CERCLA hazardous 
substances, as well as spills of 10 pounds or more of pesticide active 
ingredients. Based on Nebraska's 1984 through 1990 data, calculations 
suggest that noticeable leaks occur annually at nearly 1 percent of the 
State's 350 bulk storage and refilling establishments (Refs. 34 and 
68).
    The Michigan and Nebraska figures agree with those offered by some 
registrants, who estimate that 1 percent to 1.5 percent of agricultural 
pesticide bulk storage sites report spill incidents each year (Refs. 66 
and 68).
    4. Soil and ground-water contamination. Many States have documented 
soil and ground-water contamination problems resulting from pesticide 
spills at commercial agrichemical facilities that engage in pesticide 
storage and transfer operations. Two of the most comprehensive reports 
to date on this subject were jointly authored by the Wisconsin 
Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection and the 
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Their 1989 study (Ref. 20) 
of 20 for-hire agricultural pesticide applicator facilities was 
prompted by the detection of pesticide residues in private wells at or 
near 18 facilities and by reports of pesticide spills at two other such 
facilities. Fourteen of the sites studied were facilities that handled 
liquid pesticides in containers larger than 55 gallons. The survey 
revealed that pesticide contamination of soil was commonplace at these 
facilities. The greatest total concentrations of pesticides occurred at 
acute spill areas (where relatively large accidental spills had 
occurred), areas where containers were burned, mixing and loading 
sites, and pesticide storage areas. Soil sampling data obtained after 
implementation of soil remediation actions at these sites showed that 
chronic spillage continued to be a problem and even increased in 
several cases, because the users continued to engage in improper 
disposal practices (Refs. 20 and 80).
    Pesticide residues were detected in drainage-ways and temporary 
ponds adjacent to pesticide handling areas. The residues subsequently 
may have dispersed into ground water through leaching and via movement 
of surface waters: pesticide residues were reported in ground water at 
concentrations that often exceeded Wisconsin health advisory levels. In 
four cases, ground water up-gradient from the facility also contained 
pesticide residues, suggesting additional sources of contamination 
(Ref. 20). The report concluded that the most effective approach toward 
preventing further environmental problems would be to develop long-
range management practices and install proper secondary containment for 
bulk containers and containment pads for pesticide transfer operations 
(Ref. 20).
    In 1991, the same Wisconsin agencies reported the results of an 
environmental survey of 27 randomly selected agricultural pesticide 
application business sites (Ref. 45). (This study was designed to 
assess operations representing the industry as a whole.) The 
investigation revealed the presence of pesticides in soil at 25 of the 
27 locations. Soil at 18 (66 percent) of the sites may eventually 
require remediation; these sites had pesticide concentrations exceeding 
those that would have been expected had pesticide been applied at 
labeled field rates. Pesticides also were found in ground water at more 
than half (55 percent) of the sites. At nine of these locations (33 
percent of total sites) pesticide levels exceeded Wisconsin ground-
water standards.
    Given these results, the Wisconsin agencies estimate that between 
45 percent and 75 percent of the State's commercial agrichemical sites 
may require soil remediation and that 29 percent to 63 percent 
potentially exceed the State's ground-water standards for pesticides. 
Many of the latter also may require remediation (Ref. 45).
    A study of commercial agrichemical facilities in Utah found 
pesticide contamination resulting from a variety of handling activities 
such as spills of pesticide in bulk container storage and dispensing 
operations, mixing and loading into application equipment (for 
facilities that engaged in for-hire application), and equipment 
cleaning activities. Residues were detected in pesticide handling areas 
and adjacent areas to which they drained, as well as in gravel 
driveways and parking lots (Ref. 47).
    Much of the contamination found in the Utah study appeared to be 
associated with spills of custom blended pesticide/fertilizer mixtures. 
Pesticide-impregnated fertilizer loading areas have been identified by 
the National AgriChemical Retailers Association as being associated 
with elevated concentrations of pesticide contamination (Ref. 46).
    Case studies of Iowa commercial agrichemical facilities revealed 
pesticide levels approximating formulation concentrations in pools of 
water and soil in areas where pesticides were loaded and handled or 
where containers and equipment were rinsed (Ref. 21). The Iowa 
Fertilizer and Chemical Association estimates that 40 percent to 50 
percent of the sites in Iowa may require remediation for existing or 
potential ground-water contamination (Ref. 15). In Kansas, 70 percent 
to 80 percent of the detections of pesticide in ground water could be 
traced back to pesticide dealerships (Ref. 46). Minnesota identified 
ground-water contamination in 20 of 100 active spill incident cases at 
commercial agrichemical facilities in 1991 (Ref. 41).
    Between 1984 and 1989, complaint-generated investigations in 
Illinois confirmed several incidents of pesticide contamination of 
private well water. Thirteen of these instances were attributed to the 
handling of pesticides at agricultural pesticide retail facilities. 
Likely causes of this contamination included pesticide runoff and 
waste-water discharges into surrounding areas, and chemical spills 
resulting primarily from leaking storage containers and handling 
mishaps (Ref. 57). In 1987 and 1988, the Illinois Department of Public 
Health surveyed wells at 81 commercial agrichemical facilities 
(randomly selected from a statewide pool of over 1,500 licensed 
facilities). The survey detected pesticides in 65 percent of these 
sites, with multiple pesticide residues detected in many of the wells 
(Ref. 33). By contrast, various public water supply monitoring projects 
conducted by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) 
typically reveal pesticides in only about 1 percent of samples (Ref. 
19).
    A recent joint study by the Illinois Department of Agriculture and 
the Illinois State Geological Survey (Ref. 26) revealed that soils from 
all of 49 randomly selected agrichemical facilities contained 
pesticides at levels that exceeded draft IEPA site-specific soil 
cleanup objectives. One or more pesticide residues also were detected 
in 25 percent of the 52 water-supply wells sampled at the sites, 
however, concentrations of pesticides in water samples generally were 
less than those encountered in the 1987-1988 Illinois Department of 
Public Health survey (Ref. 33). These recent findings led the authors 
of the joint report (Ref. 26) to suggest that although ground water 
below many currently active agrichemical facilities does not appear to 
have been extensively impacted by past facility practices, concern for 
ground water is warranted.
    Other studies point to pesticide contamination of public or private 
drinking water wells located near commercial agrichemical facilities. 
For example, Hallberg (Ref. 22) cites 10 Iowa case studies in which 
pesticide concentrations in ground water near dealerships were a 
hundredfold or more concentrated than background levels. In more than 
80 percent of the instances in which herbicides other than atrazine 
have been detected in Iowa's public wells, the wells were located near 
commercial agrichemical facilities (Ref. 13).
    In a 1989 survey, the Michigan Department of Agriculture sampled 
well water from 50 commercial agrichemical bulk storage sites. 
Pesticides were detected and confirmed in well water from eight (16 
percent) of the sites; health advisory levels for pesticides were 
exceeded in three of the wells. Pesticide concentrations in soils were 
not determined. The report concluded that commercial agrichemical bulk 
storage operations located on hydrogeologically vulnerable sites pose a 
threat to ground-water quality (Ref. 36).
    Other types of users/operations with practices similar to 
commercial agrichemical facilities may cause environmental 
contamination, but for these there is less evidence available. A survey 
conducted by the Association of American Pesticide Control Officials 
(Ref. 2) responded to by 28 States revealed 826 commercial agrichemical 
facilities with documented environmental degradation, but also 121 
private sites. Of the 121 private sites, 32 were associated with 
agricultural research sites. In water quality surveys of farm wells, 
detections of the highest levels of pesticides sometimes have been 
attributed to factors such as improper pesticide storage or handling 
near the well (Refs. 9, 27, and 54).
    5. Contamination remediation costs. Remediation of contamination 
resulting from inadequate pesticide containment and poor waste 
management practices can be very costly. For example, one registrant 
spent $207,714, $51,300 and $184,440 for clean up of three separate 
spills from bulk containers between 1981 and 1983 (Ref. 50). While most 
States have not begun to assess systematically the degree to which 
commercial agrichemical facilities require remediation, information 
from midwestern States indicates a substantial problem. Based on 
results of samples taken from 50 sites and on files of other open 
cases, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture estimates that virtually 
all of the 1,000 commercial agrichemical facilities active in the State 
will need to conduct contamination assessments and that some degree of 
remediation will be required for at least half of the sites. Cost 
estimates derived from the Department's experience with approximately 
100 cases suggest that 50 percent to 60 percent of the contaminated 
sites will be remediated for at least $20,000 to $50,000, not including 
certain costs (such as attorney fees); 20 percent for $50,000 to 
$200,000; and 20 percent for more than $200,000, with costs 
occasionally exceeding $1 million (Ref. 6).
    The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency notes that while 
conclusive data do not yet exist, some two-thirds of the State's 1,500 
commercial agrichemical sites eventually could be found to warrant some 
degree of remediation for contamination ``hot spots.'' Typical costs 
for assessment and remediation for such facilities would average 
between $15,000 and $50,000. Another 15 percent of the facilities are 
projected to require more extensive cleanup (cost range $50,000 to 
$250,000); 2 percent to 5 percent more could require even more 
expensive remediation (Ref. 56). A recent Illinois study of site 
contamination at agrichemical facilities (Ref. 26) estimates that 
statewide costs for soil remediation will range from $8 million to $96 
million, with the most realistic estimate thought to be $42 million. 
These estimates do not include costs for site assessments or for 
remediation of contaminated ground water.
    A study conducted by the WDATCP indicates that 45 percent to 75 
percent of Wisconsin's commercial agrichemical facilities are likely to 
require soil remediation. Many also may need to remediate ground-water 
contamination (Ref. 45). Typical costs for soil remediation range from 
$10,000 to $50,000. If ground-water contamination is encountered, 
especially if municipal water supplies are affected, the costs can be 
much higher. For example, a Wisconsin agrichemical facility recently 
spent $350,000 to characterize the extent of pesticide contamination in 
a municipal drinking water supply and install ground-water remediation 
equipment, and further significant expenses are anticipated (Ref. 43).
    In Iowa, where roughly half of the commercial agrichemical 
facilities will require remediation, direct costs for site assessments, 
monitoring, and remediation of pesticide dealerships could reach $50 
million to $100 million (Ref. 15).
    6. State bulk containment regulations. As of December 1992, 27 
States had implemented or were drafting containment regulations for 
pesticides (Ref. 71). In the State of the States Report (Ref. 70), EPA 
learned that pesticide containment regulations vary considerably among 
the States. Requirements range from relatively minimal standards to 
comprehensive rules governing construction of bulk containers, 
secondary containment for storage containers, containment pads for 
various operations (such as refilling, mixing and loading, washing, 
rinsing), spill response, recordkeeping, and rinsate and precipitation 
accumulation management. Some States also include standards for 
facility location and abandonment and requirements to notify the State 
of various activities. Some critical areas in which State pesticide 
containment regulations (implemented or draft) differ include (Ref. 
70):
    a. Applicability of regulations to persons, quantities, and 
identities of materials. State bulk regulations vary with respect to 
facilities/operators to whom containment requirements apply. Rules may 
pertain to manufacturers, distributors, or users of pesticides or may 
apply more specifically, such as to repackagers, dealers, commercial 
applicators, and/or farmers.
    Some States apply secondary containment requirements to any 
pesticide container with a volume exceeding 55 gallons; others use 210-
, 300- or 500-gallon criteria. Containment rules may apply to technical 
grade, formulation grade, or similar grade pesticides or may extend to 
rinsates and use solutions.
    b. Capacity of secondary containment for bulk containers. States 
commonly set the minimum holding capacity of secondary containment 
structures according to the volume of the largest container within the 
structure plus a margin for safety. The safety margin generally 
requires compensation for volume displaced by containers and equipment 
and requires additional capacity for structures exposed to 
precipitation. Some variations among States in safety margin include 
(separately or in combinations):
    (1) Ten percent of the volume of the largest container.
    (2) Twenty five percent of the volume of the largest container.
    (3) The volume of rainfall from a 25-year, 24-hour storm.
    (4) Six inches of freeboard.
    c. Materials for secondary containment. Most States allow concrete, 
steel, or solid masonry, provided the material is impermeable to 
pesticide. Several permit soil containment. Others allow various 
synthetic materials, if they are compatible with pesticides.
    d. Specifications for containment pad. States typically require 
paved, curbed and/or sloped containment for pesticide handling 
operations. Most specify construction with concrete, although some 
allow asphalt.
    e. Permitting and notification. Several States require permits 
prior to construction or, for existing facilities, procedures and 
permits must be followed to phase facilities into compliance with new 
regulations. Several also require notification to the State annually 
prior to initial delivery.
    In summary, most States do not currently have pesticide containment 
regulations. Some States are delaying development of containment rules 
until Federal standards appear. Among the States that have rules, there 
exists considerable variation in the scope and stringency of 
requirements. The Federal containment requirements proposed today would 
establish basic standards which are generally similar to State 
standards, although they may be more rigorous than some and less 
stringent than others. These Federal standards would not preclude 
States from adopting more rigorous State requirements.
    7. Conclusions. There is considerable evidence that the routine 
storage and dispensing of large quantities of pesticides at commercial 
agrichemical facilities is associated with significant environmental 
contamination by pesticides. Although it is not always possible to 
relate specific incidents of contamination at such facilities to 
particular activities, it is clear that improvements in containment and 
related management practices for pesticide bulk storage and container 
refilling operations can help prevent environmental contamination.
    As discussed further in Unit VI.B.1 of this preamble, EPA proposes 
to require containment structures at refilling establishments, custom 
blenders, and for-hire applicators where agricultural pesticides are 
stored and dispensed. Containment requirements for bulk container 
storage and container refilling operations, in conjunction with 
container design standards and adequate procedures for residue removal, 
would provide an integrated system of environmental safeguards. Each of 
these three regulatory components is considered essential to ensure the 
safe refill and reuse of pesticide containers.

B. Today's Proposal

    Subpart H of the proposed regulations is organized into three 
general categories: general standards for containment structures, 
secondary containment for bulk containers, and containment for 
pesticide dispensing areas (where the contents of bulk containers are 
dispensed and/or containers are refilled). Performance standards for 
containment materials and design are proposed, as are requirements for 
operation, maintenance, and recordkeeping. Certain containment 
requirements for facilities with existing structures are proposed as 
interim standards to allow sufficient time for retrofitting and to 
provide a phased approach to meeting new requirements.
    The definition section of proposed subpart A of this proposed rule 
contains definitions of terms used in proposed subpart H and related 
subparts. Terms that are key to the understanding of subpart H include:
    (1) Agricultural pesticide.
    (2) Appurtenances.
    (3) Container.
    (4) Containment pad.
    (5) Containment structure.
    (6) Dry bulk container.
    (7) Dry pesticide.
    (8) Liquid bulk container.
    (9) Pesticide dispensing area.
    (10) Owner.
    (11) Operator.
    (12) Refillable container.
    (13) Refilling establishment.
    (14) Secondary containment unit.
    (15) Stationary bulk container.
    (16) Transport vehicle.
    (17) 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event.
    1. Scope and applicability. Section 165.140 sets out the scope and 
purpose of subpart H. The regulations would establish requirements for 
containment of stationary bulk containers and requirements for 
containment of pesticide dispensing areas. These requirements are 
intended for two purposes: to protect human health and the environment 
from exposure to pesticides from spills and leaks, and to reduce wastes 
produced when pesticides are stored and handled in bulk containers and 
during container refilling operations.
    Descriptions of the applicability of subpart H would appear in two 
tiers in Secs. 165.141 and 165.142. Section 165.141 identifies 
facilities and persons that would be responsible for meeting the 
requirements of subpart H. For those facilities included, Sec. 165.142 
would then delineate the universe of stationary bulk containers and 
pesticide dispensing areas to which the containment requirements apply.
    a. Facilities and persons covered. Section 165.141 would apply the 
requirements of subpart H to the following three types of facilities 
that contain a stationary bulk container or a pesticide dispensing area 
for an agricultural pesticide (as defined in subpart A): (1) Pesticide 
refilling establishments (as defined in subpart A) whose principal 
business is retail sale, (2) custom blenders as defined in 40 CFR 
167.3, and (3) the facilities of businesses that apply an agricultural 
pesticide for compensation (other than trading of personal services 
between agricultural producers).
    Facilities that refill an agricultural pesticide into refillable 
containers and whose principal business is retail sale would be 
encompassed whether or not they used a stationary bulk container to 
supply the refilling operation. Retail-oriented establishments would be 
included because EPA has obtained significant evidence of environmental 
contamination from pesticide leaks and spills at such establishments 
(as documented in Units VI.A.2 through VI.A.4 of this preamble). EPA 
intends to defer consideration of containment requirements at refilling 
establishments whose primary function is formulation or manufacturing 
of pesticides, since EPA does not possess sufficient information 
regarding the practices and environmental problems of these facilities. 
Moreover, EPA believes that such facilities may warrant containment 
requirements considerably different from those in today's proposal. If 
formulation and manufacturing activities are conducted at a refilling 
establishment whose principal business is retail sale, EPA intends that 
containment requirements would be applicable at the facility.
    Also encompassed in Sec. 165.141 would be facilities of businesses 
that apply an agricultural pesticide for compensation (other than 
trading of personal services between agricultural producers). This is 
intended to include the facilities of those pesticide applicators who 
provide a service of controlling agricultural pests, whether or not 
they are part of a refilling establishment. The facilities of such for-
hire applicators may store and handle large quantities of agricultural 
pesticides on a routine basis. As discussed in Unit VI.A.4 of this 
preamble, there is substantial evidence of soil and ground-water 
contamination by pesticides at such facilities. Among potential sources 
of pesticide releases are areas where pesticides are stored and 
dispensed from bulk containers into application equipment and areas 
where containers are rinsed.
    EPA does not intend Sec. 165.141(b)(3) to include the facilities of 
farmers who apply agricultural pesticide for other farmers on a for-
hire basis when such service is a minor component of the farm's 
operation and when it is conducted only on an occasional basis. EPA 
does not believe that these facilities necessarily will have the same 
environmental impacts as refilling establishments because their for-
hire activities constitute only a small part of the facilities' 
activities. However, comments are requested to address this assumption 
and to identify the number and characteristics of farm facilities that 
would be affected by extending the requirements for containment of bulk 
storage/dispensing areas to such for-hire farm facilities.
    EPA intends that the requirements of subpart H should apply to the 
facilities routinely used by for-hire applicators, but not to field 
application sites, since different requirements may be appropriate in 
locations that are used on a temporary basis. Pesticide transfers at 
temporary sites in the field may be addressed in future rulemaking.
    Section 165.141 would apply the requirements of subpart H to the 
facilities of custom blenders (as defined in 40 CFR 167.3) who blend an 
agricultural pesticide on a customer-order basis with materials such as 
fertilizers and other pesticides. Based on the available evidence (see 
Unit VI.A.4 of this preamble), EPA believes bulk pesticide storage and 
dispensing in custom blending operations pose environmental risks 
similar to those encountered at refilling establishments. Since most 
custom blenders are thought to operate as a part of the business of 
refilling establishments, containment requirements would be applicable 
by the previously mentioned sections in Sec. 165.141. However, because 
some custom blenders may operate independently, Sec. 165.141 also would 
include a separate statement of applicability to custom blenders. (Note 
that the scope of proposed subpart H differs somewhat from the scope of 
proposed subpart G with respect to custom applicators and custom 
blenders. Refer to Unit V.B.6 of this preamble for a discussion of this 
issue).
    In addition to identifying applicable facilities, Sec. 165.141 
would stipulate that the owners and operators of the containment 
structure are jointly responsible for assuring that the facility 
complies with the requirements of subpart H. As defined in subpart A of 
the proposed rule, the term ``owner'' means any person who owns a 
facility at which a containment structure is required; ``operator'' 
means any person in control of, or having responsibility for, the daily 
operation of a facility at which a containment structure is required. 
The intent of Sec. 165.141 is to hold the owner and operator jointly 
liable. EPA requests comments as to whether both the owner and operator 
or only one of these parties should be held responsible, or whether 
other parties also should be held responsible.
    Although commercial agrichemical facilities represent only a subset 
of the realm of facilities/operations where containment requirements 
might be appropriate, EPA is not proposing at this time that 
Sec. 165.141 extend the requirements of subpart H to other types of 
facilities that store and dispense pesticides in bulk containers or 
conduct refilling operations. EPA is giving priority to rulemaking for 
commercial agrichemical facilities because these are the facilities for 
which the clearest pattern of soil and ground-water contamination by 
pesticides has been established. However, because EPA intends to 
consider further containment-related rulemaking for other elements of 
the pesticide industry, commenters are invited to address relevant 
problem areas encountered industry-wide.
    Specifically, some form of containment provisions may be 
appropriate for bulk storage facilities of registrants and 
distributors. These operations generally maintain and handle very large 
stocks of pesticides year-round; thus, EPA believes requirements 
different from those proposed today may be appropriate. Specific 
comments are requested that will assist EPA in characterizing the 
scope, operating practices, environmental risks, and structural and 
operational safeguards appropriate for these establishments.
    EPA believes that containment requirements also may be necessary 
for pesticide bulk containers and certain dispensing operations at the 
user level. EPA believes that if bulk-related spillage occurs 
frequently at commercial agrichemical facilities, it probably also 
occurs at least as frequently at farm sites where pesticides are stored 
and dispensed from bulk containers. EPA assumes that pesticide storage 
and dispensing activities can be similar whether conducted at the 
facilities of a for-hire applicator or the facilities of a large farm. 
In addition, it is assumed that commercial facilities generally are 
subject to more frequent inspections by regulatory authorities and that 
refilling establishments are more likely to receive registrant guidance 
on containment than are farm facilities. Therefore, EPA is strongly 
considering expanding the applicability of Sec. 165.141 of the rule to 
include agricultural users with bulk pesticide containers. EPA requests 
comments specifically on whether it would be reasonable to so broaden 
the final rule.
    EPA also requests specific comments regarding whether Sec. 165.140 
and Sec. 165.141 should be extended to apply containment requirements 
to facilities where non-agricultural pesticides are stored or dispensed 
from bulk containers. EPA believes that some facilities that handle 
non-agricultural bulk pesticide containers (e.g., roadside weed control 
operations, mosquito control operations) are sufficiently similar to 
agricultural commercial facilities to cause similar environmental 
problems. To determine whether it would be appropriate to extend the 
proposed requirements to such facilities, EPA requests comments and 
data on the scope of such establishments, their practices, state of 
containment structures, and evidence of spillage or environmental 
damage. EPA also requests similar information on the wood preservative 
industry, structural pest control operations, and other institutional 
and industrial pesticide operations for which containment provisions 
may be appropriate. EPA does not intend to subject facilities to dual 
regulation, and in cases where facilities are regulated under other 
Federal statutes (e.g., regulation of wood preserving facility drip 
pads under RCRA), comments are requested on how or whether existing 
requirements could be supplemented. However, EPA notes that some 
pesticides, if discarded, would be listed or characteristic wastes, 
regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA. In such cases, RCRA requirements 
would continue to apply.
    EPA assumes that many of the facilities covered in Sec. 165.141 
will also store and dispense fertilizers in large quantities. Unless 
fertilizers are mixed with pesticides and therefore labeled as such, 
they are not subject to FIFRA nor would they be directly subject to the 
proposed regulations. However, EPA is aware that a number of States 
have proposed or implemented containment regulations to protect against 
uncontrolled releases of fertilizers to the environment. While the 
requirements proposed today have been developed for containment of 
pesticides and not fertilizers, they may contain some elements that 
would be of use to States or other entities that are interested in 
fertilizer containment or spill prevention measures.
    b. Stationary bulk containers covered. Section 165.142 identifies 
the types of stationary bulk containers and pesticide dispensing areas 
to which the requirements of subpart H would apply. Section 165.142(a) 
would apply secondary containment requirements to stationary liquid and 
dry bulk containers at facilities encompassed in Sec. 165.141. Two key 
characteristics of stationary bulk containers (as defined in subpart A) 
are their holding capacity and the duration of time for which they 
remain at a facility. EPA would define a liquid bulk container or a dry 
bulk container by the respective volume or weight of pesticide that it 
is rated to hold. Bulk containers for liquid pesticides would be 
refillable containers designed to hold liquid pesticide in undivided 
quantities of greater than 3,000 liters (793 gallons); bulk containers 
for dry pesticides would have a capacity of greater than 2,000 
kilograms (4,409 pounds). Containers of less than these volume/weight 
capacities would not be required to be protected with a secondary 
containment unit. The definition would include any bulk containers, 
including transport vehicles, that are fixed or remain at a facility 
for at least 14 consecutive days.
    Thus, Sec. 165.142 applies requirements for secondary containment 
to large, stationary pesticide containers. The capacities for liquid 
and dry bulk containers are proposed as criteria to trigger secondary 
containment requirements on the premise that container design 
requirements, as proposed in subpart G of this notice, will help assure 
that smaller containers do not cause a significant problem in the event 
they are used for stationary storage. (See discussion of pesticide 
dispensing operations below for situations in which containment would 
also be required for smaller containers).
    The container capacities for bulk containers are substantially 
greater than volume criteria adopted by States with containment 
regulations. The States use ``bulk'' criteria ranging from 55 to 500 
gallons to trigger secondary containment requirements for liquid 
pesticides. For dry pesticides, a typical containment trigger is 300 
pounds. In proposing larger volume/weight criteria, EPA is attempting 
to target containers that pose the greatest risk of catastrophic 
consequences in the event of failure.
    Although most bulk containers used at commercial agrichemical 
facilities will be fixed in one position, EPA anticipates that some 
pesticide bulk containers may not. For example, some facilities may use 
or be visited by pesticide bulk delivery trucks or rail cars. EPA 
believes it necessary to require that containment pads, but not 
secondary containment units (with potentially greater capacity 
requirements), be used for transport vehicles during customary short-
term visits at applicable facilities. However, when such vehicles are 
used at one location for prolonged storage or repeated on-site 
dispensing of pesticide, the primary function of the vessels shifts 
from pesticide transport to pesticide storage or handling. Given the 
attendant increase in risks of accumulated leakage and unsafe use in 
such situations, EPA reasons that full holding capacity of secondary 
containment provisions are warranted. Therefore, Sec. 165.142 would 
apply the same containment requirements to fixed bulk containers as to 
non-fixed bulk containers that remain at an applicable facility for at 
least 14 days. EPA believes that 13 days would adequately accommodate 
the on-site tenure of transport vehicles under normal circumstances.
    An option EPA considered but decided not to propose would apply 
secondary containment requirements only to bulk containers from which 
pesticides were dispensed for container refilling operations. This 
limited option was discarded because no evidence was found to suggest 
that pesticide bulk containers used for refilling operations inherently 
are more likely to suffer leaks and spills than bulk containers used 
for other purposes (e.g., dispensing to application equipment or 
delivery vehicles).
    As proposed in Sec. 165.142, a stationary bulk container would be 
exempt from the requirements of subpart H if it satisfied any one of 
the following conditions:
    (1) The container has been cleared of all pesticide that can be 
removed by customary methods such as draining, pumping, or aspirating 
(whether or not residues have been removed by washing or rinsing).
    (2) The container holds pesticide rinsates or wash waters and is so 
labeled.
    (3) The container holds only pesticides which would be gaseous when 
released at atmospheric temperature and pressure.
    (4) The container is dedicated and labeled for non-pesticide use.
    Section 165.142(a)(2)(i) would allow certain bulk containers that 
are out of service to remain at the facility without containment. The 
exemption applies even if some pesticide residues remain in the bulk 
container, provided that all pesticide that can be removed by customary 
methods such as draining, pumping or aspirating has been removed. 
However, EPA expects that in most cases, stationary bulk containers 
will actually be equipped with secondary containment. EPA also 
considered a more stringent criterion; namely, that unless residues 
remaining in such containers were further removed by washing or 
rinsing, containment would be required. EPA rejected this measure 
because it was not clear that the benefit derived from the additional 
cleaning would outweigh the rinse-water disposal problems it could 
create.
    The exemption of Sec. 165.142(a)(2)(ii) for stationary bulk 
containers holding pesticide rinsates and wash waters is based on the 
fact that EPA currently does not possess sufficient information on the 
risks of storage of such dilute pesticides. As discussed in Unit VI.A.4 
of this preamble, contamination of soil and ground water has been 
associated with improper management and disposal of pesticide rinsates 
and wash waters, but the extent to which storage of such materials in 
bulk containers has been problematic is not clear. EPA requests 
comments to assist in determining conditions under which secondary 
containment is appropriate for bulk containers of dilute pesticides and 
to help in estimating the numbers of facilities and bulk containers 
that may need to be protected.
    Today's proposal would exempt from containment requirements bulk 
containers that hold pesticides that would be gaseous if released at 
atmospheric temperature and pressure. This exemption is based on the 
fact that the preponderance of EPA's information on environmental 
contamination at commercial agrichemical facilities pertains to soil 
and water contamination, not to releases to air. Comments are requested 
to clarify whether and the extent to which aerial releases of 
pesticides from bulk containers warrant containment measures to protect 
human health and the environment.
    c. Pesticide dispensing areas covered. Section 165.142(b) sets out 
the applicability of containment pad requirements for pesticide 
dispensing areas at facilities covered in Sec. 165.141. The term 
``pesticide dispensing area'' is defined to include an area in which 
pesticide is transferred out of or into a container. Section 
165.142(b)(1) would identify four specific conditions under which the 
requirements for containment pads in subpart H would apply to pesticide 
dispensing areas. These four areas are as follows:
    (1) As proposed in Sec. 165.142(b)(1)(i), an area in which 
pesticide is dispensed from a stationary bulk container would be 
required to meet the containment pad requirements of subpart H. 
Containment requirements would apply regardless of the purpose of 
dispensing. For example, containment requirements would apply whether 
pesticide dispensing is done to refill refillable containers, service 
containers, transport vehicles, or application equipment, or to empty 
the bulk container prior to cleaning.
    The intent of this portion of Sec. 165.142 is to require that at a 
minimum, containment pad requirements apply to the area where material 
is transferred from the appurtenance of a stationary bulk container 
into a receiving vessel, including the area physically covered by the 
receiving vessel. Containment pad requirements also would be intended 
to apply even if there is no receiving vessel on the pad, such as might 
occur when rinsate is discharged from the appurtenance of a stationary 
bulk container during container cleaning. EPA is proposing that 
containment requirements apply to these areas because large volumes of 
pesticides are transferred there and are subject to spillage from 
operating practices and mishaps, as well as equipment failures (see 
Units VI.A.2 through VI.A.4 of this preamble, for discussion).
    (2) Section 165.142(b)(1)(ii) would apply containment pad 
requirements to pesticide dispensing areas in which pesticide is 
dispensed from any container other than a stationary bulk container for 
purposes of refilling a refillable container for sale or distribution. 
The area where pesticide is dispensed into the refillable container, 
including the area physically covered by the refillable container, 
would be required to meet requirements for a containment pad. EPA 
believes that containment is warranted in refilling areas for the same 
reasons described above for Sec. 165.142(b)(1)(i). Containment 
requirements would not apply if pesticide is dispensed from small 
containers for purposes other than refilling. EPA requests comment on 
whether containment requirements should be broadened to include 
dispensing from small containers for other purposes (see further 
discussion below).
    (3) An integral component of container refilling operations is the 
emptying, cleaning, and rinsing of refillable containers in preparation 
for refill. During this process, significant quantities of pesticide 
concentrates and rinsates may be generated or transferred. Section 
165.142(b)(1)(iii) would apply containment requirements to areas where 
such activities occur. EPA believes that without structures to 
intercept and collect pesticide spills in such areas, safe refill 
cannot be assured. Evidence presented in Unit VI.A.4 of this preamble 
indicates that environmental contamination can occur not only where 
pesticide concentrates are spilled, but also in areas where pesticide 
rinsates are routinely dispensed.
    (4) Section 165.142(b)(1)(iv) also would apply containment pad 
requirements to areas at a facility where pesticides are dispensed from 
transport vehicles into stationary bulk containers. This requirement is 
predicated on EPA's finding (documented in Unit VI.A.2 and Unit VI.A.3 
of this preamble) that mishaps can result in pesticide spills during 
dispensing both from (load-out) and into (load-in) stationary bulk 
containers. EPA believes that in most situations, pads used for 
dispensing pesticide from stationary bulk containers also will be able 
to be used as containment pads to accommodate dispensing from transport 
vehicles. (See discussion on Sec. 165.152(b)(1) in Unit VI.B.5 of this 
preamble for size considerations of pads used for such transport 
vehicles.)
    EPA considered but rejected two other options pertaining to the 
applicability of containment pad requirements. One option would require 
containment pads wherever any pesticide container routinely is stored, 
emptied, filled, cleaned, or handled at a facility. This broad approach 
was not adopted because EPA lacked sufficient data to determine what 
type of containment was warranted in different situations. A second, 
much more narrow option would apply containment pad requirements only 
to pesticide container refilling operations at refilling 
establishments. However, environmental data, discussed in Units VI.A.2 
and VI.A.4 of this section, suggested that refilling operations are not 
likely to be the sole cause of contamination at facilities covered; 
activities such as dispensing pesticides from bulk containers into 
spray equipment and improper disposal of pesticide rinsates could also 
be contributing factors. Thus, this narrow approach was rejected in 
favor of the approach proposed in Sec. 165.142.
    As proposed in Sec. 165.142(b)(2), a pesticide dispensing area 
would be exempted from the containment pad requirements of subpart H 
under any of the following three conditions:
    (1) If the only pesticides handled in the pesticide dispensing area 
are pesticides which would be gaseous if released at atmospheric 
temperature and pressure. EPA proposes to defer action on containment 
requirements for gaseous pesticides, pending further collection of 
information.
    (2) If the only pesticide containers refilled within the pesticide 
dispensing area were stationary bulk containers protected by a 
secondary containment unit that complied with the requirements of this 
subpart. This exemption stems from the fact that the portion of a 
stationary bulk container where pesticide is dispensed into the 
container could fall under the definition of a ``pesticide dispensing 
area,'' triggering containment pad requirements. Because the act of 
refilling a stationary bulk container will occur only infrequently, but 
storage of pesticide in stationary bulk containers will occur on a 
prolonged or continuing basis, EPA believes the safeguards of a 
secondary containment unit would be more appropriate than the 
safeguards of a containment pad. Although the exemption for containment 
pad requirements pertains to the stationary bulk container, the area 
where pesticide is dispensed out of the appurtenance of the stationary 
bulk container (e.g., for filling containers, application equipment, 
etc.) would be required to be protected by a containment pad.
    (3) If the pesticide dispensing area is used solely for dispensing 
pesticide from a rail car that is not a stationary bulk container. EPA 
believes that operations involving dispensing from rail cars typically 
will involve brief visits to off-load into bulk containers. It is not 
clear that containment pads are warranted in such temporary situations, 
especially since such pads would be less likely to be able to serve 
multiple purposes than would pads where trucks are off-loaded. However, 
if a rail car is used as a stationary bulk container, secondary 
containment would be required.
    Under this proposal, a facility required to install a containment 
pad for transfers to and from bulk containers would not be required to 
use the pad for filling of application equipment from containers 
smaller than bulk containers; nor would it be required to use the pad 
for application equipment washing operations. However, it clearly would 
be in the facility's interest to use the pad if such operations are 
conducted on-site, since spills, leaks, and improper disposal of wash 
waters could result in environmental contamination. EPA believes that 
requirements for the use of containment pads when cleaning equipment or 
when dispensing pesticide from small containers into application 
equipment merits further consideration. EPA requests comments on useful 
criteria to determine to whom or under what situations containment pad 
requirements should apply for containers smaller than bulk containers 
and whether the standards proposed today for containment pads would be 
appropriate. EPA also requests data reflecting the numbers of 
facilities that could be affected by so extending containment 
standards.
    2. General requirements for containment structures. EPA is 
proposing general requirements for containment structures in 
Sec. 165.146. Both containment pads and secondary containment units 
would be required to meet the standards for materials, design, 
construction, operation, inspection, and maintenance proposed in this 
section. The proposed standards would apply to structures for dry 
pesticides as well as for liquids, since the former can routinely 
become exposed to rainfall, wash water or other liquids. The proposal 
also would provide a phase-in period, establishing certain interim 
standards for existing containment structures and full requirements for 
new containment structures.
    Section 165.144 would identify existing containment structures as 
those for which installation commenced on or before the date 3 months 
after the date of publication of the final standards for pesticide 
containers and containment in the Federal Register; new containment 
structures would be those for which installation commenced after that 
date.
    Section 165.144 would also provide criteria to distinguish between 
new and existing structures. These criteria derive from EPA's Hazardous 
Waste Management System regulations issued under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (Ref. 93) and from EPA's Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration regulations issued under the Clean Air Act 
(Ref. 85). EPA requests comment on whether alternative or supplementary 
criteria should be used to define existing and new containment 
structures. (See also discussion of compliance dates for new and 
existing structures in Unit VI.B.7 of this preamble.)
    a. Rigid structures. Section 165.146 would require that the 
containment structure be constructed of rigid material, capable of 
withstanding the full hydrostatic head (dynamic or static), load, and 
impact of any pesticides, precipitation, other substances, equipment, 
and appurtenances placed within the structure. Rather than specifying a 
list of acceptable construction materials, Sec. 165.146 would leave 
open the choice of materials (with a few exceptions), as long as 
rigidity performance standards were satisfied.
    Containment structures for pesticides and other chemicals such as 
petroleum products, solvents, and fertilizers have been constructed 
with a variety of materials. Some examples of rigid systems are 
reinforced concrete dikes, stainless steel pans, and basins cast from 
synthetic polymers. Examples of non-rigid materials are asphalt or 
earthen dikes, unfired clay, and portable synthetic materials which can 
be rolled up or folded.
    Key technical guidance documents (Refs. 28 and 58) recommend that 
rigid materials, especially reinforced concrete, be used for structural 
support in pesticide containment facilities. Many State pesticide 
containment regulations require construction with concrete (Ref. 70). 
EPA believes that rigid materials are best able to withstand the full 
force of contained materials and any vehicles or other equipment that 
might be used on the structure. Although flexible, portable containment 
structures may be appropriate in certain other situations, EPA believes 
that durable, rigid materials should be required for containment at 
facilities covered in this proposed rule.
    In Sec. 165.146(a)(2) of today's proposal, EPA would prohibit the 
use of earthen materials, unfired clay or asphalt as structural 
materials for containment structures. Such materials are not 
recommended in technical guidance documents for pesticide containment 
systems (Refs. 28 and 58). For containment of very large containers of 
chemicals (e.g., tanks with a holding capacity of 100,000 gallons or 
more), engineers may seek less expensive alternatives to rigid 
containment materials, such as clay-lined earthen berms. However, a 
number of significant failures of earthen containment structures have 
been documented (Ref. 12). The level of protection afforded by earthen 
liners can be degraded by exposure to sunlight and cold cracking and 
may be vulnerable to damage from animal activity. Costs associated with 
cleanup of pesticide spills inside clay containment structures can be 
high, given the likely need to excavate and reconstruct the liner, and 
test and dispose of contaminated soil (Ref. 44).
    Since the overwhelming majority of the containment systems affected 
by today's proposal is anticipated to involve storage and dispensing of 
relatively small volumes of pesticides (as opposed to 100,000-gallon 
systems), EPA believes that rigid materials would be appropriate. 
Comments are requested regarding whether these prohibitions would 
subject facilities to undue hardship, and if so, what alternative 
safeguards could be proposed to ensure that containment structures 
constructed of these materials would function effectively.
    b. Hydraulic conductivity. Containment structures must be 
sufficiently resistant to penetration by pesticides to prevent the 
leaching and release of harmful quantities of pesticide. Section 
165.146 proposes that containment structures must meet specific 
quantitative criteria for hydraulic conductivity. Section 
165.146(a)(3)(i) would specify a standard for hydraulic conductivity of 
less than or equal to 1 x 10-6 centimeters per second (cm/sec) for 
existing containment structures during an interim period that would 
begin 2 years after the final rule is published and would end 8 years 
later; thereafter, a more stringent standard of 1 x 10-7 cm/sec or 
less would apply to existing structures. (Further discussion of a 
proposed interim phase-in schedule for existing structures appears in 
this section and in Unit VI.B.7 of this preamble).
    As proposed in Sec. 165.146(a)(3)(ii), new containment structures 
would be required to achieve a hydraulic conductivity that is less than 
or equal to 1 x 10-7 cm/sec 2 years after the publication date of 
the final rule. These standards could be attained by using structural 
materials; surface sealants and coatings; liners beneath the structure; 
or combinations thereof. The hydraulic conductivity standards would 
apply for the entire pesticide-bearing portion of the structure.
    The proposed hydraulic conductivity criteria pertain to the rate of 
water movement through containment material. EPA believes that although 
it would be preferable to base the criterion directly on the 
permeability of the containment material to the pesticide, 
manufacturers of containment materials frequently will not have 
available information on permeability performance of their products for 
a wide variety of pesticides. However, EPA believes that the rate of 
movement of water through the containment material is customarily 
measured by manufacturers of containment materials and would provide a 
reasonable index for the rate of movement of liquid pesticide.
    A hydraulic conductivity standard of less than or equal to 1 x 
10-7 cm/sec proposed in Sec. 165.146(a)(3)(ii) was selected for 
many of the same reasons it was proposed under RCRA subtitle C for 
surface protection (sealants and coatings) of wood preservative drip 
pads [see Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 56 FR 63848, December 5, 
1991 (Ref. 95)]. EPA believes that concrete is the material chosen by 
most owners of pesticide containment structures. Well-designed and 
constructed concrete, when unfractured, has been demonstrated to have a 
hydraulic conductivity of 10-7 cm/sec or less. Thus, a hydraulic 
conductivity standard of 10-7 cm/sec is essentially a proxy 
standard for well-constructed, unfractured, common concrete.
    EPA believes that well-constructed, unfractured concrete generally 
could serve as an adequate containment material for pesticides. When 
suitable materials are used and properly installed, concrete offers the 
advantages of structural strength, durability and economy. EPA believes 
that when well-constructed concrete is unfractured, it will adequately 
retard migration of pesticide through the structure and reduce the risk 
of harmful releases of pesticides to the environment. To illustrate the 
amount of liquid that could pass through an unfractured concrete 
containment structure with a hydraulic conductivity of 10-7 cm/
sec, a 25 ft2 sump that is continually wetted would release 0.05 
gallons of material per day.
    When exposed to field conditions, concrete is susceptible to 
fracturing, and even microscopic cracks can diminish its ability to 
retain liquids. Microfractures could allow liquids to permeate many 
times more rapidly than material that is on a crack-free structure; 
therefore, EPA believes that concrete exposed to field conditions is 
unlikely to meet the proposed standard of less than or equal to 1 x 
10-7 cm/sec and is unlikely to provide an adequate level of 
protection. In addition, recent preliminary findings by the Tennessee 
Valley Authority (Ref. 5) indicate that concrete alone may not be an 
adequate barrier to prevent the penetration of some agricultural 
pesticides. For these reasons, EPA believes that new containment 
systems constructed of concrete would require additional protection in 
the form of treatment with sealers or coatings, and/or protection from 
below with a liner. EPA believes materials are available that can meet 
or exceed (i.e., have a lesser hydraulic conductivity value than) 1 x 
10-7 cm/sec, although some additional research and technology 
transfer may be needed to facilitate the matching of containment 
materials to different pesticides and field conditions.
    Although a hydraulic conductivity standard of 1 x 10-7 cm/sec 
is proposed today for pesticide containment structures as well as in 
the rule for wood preservative drip pads, it should be noted that the 
two rulemaking initiatives differ regarding the containment materials 
to which these standards would apply. For wood preservative drip pads, 
the standard applies to surface protection treatments for concrete pads 
(i.e., sealants, coatings, covers) but not to liners. Rather than a 
hydraulic conductivity standard, liners for wood preservative drip pads 
must meet various design, construction, and installation requirements. 
In today's proposal, compliance with the hydraulic conductivity 
standard could be attained by sealants, by coatings, by structural 
materials in the containment structure, or by a liner beneath the 
structure.
    Under Sec. 165.146(a)(3)(i) of today's proposal, during an interim 
period, existing containment structures could be composed of materials 
meeting a less stringent hydraulic conductivity standard, namely less 
than or equal to 1 x 10-6 cm/sec. This provision is intended to 
allow operators to derive up to 10 years additional service (until the 
end of the interim period) from existing, concrete containment 
structures without applying a coating or sealant, provided that visible 
cracks are repaired and that the structure otherwise will be inspected, 
maintained, and operated in compliance with requirements proposed in 
this section. There is a precedent in the States (Illinois) for using a 
hydraulic conductivity standard of 1 x 10-6 cm/sec for pesticide 
containment structures.
    In selecting a hydraulic conductivity standard for existing 
structures, EPA attempted to identify a criterion that would comport 
with hydraulic conductivity standards that have been set forth in state 
regulations on pesticide containment. Most state regulations do not 
cite hydraulic conductivity construction standards, but those that do 
typically specify values no less stringent than 10-6 cm/sec (this 
value usually applies to liners). EPA is therefore proposing a 
hydraulic conductivity standard of 10-6 cm/sec in an effort to 
harmonize with state regulations governing existing structures. In 
essence, the 10-6 cm/sec standard is intended to serve as a 
surrogate standard to represent a containment structure that is 
composed of well constructed concrete but that has been exposed to 
fracturing conditions in the field.
    EPA requests comments on whether hydraulic conductivity standards 
are appropriate for existing containment structures or if other types 
of criteria should be used to indicate the ability of existing 
containment structures to retain pesticides. For example, in place of a 
hydraulic conductivity standard, should EPA require that during the 
interim period, existing containment structures must be maintained free 
of visible cracks and other defects? If this or similar qualitative 
standards are proposed, would such requirements be applicable to 
concrete as well as to other appropriate containment materials?
    EPA believes that less stringent hydraulic conductivity standards 
are not appropriate for the long term, since more rapid rates of 
penetration may result in significant releases of pesticides to the 
environment and also may lead to costly disposal problems when 
contaminated concrete structures are decommissioned. Therefore, EPA is 
proposing today that for new structures, the effective date for 
compliance with the 1 x 10-7 cm/sec hydraulic conductivity 
standard would be 2 years after publication of the final rule. EPA 
believes it would be prudent for operators of existing concrete 
structures to coat or seal their structures as soon as possible with 
material meeting the 1 x 10-7 cm/sec standard; however, EPA 
realizes that coating or sealing existing structures may not be a 
simple task. Bulk containers would need to be removed from secondary 
containment units and the containment structures would require thorough 
preparation either by scarifying, grinding, or sandblasting, and 
vacuuming or a wet treatment involving degreasing, acid treatment, and 
neutralization (Ref. 28). Because this may be a significant 
undertaking, EPA is proposing to require compliance with the more 
stringent hydraulic conductivity standard in synchrony with schedules 
for other standards requiring significant structural changes. 
Therefore, for existing structures, compliance with the standard of 1 x 
10-7 cm/sec would not be required until after an additional 8-year 
interim period.
    EPA assumes that manufacturers of sealers, liners, and coatings can 
provide documentation to verify that their products meet hydraulic 
conductivity criteria [see proposed recordkeeping requirements in 
Sec. 165.157(b)]. A typical method for measuring the infiltration rate 
of water vapor into a synthetic coating or liner is ASTM E96 Procedure 
E. EPA would consider this form of verification acceptable and requests 
comment on whether other procedures such as ASTM E96 Procedure H should 
be considered. EPA does not believe that it would be practicable to 
require routine hydraulic conductivity tests of installed materials. In 
fact, EPA is unaware of any generally accepted test methods for 
determining the permeability of a surface sealer, coating, or cover 
once it has been applied. EPA requests comments as to whether owners or 
operators of existing containment structures will be able to and should 
be required to document that installed containment materials can meet a 
standard of 1 x 10-6 cm/sec.
    EPA invites other comments regarding the proposed hydraulic 
conductivity standards. In particular, commenters are requested to 
discuss whether all containment structures (new and existing) should 
meet the more stringent standard of 10-7 cm/sec within 2 years of 
publication of the final rule. Comments are also solicited on whether 
hydraulic conductivity criteria should apply to all types and parts of 
containment structures, or whether they should be tailored to match 
relative risks of releases. For example, should the hydraulic 
conductivity standard for pesticide containment pads be more stringent 
than the standard for secondary containment units, since the former are 
likely to be subjected more frequently to pesticide spills and rinsate 
discharges? Should sumps or other areas where pesticides can routinely 
accumulate meet a more stringent standard than other parts of the 
containment structure? EPA also requests comments regarding whether the 
proposed hydraulic conductivity values of 10-6 and 10-7 cm/
sec are appropriate as standards for containment structures, or, if 
not, what factors should EPA consider in proposing alternative 
hydraulic conductivity values.
    Although a hydraulic conductivity standard is applicable to 
concrete and other porous or easily fractured materials, it may be less 
applicable to certain other materials (e.g., steel) that may inherently 
meet the conductivity standard. EPA requests comments as to whether 
alternative language is needed to clarify the acceptability of other 
materials in meeting the proposed standard.
    Comments also are requested to assist EPA in determining if a 
hydraulic conductivity standard is appropriate for liners used beneath 
containment structures, or whether alternative design, construction, 
and installation criteria should apply to such liners. For example, 
when synthetic liners are used for wood preservative drip pads, 
regulations at 40 CFR part 264 subpart W and part 265 subpart W [55 FR 
50450, December 6, 1990 (Ref. 94) require that they prevent leakage 
from the drip pad into adjacent soil and water. Liners for wood 
preservative pads must also be constructed of materials that will 
prevent drippage/leachate from being absorbed into the liner; the 
materials also must have appropriate chemical properties and sufficient 
strength and thickness to prevent failure due to pressure gradients, 
physical contact with the drippage/leachate to which they are exposed, 
climatic conditions, and stresses of installation and daily operation. 
The liners also are required to be placed on a foundation or base 
capable of providing support to the liner and resistance to pressure 
gradients above and below the liner to prevent failure of the liner due 
to settlement, compression, or uplift. EPA requests comments to clarify 
whether design, construction, and installation standards such as those 
applying to liners for wood preservative drip pads should apply to 
liners for pesticide containment structures, in lieu of or as a 
supplement to the proposed hydraulic conductivity standard.
    EPA considered several other approaches to specify the ability of 
containment materials to resist penetration by pesticides. One 
alternative was the use of specific design criteria (e.g., specifying 
type and thickness of concrete, spacing of reinforcement bars, etc.). 
Another approach was to require that the structure be constructed of 
material that is impermeable or impervious to the pesticide being 
stored or handled. Another option was to set a specific length of time 
over which the containment structure would be required to retain 
spilled material. For example, a spill retention period of 72 hours was 
recently proposed by EPA as a standard for secondary containment of 
large, aboveground oil tanks under section 311(j)(1)(c) of the Clean 
Water Act (Ref. 88). EPA requests comments on whether these or other 
qualitative criteria should be used as an alternative or supplement for 
hydraulic conductivity.
    c. Resistance to pesticides. Section 165.146(a)(4) would require 
that containment structures be composed of materials that are resistant 
to the pesticide that is being stored or dispensed. Unless containment 
materials are resistant, exposure to pesticide could cause them to 
become weakened or corroded, or to otherwise deteriorate. EPA believes 
that manufacturers of containment materials routinely will be able to 
provide documentation to verify that materials are resistant to 
particular pesticides. EPA requests comments on whether the term 
``resistant to the pesticide'' is clear and/or whether EPA should 
define this phrase in the regulations. Comments also are requested to 
assist EPA in determining appropriate qualitative or quantitative 
criteria for resistance to pesticides.
    d. Stormwater control. Precipitation may enter a containment 
structure either directly or through stormwater run-on from surrounding 
land or structures. The presence of this water on the containment 
structure can be undesirable because it diminishes the holding capacity 
of the structure and may eventually flush pesticide residues from the 
structure to adjacent lands and waters. Even if the structure does not 
overfill, if pesticide residues mix with the water, the water may need 
to be managed as pesticide. This can create a disposal management 
problem if an operator is not prepared to use the pesticide-containing 
water according to the appropriate label or if there is not adequate 
storage to hold the material until it can be properly used.
    In later sections of this preamble (Units VI.B.3, VI.B.4, and 
VI.B.5) capacity requirements for containment structures are discussed. 
These sections include discussions of requirements that would allow for 
retention of direct rainfall and/or the possibility of roofing to 
protect containment structures from direct rainfall. In contrast, the 
present section of the preamble describes proposed construction and 
design requirements to prevent stormwater from entering containment 
structures via run-on from adjacent areas.
    As stipulated in Sec. 165.146(b)(1), EPA is proposing that at a 
minimum, any containment structure must be designed and constructed to 
prevent water and other liquids from seeping into it or flowing onto it 
from adjacent land or structures during a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall 
event. EPA is concerned that operators will find it difficult to 
properly manage pesticide-containing stormwater or prevent pesticide 
releases from containment structures that are located on poorly drained 
areas.
    A 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event is commonly used as a design 
benchmark for the capacity of secondary containment structures. For 
example, the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
Best Management Practices Guidance Document (Ref. 75) indicates that 
containment structures should be designed to retain precipitation from 
a 25-year, 24-hour storm to prevent run-off from being released to the 
environment. EPA believes that, just as a 25-year, 24-hour storm is a 
reasonable criterion for stormwater retention, it would also serve as a 
reasonable standard to which pesticide containment structures should be 
built to prevent stormwater seepage and run-on from entering the 
structure from adjacent lands or structures. EPA requests comments as 
to the utility of this specific requirement and whether containment 
designers will be able to translate information on 25-year, 24-hour 
storm values into appropriate siting/design specifications. 
Alternatively, EPA requests comments on whether other flood criteria, 
such as a 100-year flood level, would be more appropriate.
    EPA is proposing a requirement for stormwater control that is 
performance-based rather than design-based. Thus, the proposed approach 
would not stipulate that containment walls be constructed to some 
minimum height, such as 3 inches or 6 inches. EPA believes that a 
performance-based stormwater control requirement will allow owners/
operators flexibility to comply under varying site-specific conditions. 
For example, all other things being equal, containment structures built 
on well-drained, elevated areas may be constructed with lower curbs/
walls than structures built in depressions. Structures sited on 
drainage ways may rely on higher curbs/walls, may install stormwater-
diverting structures (such as berms) uphill, or both. Structures built 
in arid areas (and, hence, with less precipitation during a 25-year, 
24-hour storm) may generally need lower walls or less elevation than 
structures located in regions with more rainfall. Sites with porous 
soils and low water tables will drain better than sites with compact 
soils and high water tables, and containment structures design can vary 
accordingly. If stormwater can drain into the containment structure 
from the overhanging roofs of adjacent buildings, gutters or other 
methods could be used to divert the stormwater away from the structure.
    EPA requests comments on alternative approaches to stormwater 
control for containment structures. For instance, rather than 
specifying that stormwater run-on must be prevented from entering a 
containment area during a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event, the rule 
could provide that, at a minimum, no discharge may take place from a 
containment structure during a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall. This approach 
would generally comport with typical NPDES requirements; however, 
because it would essentially impose capacity requirements on 
containment structures, readers should refer to the discussions on 
capacity requirements in Units VI.B.3, VI.B.4, and VI.B.5 of this 
preamble.
    e. Site preparation. This proposal does not include specifications 
for site preparation. For example, there is no proposed requirement for 
testing the proposed construction site for soil and ground-water 
contamination prior to construction. There is also no requirement that 
contaminated sites be properly cleaned prior to construction. However, 
because recent evidence points to widespread pesticide contamination of 
soil and ground water at commercial agrichemical facilities, EPA 
strongly urges any person who is contemplating constructing or 
purchasing a containment structure, especially at a site with a history 
as an agrichemical facility, first to conduct an environmental 
assessment of the site. If construction proceeds and significant 
contamination is found later, the effectiveness of the structure would 
be questioned and the structure may have to be removed in conjunction 
with remediation efforts.
    f. Support of containers and appurtenances. Section 165.146(b)(2) 
would require that containers and appurtenances on containment 
structures be protected from damage by personnel and moving equipment. 
The need to protect equipment against accidents is supported by EPA's 
finding that spills and leaks at pesticide bulk storage and handling 
facilities are often related to operator error and equipment failure. 
The proposed language would provide several choices in securing 
protection, including measures such as the use of supports to prevent 
sagging, flexible joints in the event that connections are jarred or 
dislocated, and the use of guard rails, barriers, and protective cages. 
A number of State pesticide containment regulations require similar 
protective measures. As a variation of this requirement, EPA considered 
requiring that all appurtenances used to dispense pesticides to or from 
containers be protected by containment. For example, a pipe running 
from a distant pesticide bulk container to a containment pad would 
itself require containment. EPA is not proposing this alternative due 
to a lack of information on the practicability of containing all 
appurtenances.
    g. Configuration of drains and appurtenances. Section 165.146(b)(3) 
proposes that for new structures (and existing structures after 8 
years), pipes or drains through the walls or base of the containment 
structure would not be allowed. An exception would be granted for pipes 
through walls separating adjacent containment structures, provided the 
structures meet all applicable proposed requirements. EPA believes that 
areas in which containment structures are penetrated by plumbing 
fixtures are difficult to keep sealed. Moreover, leaks in drains 
beneath structures are difficult to detect. The proposed interim period 
of 8 years would provide existing facilities the opportunity to 
continue operating prior to upgrading.
    EPA is concerned that appurtenances that are buried or otherwise 
inaccessible to inspection may be sources of significant undetected 
leakage. This problem frequently has been documented for buried 
appurtenances of petroleum product containers. For example, an EPA 
study, ``Causes of Release from UST Systems,'' (as discussed in Ref. 
96) concludes that faulty piping, loose fittings and vents cause 84 
percent of test failures for ``tightness'' of underground storage tank 
systems. (``Tightness'' tests measure changes in product volumes over 
time to determine if tank systems are leaking.) External corrosion is a 
common source of damage to such underground piping, but natural forces 
and accidents also cause piping failures. Piping near the surface is 
subject to damage from overloading and from soil heaving during freeze/
thaw cycles. EPA believes that the problem of undetected leakage is 
generic to buried appurtenances, regardless of their contents. 
Therefore, Sec. 165.146(b)(3) of today's proposal would require that 
appurtenances be configured in such a way that if leaks and spills 
occur, they can easily be observed.
    EPA considered implementing this requirement for all structures 
(existing and new) 2 years after the rule is published, but chose to 
defer the requirement for existing systems for 8 additional years due 
to the possibility that compliance with this provision may require 
substantial remodeling costs for existing systems. Thus, 
Sec. 165.146(b)(3) of today's proposal would defer for an interim 
period of 8 years the requirement that appurtenances be configured in 
such a way that any leakage that might occur can be readily observed. 
Comments are requested to assist EPA in determining whether leak 
detection systems, hydrostatic testing, or other methods would better 
assure the integrity of appurtenances.
    h. Operations. Section 165.146(c) proposes general standards for 
the operation of containment structures. As discussed in Units VI.A.2 
through VI.A.4 of this preamble, operational problems such as 
overfilling containers or equipment, allowing hoses to become 
dislodged, leaving pesticide transfer operations unattended, and 
improperly disposing of spills and rinsates have contributed to 
contamination of soil and ground water. Indeed, even after remediation 
of commercial agrichemical facilities and installation of new 
containment systems, contamination often recurs because operators 
apparently continue to engage in improper pesticide handling and 
disposal practices (Refs. 20 and 80). The protection offered by 
containment structures is intended to address spills or leakage after 
it occurs, but cannot alone ensure that pesticide storage or transfer 
operations will not result in environmental contamination. EPA believes 
that structural safeguards must be coupled with sound operational 
procedures to ensure safe refill and reuse of containers.
    Section 165.146(c)(1) would require any containment structure 
(secondary containment unit or containment pad) to be operated in a 
manner that prevents pesticides, including residues in rinsates and 
rainwater, from escaping the structure to surrounding areas. This 
section would also require that all materials containing pesticide 
residues be handled in accordance with label directions and applicable 
regulations.
    Section 165.146(c)(2) would require the owner or operator to ensure 
that an individual be present whenever pesticides are being transferred 
at the containment structure. This proposed requirement is based on 
information gathered by EPA suggesting that significant spills can 
occur at agrichemical bulk storage facilities when pesticide transfer 
operations are left unattended (see Units VI.A.2 and VI.A.3 of this 
preamble). EPA also believes that the person in attendance should be 
trained in the proper methods of pesticide storage and dispensing and 
versed in the facility's spill control and recovery procedures. EPA is 
not proposing that such training be mandatory and formally certified, 
but invites comments as to whether such a measure should be required.
    Because vandalism has caused major pesticide spills at agrichemical 
facilities, Sec. 165.146(c)(3) would require that lockable valves on 
stationary bulk containers (as proposed by subpart G for bulk 
containers at refilling establishments) be locked closed when the 
facility is not attended.
    Section 165.146(c)(4) would require that the owner or operator 
ensure that contained spills and leaks are collected and recovered to 
the maximum practicable extent and in a manner that ensures protection 
of human health and the environment. Certain technical guidance 
documents recommend immediate cleanup of spills and leaks at 
containment structures (Refs. 28 and 58). Timely cleanup of the 
containment structure can increase its service life by preventing long-
term corrosive conditions, can reduce the volume of pesticide-
containing rainwater that needs to be disposed (in unroofed 
structures); and can minimize the potential for human or animal 
exposure to pesticides. In addition, long-term retention of spilled 
materials in a containment structure would displace some of its holding 
capacity, increasing the probability of releases during periods of 
heavy rainfall or other unanticipated events.
    As proposed, Sec. 165.146(c)(4) would require that spills or leaks 
be cleaned up as soon as practicable and no later than by the end of 
the day in which pesticides have spilled or leaked in the containment 
structure. EPA requests comments on alternative provisions to require 
immediate cleanup of spills, or to allow a set period of time (e.g. 24 
hours) until cleanup.
    Section 165.146(c)(5) would require the owner or operator to ensure 
that recovered materials containing pesticides be handled as prescribed 
by label instructions and applicable Federal, State, and local 
regulations. EPA also requests comments on any alternatives to the 
proposed containment requirements that would reduce the likelihood of 
spills and leaks, and thus reduce the potential quantity of material 
that would have to be recovered and managed.
    i. Inspection and maintenance. General requirements for inspection 
and maintenance of containment pads and secondary containment units are 
proposed in Sec. 165.146(d). Without vigilance and regular upkeep, even 
relatively small defects can lead to hazardous and costly uncontrolled 
releases of pesticides. Since the proposed rule does not set forth 
environmental monitoring or leak detection requirements that would warn 
operators of containment defects, EPA believes that requirements for 
regular inspections and maintenance are crucial for ensuring safe bulk 
storage and refill operations.
    Section 165.146(d)(1) would require the monthly inspection of all 
stationary bulk containers and their appurtenances and containment 
structures for external signs of damage or leakage. This requirement 
would apply during periods in which pesticides were being stored or 
handled in the containment area. Regular inspections are proposed to 
facilitate the timely detection and correction of containment flaws and 
thereby prevent pesticide discharges to the environment. The proposed 
monthly inspection schedule for containment structures generally 
comports with inspection requirements of applicable State regulations.
    Since weekly inspection schedules were recently proposed by EPA for 
wood preservative drip pads (Ref. 95), EPA considered whether weekly 
inspection schedules also would be appropriate for containment 
structures for agricultural pesticides. EPA assumes that pesticide 
containment structures addressed in today's proposal generally will be 
smaller and (during operating hours) will have a greater frequency of 
personnel visits per unit area than will wood preservative drip pads. 
Additionally, pesticide spillage would be required to be cleaned up 
sooner after it occurred on containment structures for agricultural 
pesticides than it would for wood preservative pads. EPA believes that 
these factors would lead to defects being noted more quickly in 
containment structures for agricultural pesticides than in drip pads 
for wood preservatives. Therefore, EPA is proposing a monthly rather 
than a weekly inspection schedule for containment structures covered in 
today's proposal. EPA requests comments as to whether a monthly 
frequency of inspection is appropriate, or whether a different 
inspection schedule should be established.
    Section 165.146(d)(2) proposes that any cracks and gaps in a 
containment structure or appurtenance must be sealed with material that 
is resistant to the pesticide being stored or handled and that also 
satisfies applicable requirements for hydraulic conductivity. Expansion 
cracks and joints are said to be the biggest sources of releases from 
concrete secondary containment structures (Ref. 53). Cases of 
uncontrolled releases of agrichemicals (sometimes involving thousands 
of gallons of product) have been attributed to poorly sealed joints and 
cracks in containment structures (e.g., Ref. 52). EPA requests comments 
as to whether manufacturers of caulking, waterstops, and other types of 
sealing materials readily can document that their products conform to 
the proposed standards for hydraulic conductivity and pesticide-
resistance.
    Section 165.146(d)(3) would prohibit the storage of pesticides on a 
containment structure that fails to meet the requirements of subpart H. 
Dispensing of pesticides would also be prohibited, unless the 
dispensing is done to remove pesticides promptly until suitable repairs 
could be effected. By the provision for ``prompt removal,'' EPA intends 
that the owner or operator would be required to remove all of the 
pesticide as promptly as practicable. At some facilities, such removal 
may be achieved immediately by transferring the pesticide from a flawed 
containment structure to one that is intact. In other cases, it may be 
necessary to dispatch a transport vehicle to remove pesticide until 
repairs are completed. However, EPA believes that most repairs will be 
relatively minor and should be able to be completed in less time than 
would be required to remove pesticide from the defective structure.
    EPA solicits comments as to whether there should be additional 
inspection and maintenance requirements, such as a criterion that 
containment structures be inspected annually (or every 3 or 5 years) by 
a registered professional chemical, civil, industrial, or petroleum 
engineer and be certified to meet all applicable material, structural, 
and design criteria.
    j. Detection of leaks from containment structures. Even well-
designed containment structures may develop leaks. For example, failed 
caulking, small fractures, pinhole leaks, and related structural flaws 
may develop unnoticed and lead to unanticipated release of pesticide 
through the containment structure. EPA considered two options to 
address such problems. One approach would require the installation and 
regular monitoring of leak detection systems beneath the containment 
structures and of ground-water monitoring wells nearby. The second 
option would not require leak detection systems, provided the 
structures were subjected to regular visual inspections and proper 
maintenance. EPA believes that certain proposed requirements would 
lessen the need for rigorous containment leak detection requirements. 
For example, prohibitions on drains and buried appurtenances and a 
proposed requirement that stationary bulk containers be elevated so 
that any leaks can readily be observed (discussed in Unit VI.B.3 of 
this preamble) would reduce the possibility of containment leaks 
escaping notice. The use of structural materials, surface sealants and 
coatings to meet hydraulic conductivity standards would also reduce the 
need for leak detection systems, since EPA believes that all these 
materials would be relatively amenable to visual inspection for 
defects.
    Although the proposed rule adopts this second approach, EPA 
requests comments as to whether leak detection systems and ground-water 
monitoring requirements would be more appropriate in some or all 
instances. For example, if a containment structure meets the 
requirement for hydraulic conductivity through the use of an underlying 
liner, should leak detection/ground-water monitoring systems be 
required because the liner cannot be visually inspected? Should leak 
detection systems be required preferentially for containment pads over 
secondary containment units, since the former more routinely come into 
contact with spilled pesticides? Should leak detection systems be 
required for outdoor containment structures rather than indoor 
structures, since outdoor structures are subject to more damaging 
exposure to the elements? Should leak detection systems be installed 
under the entire containment structure, or only under the sump, since 
this is the area of the structure with the greatest exposure to spilled 
materials?
    3. Containment for stationary liquid bulk containers. A containment 
structure that is designed and constructed to contain pesticide spills 
from stationary bulk containers is referred to in the proposal as a 
secondary containment unit. Stationary bulk containers may hold either 
liquid pesticide or dry pesticide. As proposed in subpart H, secondary 
containment units would be required to satisfy general requirements for 
containment structures in Sec. 165.146, and additional requirements 
specific to containment of stationary bulk containers in Sec. 165.148 
(for liquid pesticides) or in Sec. 165.150 (for dry pesticides). 
Section 165.148 would specify standards for the capacity of secondary 
containment units for liquid bulk containers, as well as certain 
construction, design, inspection, and maintenance requirements.
    a. Capacity. EPA believes that any secondary containment unit 
should have sufficient holding capacity to retain not only the small 
leaks and spills encountered in routine conditions, but also major 
spills from bulk containers. To develop quantitative standards for 
capacity, EPA evaluated various factors, especially capacity 
requirements in State containment rules.
    Two capacity requirements for secondary containment units 
protecting containers with liquid pesticides are set forth in today's 
proposal in Sec. 165.148(a): the first would cover existing structures 
for an interim period of 8 years; the second would cover new structures 
(and existing structures after the interim period had lapsed). The 
interim standard for existing structures [in Sec. 165.148(a)(1)] would 
require a minimum capacity of 100 percent of the volume of the largest 
stationary bulk container in the existing secondary containment unit, 
plus an additional 10 percent (110 percent, total) of the capacity of 
the largest container if the storage area is not protected from 
rainfall, plus the volume displaced by containers and appurtenances. 
This interim capacity standard for existing secondary containment units 
in Sec. 165.148(a)(1) is proposed on the basis of general conformance 
with current or proposed State containment regulations.
    The standard in Sec. 165.148(a)(2) for new containment structures, 
and for existing structures after the interim period in 
Sec. 165.148(a)(3), would require a minimum capacity of 110 percent of 
the volume of the largest bulk container, plus an additional 15 percent 
(125 percent, total) of the capacity of the largest container if the 
storage area is not protected from rainfall, plus the volume displaced 
by containers and appurtenances. (This capacity requirement is referred 
to hereafter as the 110/125 standard.)
    The 110/125 standard for capacity should prove adequate to contain 
most spills. The 110 percent criterion for storage areas under a roof 
provides sufficient capacity to hold the contents of a full container, 
plus a margin of safety to accommodate sloshing from sudden releases or 
other unforeseen displacement events. The 125 percent criterion for 
storage areas without roofing adds an extra margin of safety for 
retention of precipitation.
    EPA has considered the following rainfall-based alternative to the 
proposed 110/125 standard for new containment structures: 110 percent 
of the volume of the largest bulk container, plus an additional 
capacity adequate to contain precipitation from a 25-year, 24-hour 
rainfall event if the storage area is not protected from rainfall, plus 
the volume displaced by containers and appurtenances. (This option is 
also described in the discussion on stormwater run-on control 
requirements, in Unit VI.B.2 of this preamble.) With this option, 
required containment capacity would vary according to local rainfall 
patterns. EPA believes that either the rain-based standard or the 
proposed 110/125 standard would provide adequate protection, although 
most States with containment regulations do not use a 25-year, 24-hour 
storm criterion for containment capacity. Comments pertaining to the 
relative advantages and disadvantages of these capacity criteria are 
requested.
    Comments are requested to aid EPA in characterizing the procedures 
involved in retrofitting existing structures to meet more stringent 
capacity requirements. Discussion of the feasibility of either 
modifying the containment facility or the configuration of containers 
or other approaches to meet more stringent capacity requirements would 
be particularly helpful.
    In developing the proposed capacity requirements, EPA also 
considered but elected not to propose a requirement that secondary 
containment units be protected from the direct introduction of 
precipitation by a roof or similar cover. EPA believes that in many 
cases, the advantages of keeping rainwater out of containment 
structures will significantly outweigh the costs of installing a roof. 
However, in arid regions, a roof may not be cost-effective. EPA 
requests comments as to whether, and under what circumstances, a roof 
or similar cover should be required to protect secondary containment 
units from the direct introduction of precipitation.
    b. Ability to observe leaks from containers. Stationary bulk 
containers that rest flush upon containment structures are exposed at 
the base to increased moisture, which may make them more susceptible to 
corrosion and failure. The outside base of such containers cannot be 
inspected readily for flaws, and they also hinder inspection, cleanup, 
and maintenance of the covered portion of the containment structure. In 
the event that both the bulk container and the covered area of the 
containment structure develop defects, pesticide could leak to the 
environment undetected.
    In Sec. 165.148(b)(1), EPA proposes to require that stationary bulk 
containers be positioned to allow for the observation of leakage from 
the base of the containers. This requirement would help alert operators 
that containers are leaking, allowing them to make timely cleanups and 
repairs. However, EPA believes that design constraints of certain 
existing containment structures and bulk containers may necessitate 
major retrofitting efforts to meet this requirement. Thus, for existing 
secondary containment units, EPA is proposing in Sec. 165.148(b) to 
defer this requirement for an interim period of 8 years.
    Section 165.148(c) would require that during the interim period, 
monthly inventory and reconciliation be conducted for the contents of 
bulk containers that are not elevated. The proposed method of inventory 
and reconciliation would help to determine if the container was leaking 
by comparing the quantity of material actually measured in the bulk 
container versus the quantity that would be expected (as determined by 
adding or subtracting deposits or withdrawals from the container to the 
quantity measured in the bulk container at the previous month's 
inventory). However, EPA believes that variables that can also 
influence container volume, such as thermal expansion, container 
deformation, and evaporation and condensation within the container, 
will make this method inadequate for indicating small leaks. EPA 
requests comments on the suitability of other means of checking non-
elevated containers for leaks, such as periodic volumetric tests that 
can compensate for the effects of thermal expansion.
    c. Anchored bulk containers. Liquids from spilled pesticides, 
rainwater, water from fire suppression, and other sources can 
accumulate in containment structures. As the level of liquid rises 
inside the structure, it can exert significant floatation forces 
against partially filled or empty containers (Refs. 4 and 28). 
Floatation can cause stationary bulk containers to become uprooted, 
collide with other containers and equipment, and spill. For these 
reasons, Sec. 165.148(b)(2) would require any stationary bulk container 
that is protected by a secondary containment unit either to be 
adequately elevated or anchored to prevent floatation in the event that 
the secondary containment unit fills with liquid. The intent of this 
provision is to allow facilities the choice of either elevating 
containers sufficiently to avoid floatation, or to anchor the 
containers (or both, if desired). EPA believes that the need to anchor 
bulk containers will be greatest for flat-bottomed containers that are 
not elevated. Since non-elevated bulk containers would be permissible 
at existing structures during the interim period, EPA is proposing that 
the provision for anchoring become effective during the interim period 
(and thereafter) and apply to both new and existing secondary 
containment units.
    4. Containment for stationary dry bulk containers. Section 165.150, 
would require that, in addition to meeting the general requirements for 
containment structures posed in Sec. 165.146, containment structures 
for stationary dry bulk containers must have a capacity of at least 100 
percent of the volume of the largest stationary dry bulk container 
within the containment structure, compensating for any volume displaced 
by containers and appurtenances. This requirement would apply to new 
containment structures, but would be deferred for an 8-year interim 
period for existing structures.
    EPA believes that secondary containment for dry bulk containers is 
appropriate because spills of dry pesticides could mix with rainwater, 
fire suppression water, or other liquids to reach and contaminate soil 
and water supplies. Therefore, the proposed rule would require that 
secondary containment units for dry pesticides be designed to hold 100 
percent of the capacity of the largest bulk container in the 
containment unit. This proposed approach differs from the requirements 
established in the few State rules that address storage of large 
quantities of dry pesticide. States generally define dry ``bulk'' 
quantities as 100 pounds to 300 pounds of material. They also require 
storage under a roof and, if outdoors, on pallets or raised concrete 
platforms. While 100-pound to 300-pound quantities may be addressed by 
roofing and flooring requirements, EPA believes that larger quantities 
defined as bulk in this proposal (more than 2,000 kilograms) pose 
potentially greater risks of serious environmental contamination if a 
release associated with exposure to water occurs, and therefore warrant 
protection similar to that proposed for liquid bulk containers.
    Rather than require that secondary containment units for dry bulk 
containers be designed to contain a specific volume, EPA considered 
requiring that secondary containment units for dry pesticides be 
designed to extend a specified distance beyond the perimeter of the 
bulk container. However, EPA lacked sufficient information to determine 
what would constitute an adequate distance for containment. EPA 
requests comments regarding factors that could be considered for 
setting the dimensions of secondary containment units for dry bulk 
containers. Comments are also solicited as to whether secondary 
containment units for dry bulk pesticide containers should be protected 
by roofing or similar cover from the direct introduction of 
precipitation (see related discussion in Unit VI.B.3. of this 
preamble).
    5. Containment for pesticide dispensing areas. Section 165.152 
proposes standards for the capacity, design, and construction of 
containment pads at pesticide dispensing areas. As proposed, 
containment pads would be required to meet the requirements of 
Sec. 165.152 in addition to the general requirements for containment 
structures set forth in Sec. 165.146.
    Because undersized pads can allow pesticide spills and leaks to 
escape, holding capacity is a key element of containment pad design. 
EPA is proposing in Sec. 165.152(a) a minimum containment pad capacity 
of 1,000 gallons, or, if no container or pesticide holding equipment on 
the pad exceeds a capacity of 1,000 gallons, the proposed minimum 
capacity of the pad would be at least 100 percent of the capacity of 
the largest container or pesticide holding equipment on the pad. This 
proposed minimum standard is based primarily on a review of current or 
proposed containment pad regulations in the States. EPA believes that 
this standard could be met by most, if not all, existing State-
regulated containment pads and that it affords an adequate level of 
environmental protection.
    EPA considered, but is not proposing, a requirement that pesticide 
containment pads be protected by roofing or similar cover from the 
direct introduction of precipitation (see related discussion in Unit 
VI.B.3. of this preamble). EPA requests comments as to whether, and 
under what circumstances protection from the direct introduction of 
precipitation should be required for containment pads.
    Section 165.152(b) would require containment pads to meet certain 
design and construction requirements. By proposing in 
Sec. 165.152(b)(1) that the containment pad be designed and constructed 
to intercept leaks and spills of pesticides that may occur in a 
pesticide dispensing area, EPA intends that the containment pad be of 
sufficient dimensions to cover areas where pesticides are transferred 
into or out of containers or their appurtenances, including the 
container itself. EPA recognizes that at some facilities, tanker trucks 
delivering pesticide for sale or distribution to the facility will be 
considerably larger than containers or equipment normally used on the 
containment pad. Because such deliveries are not expected to be 
frequent, EPA is proposing in Sec. 165.152(b)(1) that the pad be at 
least large enough to protect the area where the pesticide delivery 
hose or device connects to the vehicle, but not necessarily large 
enough to accommodate the entire vehicle. This size exception for 
containment pads is not intended to apply to those transport vehicles 
that are used routinely in the day-to-day operation of the facility, 
such as trucks with nurse tanks.
    Container refilling and cleaning and similar operations are likely 
to result in routine exposure of containment pad surfaces to 
pesticides. To facilitate the collection of pesticides, 
Sec. 165.152(b)(2) would require that the base of the containment pad 
be sloped toward a liquid-tight sump. EPA believes that a graded 
surface will lessen the time that pesticides remain on the pad and 
facilitate pesticide collection, which in turn will reduce the 
likelihood of pesticide escaping the pad. The requirement for sloped 
surfaces and liquid-tight sumps would be deferred for 8 years for 
existing containment pads. This interim period would allow operators of 
facilities that currently do not meet the proposed requirement to 
derive further use of their systems before retrofitting.
    The structural integrity of the sump is critical because it is the 
portion of the pad with the greatest exposure to spilled pesticide and 
rinsates. EPA requests comments on whether, and the extent to which, 
performance criteria for the sump should differ from general 
containment requirements. For example, should sumps be constructed of 
double-walled stainless steel with observation ports to check the 
annular space for leaks?
    Section 165.152(b)(3) would require a means, such as manually 
activated pumps, of removing collected materials from the sump. Pumps 
that are automatically activated would not be allowed if they lack an 
automatic mechanism to prevent overflows at the receiving vessel.
    6. Integrated systems. Section 165.153 of the proposal would permit 
facilities to design containment structures that would combine 
secondary containment units and containment pads. EPA believes that 
such combined systems would be acceptable, provided that the separate 
requirements for each of the component structures are satisfied. Thus, 
a secondary containment unit could include within its boundaries a 
pesticide containment pad, as long as the integrated system complied 
with all applicable standards. Conversely, a pesticide containment pad 
could include as a component a secondary containment unit for a 
stationary bulk container. Section 165.153 would also allow for 
multiple stationary bulk containers to be protected within a single 
secondary containment unit. EPA requests comments as to whether the 
storage of multiple pesticide products within a common containment 
structure should be restricted in some situations. For example, should 
integrated systems be prohibited if spills could result in mixtures of 
pesticides whose labels do not allow application to the same crop?
    7. Compliance dates. Section 165.156 identifies the dates on which 
compliance with requirements in this proposal would take effect, 
distinguishing compliance dates for new versus existing structures. As 
noted in Unit VI.B.2 of this preamble, Sec. 165.144 would define a new 
containment structure as a containment structure for which installation 
has commenced more than 3 months after publication of the final rule in 
the Federal Register. An existing containment structure would mean a 
containment structure for which installation has commenced earlier than 
the reference date (i.e., on or before 3 months after the date of 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register). Section 
Sec. 165.144 would also describe criteria under which installation 
would be considered to have commenced.
    Section 165.156(a) would require that as of 2 years after 
publication of the final rule, new containment structures would comply 
fully with all applicable requirements of subpart H. EPA believes that 
21 months between the reference date for new structures (3 months after 
publication) and the compliance date (24 months after publication) 
would provide a reasonable period of time for new structures to be 
planned and built in compliance with the full requirements of subpart 
H. EPA believes that further shortening the period before compliance is 
required may not provide ample time for facilities to be constructed in 
locales with significant seasonal constraints on construction. 
Conversely, a longer period before compliance would unnecessarily 
prolong the environmental risks of spills and leaks at commercial 
agrichemical facilities.
    Section 165.156(b) would establish an interim period that would 
commence 2 years after the date of publication of the final rule and 
would end 10 years later (net interim duration: 8 years). During the 
interim period, existing containment structures would be required to 
meet those requirements identified in subpart H as interim requirements 
for existing containment structures, and to fully meet all other 
applicable requirements. As proposed in Sec. 165.156(c), after the 
interim period, interim requirements for existing facilities would no 
longer apply and all facilities would be required to meet the 
requirements of new containment structures.
    In proposing this phase-in approach for existing structures, EPA 
believes that certain structural standards are crucial to safe 
containment. These critical standards include:
    (1) Construction with rigid materials.
    (2) Use of pesticide-resistant materials.
    (3) Hydraulic conductivity no greater than 1 x 10-6 cm/sec.
    (4) Stormwater run-on protection for a 25-year, 24-hour storm.
    (5) Protection of appurtenances and containers.
    (6) Sealed joints and cracks.
    (7) Pad capacity requirements.
    (8) Minimum secondary containment capacity of 100/110 percent 
(indoors/outdoors) of the volume of the largest container.
    (9) Anchoring stationary bulk containers that are susceptible to 
floatation.
    If an existing structure does not already comply with these 
standards, EPA believes that appropriate modifications can be readily 
implemented at existing structures within 2 years.
    Certain other standards are proposed to be deferred for a total of 
10 years for existing structures because many existing structures that 
have been constructed at considerable expense may have design or 
structural features that are not amenable to upgrading without major 
modification. EPA believes that the cost of immediate retrofitting of 
such structures may outweigh incremental gains in protection and may 
place undue burdens on owners of such structures. EPA has concluded 
that these standards should be phased in over time for existing 
structures. Standards that EPA proposes to defer for an interim period 
include:
    (1) Hydraulic conductivity less than or equal to 1 x 10-7 cm/
sec.
    (2) Plumbing configured to facilitate leak detection.
    (3) No drains or pipes penetrating the containment structure.
    (4) Minimum secondary containment capacity based on 110/125 percent 
(indoors/outdoors) of the largest liquid container and on 100 percent 
of the largest dry bulk container.
    (5) Bulk containers elevated for leak observation.
    (6) Pads sloped and with sumps.
    The 10-year compliance period proposed in Sec. 165.156(b) is 
estimated to represent roughly one-half to two-thirds of the 15- to 20-
year service life of an average well-built and well-maintained 
containment structure. The expected service life of containment 
structures is difficult to predict as it can vary with the quality of 
materials used, construction practices, operational practices, exposure 
and maintenance practices. EPA believes that 15-20 years may be a 
reasonable estimate for most existing structures, although some may 
last considerably longer and others may need replacement or renovation 
sooner than this time frame. EPA also believes that the majority of 
existing structures will have been constructed considerably more than 
10 years before the interim compliance period expires.
    It is believed that by allowing structures 10 years to complete 
upgrades, EPA would minimize impacts on owners of existing structures 
who have invested large capital expenditures to meet state requirements 
and those who voluntarily upgraded structures. The 10-year time frame 
would allow owners to recoup the benefits from the depreciation of the 
capital investment and financially prepare to upgrade their aging 
structure to meet the full requirements of new structures. EPA believes 
that the proposed maximum time limit would allow owners/operators of 
existing structures a variety of ways to plan for and accomplish an 
orderly transition toward compliance with the standards for new 
structures.
    Although 10 years would be the maximum time period allowed, EPA 
encourages a more rapid transition where possible, so that the benefits 
of these improvements can be realized sooner. EPA requests comments and 
information as to whether an interim time different from the proposed 
10-year period (2 years + 8 years) would be more appropriate.
    EPA considered but is not proposing a requirement that standards 
for new structures would apply when existing structures are repaired or 
renovated, as well as when they are replaced. EPA requests comments on 
the advisability of such a requirement and on how to define when it 
would apply.
    EPA considered other strategies to address existing structures. One 
option, based on containment structure age rather than a fixed 10-year 
period, would have allowed existing structures to operate under certain 
minimal standards until they were 15 years old, when the full 
requirements would apply. Existing structures that were cited for spill 
violations or that expanded in size by 50 percent or more would be 
required to meet the full requirements. An underlying assumption for 
this option is that older containment structures are more likely to 
result in releases of pesticides than are newer structures. Under this 
option, a containment structure that is 15 years in age or older (as 
well as those of unknown age) at the 2-year compliance date would be 
required to meet the standards of a new structure by the 2-year 
compliance date. A structure that is 10 years old at the 2-year date 
would be required to retrofit 5 years later. The major difference 
between this approach and the proposed fixed-interim period approach is 
that under the age-based system, older existing structures would be 
required to upgrade to comply with new structure standards much sooner 
than under the fixed interim period approach. On the other hand, under 
the age-based schedule, very recently built existing containment 
structures would be required to comply with standards for new 
structures later than would such structures under the proposed 
approach.
    EPA solicits comments and information pertaining to the benefits 
that could be obtained by phasing in containment standards based on age 
rather than on a fixed interim period. Information is also requested 
that may further reveal whether, and to what extent, older containment 
structures may pose significantly more of a threat to human health and 
the environment than more recently built containment structures.
    Another option would have applied the full requirements (i.e., 
those proposed today for new structures) to all structures, regardless 
of whether the structures were new or existing. Another option would 
have left intact the interim standards for existing structures, but 
would require that some or all upgrades be completed sooner than 10 
years after the publication date of the final rule. Under this option, 
a time-tiered compliance schedule would be possible, with some interim 
standards being replaced with full standards earlier than others. EPA 
requests comments regarding whether these or other options would 
provide cost-effective approaches for containment.
    EPA also requests comments on whether the proposed reference date 
to distinguish new from existing structures (3 months after the date of 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register) is appropriate. 
For example, EPA considered an option that would move the reference 
date to coincide with the compliance date, effectively allowing any 
facility that commenced construction prior to the 2-year compliance 
date to be designated as existing structures. EPA discarded this option 
because the interim standards for existing structures were developed 
for structures that would otherwise need to retrofit extensively. EPA 
reasoned that structures for which installation had not commenced until 
3 months after the publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register should be able to be built to comply with the full set of 
requirements.
    8. Recordkeeping. Section 165.157(a) would require retention of 
records for a 3-year period to verify the facility's compliance with 
applicable requirements of the proposed rule. Section 165.157(a)(1) 
would require that records be retained to document inspections and 
maintenance of containment structures, stationary bulk containers, and 
their appurtenances. Information to be recorded would include the name 
of the person performing the inspection or maintenance activity, the 
date of the activity, conditions noted, and maintenance performed.
    Section 165.157(a)(2) proposes recordkeeping requirements for 
monthly inventory and reconciliation of pesticides in stationary bulk 
containers that do not readily allow for inspection for possible 
leakage (see also discussion on Sec. 165.148(c), in Unit VI.B.3 of this 
preamble). Information proposed to be logged for each applicable 
container would include the name of the product stored, quantity 
reported from previous inventory, quantities dispensed, measured 
quantity remaining, and reconciliation. These logs would need to be 
recorded only during the interim period.
    Proposed Sec. 165.157(a)(3) would require that records be kept to 
document the duration over which pesticide remains in one location at 
the facility in any bulk container not protected by a secondary 
containment unit that meets the requirements of subpart H. This 
proposed requirement is intended to assist in determining whether the 
bulk container has exceeded the 13-day residence criterion that 
triggers requirements for secondary containment of stationary bulk 
containment.
    Section 165.157(b) would require the retention of written 
confirmation of hydraulic conductivity and pesticide-resistance, as 
applicable, for as long as the containment structure is in use, and 3 
years thereafter.

VII. Labeling Requirements for Pesticides and Devices

A. Background

    The provisions of 40 CFR 156.10(i)(2)(ix) require that the labeling 
of a pesticide product bear the directions for storage and disposal of 
the pesticide and its container required by part 165, and that these 
directions be grouped under the heading ``Storage and Disposal.'' The 
current part 165 does not contain specific labeling directions. EPA's 
Pesticide Regulation Notice 83-3 (cited in this preamble as PR Notice 
83-3) (Ref. 64) provides that the requirements of Sec. 156.10(i)(2)(ix) 
may be satisfied if the registrant provides on each pesticide label 
certain statements instructing the user on pesticide residue removal 
procedures and container disposal. PR Notice 83-3 sets out statements 
for a variety of pesticide products and container types.

B. Today's Proposal

    1. Amendments to part 156. EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 156 to 
add Sec. 156.140, Identification of container type, and Sec. 156.144, 
Residue removal instructions, under new subpart H entitled ``Container 
Labeling.'' To accommodate the requirements of these proposed additions 
as well as the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 165, the following 
amendments to Sec. 156.10 would be necessary:
    (1) Section 156.10(i)(2)(ix) would refer to the new additions to 
part 156 (Sec. 156.140 and Sec. 156.144).
    (2) Section 156.10(d)(7) would require that a space be reserved on 
labels intended for use on refillable containers so the net weight or 
measure of content can be marked in by the refiller prior to 
distribution or sale of the pesticide.
    (3) Section 156.10(f) would require that a space be reserved on 
labels intended for use on refillable containers so the refiller can 
mark in its EPA-assigned establishment number prior to distribution or 
sale of the pesticide.
    A pesticide product is considered misbranded if its label does not 
bear the registration number, assigned under FIFRA section 7, of the 
establishment in which the pesticide was produced [FIFRA sec. 
2(q)(1)(D)]. Also, it is misbranded if the net weight or measure of the 
contents is not affixed to the container [FIFRA sec. 2(q)(2)(C)(iii)]. 
The proposed blank spaces on the label would accommodate this 
information.
    2. Identification of container categories. EPA is proposing in 
Sec. 156.140 to require statements to be placed on the container label 
or the container itself that would identify the container for the user 
as either a nonrefillable or refillable container. Placement would be 
limited to the container label or the container because labeling that 
is not attached to the container may become separated from the product 
and thus unavailable to the user. EPA believes this statement is 
necessary because of reports of the reuse of existing containers in 
ways that pose unacceptable risks, or actual harm, to humans, 
livestock, and the environment. These reports include the reuse of 
pesticide containers as water jugs and flotation devices, and the reuse 
of larger containers that have been cut in half to serve as animal feed 
troughs and barbecues. The intent of the label language would therefore 
be to make clear that nonrefillable containers cannot be refilled with 
anything and refillable containers can be refilled only with pesticide.
    Two statements are proposed for pesticides in nonrefillable 
containers. The first statement would prohibit the reuse or refilling 
of the container. Nonrefillable containers would not be allowed to be 
refilled or reused because they would not have to meet the proposed 
refillable container integrity standards. (Today's proposal would 
require that refillable containers be designed and constructed to 
facilitate safe refill and reuse.) The statement also would recommend 
that the user offer the container for recycling. EPA does not consider 
recycling to be a direct ``reuse'' of the container for the purposes of 
this requirement. For example, the container could be recycled by 
having its physical form demolished, and the materials from which it 
was made could be reused to manufacture new containers.
    The second statement proposed in Sec. 156.140(a)(2) for pesticides 
in nonrefillable containers would require that a lot number or other 
identification code to identify the batch of pesticide product be 
marked permanently on the container label or the container itself by 
the registrant or the producer. The usefulness of this batch code 
depends on its availability to enforcement personnel, and because 
labeling that is not securely attached to the container may become 
separated from the product, EPA would limit the placement of the code 
to either the container label or the container.
    While EPA is not proposing to require a mandatory recordkeeping or 
tracking system for these batch codes/lot numbers, EPA believes batch 
codes/lot numbers would facilitate the safe use of containers by 
allowing EPA to identify and trace pesticides that are found to be 
adulterated, unstable, off specification, or otherwise defective. When 
used in conjunction with the EPA establishment number (currently 
required by EPA in Sec. 156.10(f) to appear on the label or the 
immediate container), the batch codes/lot numbers would allow for the 
tracing of defective products back to the place of manufacture, and 
identification of other products packaged during the same time.
    Registrants would be able to choose the type of identifying code 
they wish to use for this purpose. Several manufacturers already place 
(stamp or ink jet) batch codes, lot numbers, or other identifying codes 
on containers voluntarily to aid in quality control, production 
assessment, and identification of the time and date of manufacture.
    The statement for refillable containers would identify the 
container as a refillable pesticide container and prohibit the user 
from refilling the container with substances other than pesticides. 
EPA's PR Notice 83-3 (Ref. 64) does not distinguish between refillable 
and nonrefillable containers. As discussed later in this preamble, the 
label statements of PR Notice 83-3 will be amended as necessary to 
reflect changes made by this rule.
    3. Residue removal statements. Section 156.144(a) would require 
that all labels bear instructions for removal of pesticide residues 
prior to container disposal.
    EPA realizes that the residue removal requirements proposed today 
may not be appropriate for every pesticide product and is therefore 
proposing in Sec. 156.144(b) that registrants may request modifications 
and waivers from the residue removal label language.
    Section 156.144(c) would require residue removal statements to 
appear under ``Container Cleaning,'' a proposed subheading under the 
Storage and Disposal heading of the Directions for Use. The addition of 
this subheading would standardize the organization of the ``Storage and 
Disposal'' section, thereby increasing the ease of compliance with 
label requirements.
    The proposed Sec. 156.144 segregates the requirements for residue 
removal label statements into Sec. 156.144(d) for nonrefillable 
containers and Sec. 156.144(e) for refillable containers in order to 
decrease any confusion that may ensue from establishing different 
requirements for the two container categories.
    4. Residue removal statements for nonrefillable containers. Section 
156.144(d) proposes that the labels of all pesticides packaged in 
nonrefillable containers must bear instructions for residue removal 
prior to disposal. EPA intends to establish specific label language for 
each container/formulation category at the same time as the 
corresponding laboratory residue removal standards are established in 
Sec. 165.104. Accordingly, proposed today in Sec. 156.144(d)(1) are 
label instructions for the rigid/dilutable category (as discussed in 
Unit IV.B.7.b. of this preamble. This category includes products that 
are meant to be diluted prior to application and that are packaged in 
rigid containers, i.e., those containers constructed of materials such 
as glass, metal, and rigid plastics). Because PR Notice 83-3 (Ref. 64) 
also specifies container disposal instructions, EPA intends to amend PR 
Notice 83-3 to reflect the establishment in regulation of these rigid/
dilutable statements and instructions. At this time, EPA does not 
intend to change the residue removal language that is specified in PR 
Notice 83-3 for the other container categories. Additional changes will 
be made to PR Notice 83-3 as new container/formulation categories have 
their residue removal standards and instructions established in 
regulation.
    Although allowable by FIFRA section 19(f)(1)(C), EPA does not 
propose to exempt products intended solely for household use that are 
rigid/dilutable from the residue removal label language requirements of 
Sec. 156.144(d)(1). In many instances, the same pesticide product in 
the same container is sold for agricultural or industrial use, as well 
as for use in the home, yard, or garden. The current PR Notice 83-3 
(Ref. 64) states that all products intended solely for household use 
packaged in rigid containers (e.g., bottles, cans, jars) must bear the 
statement, ``Rinse thoroughly before discarding in trash.'' The 
proposed container rinsing label statements would require the user to 
use a specific residue removal procedure. EPA specifically requests 
comments on whether rigid/dilutable products that are distributed and 
sold for household use by consumers should be exempted from 
Sec. 156.144(d)(1) and on any other exemptions that may be appropriate 
and, if so, what alternative residue removal procedure should be 
provided for these containers.
    It is possible that household pesticide users might experience some 
difficulty properly adding the container cleaning rinsate to the use 
mixture or using the rinsate itself as a use solution. EPA believes 
that an educational outreach program addressing proper rinsate 
management may alleviate many potential problems. Another option would 
be to require registrants to include on the label detailed instructions 
on how to properly add the rinsate to the application mixture or to use 
the rinsate as a use solution. EPA requests comments on the 
appropriateness and feasibility of such an educational program and/or 
requiring rinsate management directions on the labels of household 
products. If the rinsate can't be added to the use solution or used 
directly for some reason, the disposal methods available to the 
household pesticide user include disposing of the rinsate in the trash 
and pouring the rinsate down the drain. EPA requests comments on the 
appropriateness of these two potential methods for managing the rinsate 
from household pesticide containers. In addition, EPA requests comments 
on whether there are circumstances in which it would be more 
appropriate to not create rinsate from household pesticide containers 
by requiring that the label include directions to wrap the container in 
newspaper and discard in the trash instead of rinsing instructions.
    The proposed label statements pertaining to the rigid/dilutable 
category consist of two elements: a statement on timing of the residue 
removal and a statement that includes at least one residue removal 
(rinsing) procedure.
    a. Timing of the residue removal procedure. EPA considers the 
timing of the residue removal procedure to be a critical factor in 
residue removal effectiveness. EPA therefore proposes in 
Sec. 156.144(d)(1)(i) that users be required to clean containers 
immediately after emptying out the useful contents of the container.
    The Report to Congress (Ref. 65) identifies the timing of the 
rinsing procedures as a critical element of effective residue removal. 
When rinsing is not performed immediately after the emptying of the 
useful contents of the container, the residue dries on the inside and 
outside of the container. Many liquid formulations are particularly 
difficult to remove once they have dried. Container disposal becomes 
more difficult when pesticide residues cannot be removed. This is 
especially true for pesticide container recycling and collection 
programs where pesticide residues are a major concern. For example, 
three letters to EPA from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (Ref. 
23) summarizing pesticide container recycling programs reported the 
rejection of containers with visible pesticide residues and that the 
residues were a greater problem for the containers that were not rinsed 
immediately after emptying. A plastic pesticide container collection 
program in Iowa (Ref. 16) reported that 50 percent of the containers 
collected were rejected by landfill operators because of the presence 
of colored or dried residues in the containers as a result of improper 
rinsing.
    Surveys conducted in various States show that many users are not 
aware of the importance of the timing of their container rinsing 
practices. One example is a survey, conducted in Ohio, that reported 
that 14 percent of the applicators surveyed indicated they did not, or 
they only sometimes, rinsed their containers after emptying them (Ref. 
48). Additionally, 45 percent of the users surveyed strongly agreed and 
48 percent agreed that ``It is not necessary to rinse used containers 
if they are locked up away from others.''
    Users may not be aware of the importance of timing because label 
statements generally do not require rinsing to be performed at any 
specific time, nor do any of the residue removal statements found in PR 
Notice 83-3 (Ref. 64) specify the timing of residue removal. User 
compliance with this proposed label statement should increase the 
number of containers that can enter container collection and recycling 
programs, thereby reducing the difficulties now experienced by users 
seeking disposal options for their empty containers.
    b. Establishing detailed residue removal statements. The current 
Sec. 156.10 does not require registrants to place specific residue 
removal instructions on their labels. PR Notice 83-3 (Ref. 64) 
instructs registrants to add triple rinse requirements to their labels 
for rigid containers (metal, plastic, glass) but does not set out the 
triple rinse or equivalent procedures. Triple rinsing as a means of 
cleaning containers was originally derived from dilution principles 
used in laboratories and was adopted as a practical procedure for 
pesticide users. EPA is proposing to establish detailed triple rinse 
and pressure rinse procedures to clearly communicate to the user the 
elements of the cleaning procedure that are critical to rinsing 
efficiency. Today's proposal would require the placement of either 
procedure on the label, with the option of including both. EPA requests 
comments on whether registrants should be required to place both triple 
and pressure rinsing statements on the label to allow users to use 
either container cleaning procedure.
    The critical elements of the triple rinse statement are based on 
the laboratory triple rinse methodology that EPA is proposing in 
Sec. 165.106. By requiring users to follow a similar methodology, EPA 
hopes to assure a high level of cleaning efficiency under typical field 
conditions where the variables of water (varying pH, salinity, 
temperature, etc.), air temperature, and relative humidity are less 
controllable.
    Section 156.144(d)(1)(ii)(A) proposes the triple rinse procedure 
for dilutable liquid pesticide formulations, whereas 
Sec. 156.144(d)(1)(iii)(A) proposes the triple rinse procedure for 
dilutable dry pesticide formulations. The statements differ only by a 
phrase in the first sentence, which instructs users to empty the 
remaining pesticide concentrate from the container prior to rinsing. 
The phrase ``and continue to drain for 30 seconds'' that is found in 
the statement for liquid formulations is not part of the dry 
formulation statement because dry materials do not ``drain'' as liquids 
do.
    The proposed pressure rinse instructions are modeled after rigorous 
procedures currently used in the field, and are generally considered to 
result in a degree of residue removal efficiency equivalent to triple 
rinsing (Refs. 31 and 65). The results of the studies in the Report to 
Congress generally indicated comparable residue removal for the two 
methods. EPA concludes that pressure rinsing is at least as efficient 
as triple rinsing in removing pesticide residues from containers (Ref. 
65). Section 156.144(d)(1)(ii)(B) proposes the pressure rinse procedure 
for dilutable liquid pesticide formulations, whereas 
Sec. 156.144(d)(1)(iii)(B) proposes the pressure rinse procedure for 
dilutable dry pesticide formulations. As with the triple rinse 
statements, these two statements differ only by a phrase in the first 
sentence pertaining to the emptying of pesticide concentrate from the 
container prior to rinsing.
    EPA considered proposing an additional pressure rinse procedure 
that specified recirculation via a pump for larger nonrefillables, such 
as drums. EPA requests comments on whether the proposed pressure 
rinsing procedure is appropriate for larger nonrefillable containers.
    EPA estimates that the triple rinsing instructions proposed today 
will take approximately 5 minutes to perform, whereas the pressure 
rinsing procedure would take approximately 2 minutes. EPA is evaluating 
the efficiency of shorter triple rinse procedures (Ref. 69). EPA 
requests comments on the time burden of the proposed rinsing 
procedures, and the voluntary submission of data on residue removal, 
including in particular the cleaning efficiency of any suggested 
shorter triple rinse and pressure rinse procedures. EPA also requests 
comments and data on alternative residue removal procedures.
    No field residue removal standard is proposed today. The laboratory 
residue removal standard proposed in Sec. 165.104 is to ensure that 
container design and formulation characteristics would facilitate 
residue removal. Registrants -- not users--would have to meet the 
laboratory standard. By establishing a requirement in Sec. 165.104 that 
a pesticide product must meet a laboratory residue removal performance 
standard, EPA believes a high level of residue removal from containers 
will be achieved when the user follows the label instructions, even 
under less than optimal field conditions. A field experiment conducted 
on existing pesticide products using triple rinse procedures less 
stringent than those proposed today reported levels of 99.9 percent 
removal from several container types, showing that this triple rinse 
procedure can remove a significant amount of residue (Ref. 3).
    5. Non-water diluents. The laboratory residue removal procedure 
proposed in Sec. 165.104 uses water as the diluent. Even if a product 
has complied with Sec. 165.104, it is possible that a registrant may 
request EPA to allow modification of the label instructions to require 
users to clean the container with a nonwater diluent. Under proposed 
Sec. 156.144(d)(1)(iv), EPA may grant the request if certain conditions 
are met. Handling of the rinsate generated during residue removal must 
be in accordance with the label. Reuse of the rinsate cannot be 
accomplished unless the non-water diluent is permitted by the label to 
be used in application. If reuse in application is not permitted, then 
the rinsate must be collected and stored for eventual disposal.
    EPA is proposing in Sec. 156.144(d)(1)(iv) to allow the use of non-
water diluents to clean containers if the registrant shows that the use 
of a non-water diluent is necessary and proposes appropriate 
instructions. The residue removal instructions would have to be 
modified to identify the diluent. The instructions may allow the 
rinsate to be added to the application equipment if the label 
``Directions for Use'' permit application of the resulting rinsate. If 
the ``Directions for Use'' do not identify the non-water diluent as an 
allowable addition to the pesticide, the label would have to specify 
collection and storage of the rinsate in lieu of use.
    EPA must have approved, in writing, the modification of the residue 
removal instructions before the pesticide product can be distributed or 
sold.
    6. Future addition of residue removal statements. EPA is proposing 
to hold Sec. 156.144(d)(2) in reserve for the residue removal 
statements of other container/formulation categories. EPA acknowledges 
that the residue removal procedures proposed for rigid/dilutables may 
not be appropriate for all container and package types (such as paper 
bags) or formulations (e.g., ant/roach/fly traps, baits, and other non-
dilutable or ready-to-use pesticide products). EPA requests comments 
and data on alternative residue removal procedures for container/
formulation types other than rigid/dilutable.
    7. Label statements for refillable containers. Section 156.144(e) 
would require that the labels of all pesticides packaged in refillable 
containers bear statements and instructions for residue removal prior 
to disposal.
    EPA is proposing in Sec. 156.144(e)(1) a statement to require users 
to clean refillable containers prior to disposal. In 
Sec. 156.144(e)(2), EPA is proposing to require the registrant to 
develop and place on the label a cleaning procedure to be used prior to 
disposal of the container. See Unit V.B.11 of this preamble for a 
discussion of this provision.
    In Sec. 165.124, EPA is proposing to require liquid minibulk 
containers to be equipped with tamper-evident devices to minimize the 
potential of pesticide product becoming contaminated. EPA considered 
but decided not to propose a label statement informing users that if 
they present a liquid minibulk container with a damaged tamper-evident 
device for refilling, the container could not be refilled with 
pesticide unless it was cleaned and a new tamper-evident device was 
installed. Cleaning and installing a new device may incur a cost to the 
user. A possible label statement that might suffice to alert the user 
to this issue is ``If the tamper-evident devices on this container are 
damaged, then the container must be cleaned and new devices must be 
installed before refilling.'' EPA requests suggestions and comments on 
the need for a label statement concerning tamper-evident devices.
    8. Compliance dates. EPA is considering three options for 
compliance schedules and requests comments on these schedules, as 
described below, or on alternatives to these schedules:
    (1) Compliance with the proposed part 156 amendments would be 
required no later than the compliance date of the proposed part 165 
residue removal requirements.
    (2) Compliance with the proposed part 156 amendments would be 
required the next time a label amendment of any type is requested by 
the registrant (voluntary request) or required by EPA, or by the 
compliance date of the proposed part 165 residue removal requirements, 
whichever is earliest.
    (3) Compliance with the proposed part 156 amendments would be 
required the next time a label amendment of any type is requested by 
the registrant (voluntarily request) or required by EPA, but would not 
be postponed longer than 1 year past the compliance date of the 
proposed part 165 residue removal requirements.

VIII. Upcoming Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Pesticide 
Formulators, Packagers, and Repackagers

A. Purpose

    The goal of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) is to 
achieve zero discharge of wastewater pollutants to the waters of the 
United States. Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), EPA is developing 
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (effluent guidelines) for 
the Pesticide Formulating, Packaging, and Repackaging (PFP) industrial 
category. EPA expects that the effluent guidelines will affect, among 
other facilities, the same refilling establishments as are affected by 
today's bulk containment proposal (40 CFR part 165, subpart H). EPA 
seeks to develop a regulatory approach to the effluent guidelines for 
PFPs that is consistent with the bulk containment requirements proposed 
today. The purpose of this part of today's Notice is to inform 
interested parties that EPA is developing these CWA regulations for 
scheduled proposal in January 1994, to describe EPA's anticipated 
approach to these regulations, and to provide advanced notice to 
parties who are interested in the opportunity to comment on the January 
1994 proposed rulemaking.

B. Applicability

    The PFP effluent guidelines will apply to facilities engaged in 
pesticide formulating, packaging, and repackaging; this includes 
refilling establishments (considered a type of ``repackager''). The EPA 
database (see Unit VIII.D of this preamble) established to support the 
PFP effluent guidelines currently includes refilling establishments. It 
does not include the other types of facilities covered by today's bulk 
containment proposal; i.e., commercial applicators and custom blenders. 
Therefore, EPA expects that the effluent guidelines being developed for 
PFPs will not apply to commercial applicators or custom blenders.

C. Background

    Pesticide formulating and packaging operations currently are 
regulated by the Best Practicable Technologies (BPT) Effluent 
Guidelines for the Pesticide Chemicals Point Source Category, 
promulgated in 1978 (40 CFR part 455 subpart C). This effluent 
guideline set a BPT limitation of ``no discharge for process wastewater 
pollutants'' for PFP facilities that discharge directly to lakes, 
streams, rivers, or other waters of the United States (``direct 
dischargers''). Facilities that discharge to publicly owned treatment 
works (POTWs) (``indirect dischargers''), are not covered by the BPT 
limitations.

D. Expected Approach

    Effluent guidelines establish limitations on the pollutants 
discharged into waters of the United States from industrial point 
sources. Pollutant limitations are based on the best performance 
achievable by appropriate control technologies, including in-process 
and wastewater treatment technologies.
    EPA surveyed a sample population of the pesticide formulating and 
packaging industry in 1990. Included among the facilities surveyed were 
companies that repackage pesticide products, many of which are 
refilling establishments. EPA obtained responses from 188 refilling 
establishments.
    Of those refilling establishments, 135 reported generating 
wastewater or rinsate from rinsing their bulk tanks and associated 
equipment or rinsing the other refillable containers. Forty-two 
companies also reported having to manage and dispose of some pesticide-
containing stormwater. The most frequently reported means of managing 
these pesticide-containing rinsates and stormwaters was through 
application according to label requirements. This management practice 
was reported by 149 companies.
    The management of pesticide-containing rinsates and stormwaters by 
application in accordance with the label is currently practiced by most 
refilling establishments in the eastern and midwestern United States. 
The most common practice in California is to treat the pesticide-
containing rinsates and stormwaters and reuse the treated water. 
California's practices are different due to the diversity of 
agriculture and number of pesticides used during the year. Since most 
of California's agricultural region experiences net evaporation, there 
is apparently not any problem associated with an excess or accumulation 
of water needing management or disposal.
    The bulk containment system requirement for refilling 
establishments proposed in today's Notice (40 CFR part 165, subpart H) 
provides for the containment of rinsates, spills, or leaks and 
stormwater that may contain pesticides. EPA preliminarily believes that 
these proposed requirements are consistent with the control 
technologies the Agency is considering as the basis for the PFP 
effluent guidelines and standards for pesticide refilling 
establishments. EPA data appear to show that zero discharge to surface 
waters is technically feasible at refilling establishments, since 98 
percent of these establishments are now achieving it. Through the 
construction of bulk containment as proposed today, pesticide-
containing waters could be contained and held for reuse according to 
the label, thus achieving zero discharge to surface waters. Therefore, 
EPA anticipates that zero discharge may be the basis for the proposed 
effluent guideline for refilling establishments. This zero discharge 
requirement would apply to the rinsates and stormwater falling within 
the contained area. The zero discharge requirement would prohibit 
discharges by refilling establishments both to surface waters and to 
POTWs.

E. Pollution Prevention

    EPA is exploring source reduction opportunities and applications of 
the environmental management hierarchy in developing effluent 
guidelines (see Unit II.D of this preamble). While today's bulk 
containment proposal (subpart H) focuses on preventing the pesticide 
product from becoming a source of pollution, the effluent guidelines 
effort focuses on identifying opportunities to eliminate or reduce the 
volume of pesticide-containing wastewaters discharged to surface waters 
by refilling establishments. EPA is looking at ways to reduce these 
discharges by reducing the generation of wastewater and/or reusing 
these wastewaters.
    Historically, the effluent guidelines program has based its 
limitations and standards on the best performance of control 
technologies demonstrated within the industry or transferred from other 
industries. This has included pollutant reductions achieved through:
    (1) Process changes.
    (2) Recycling or reuse at the production process stage.
    (3) Recycling or reuse following treatment.
    (4) Treatment only.
    EPA notes that some refilling establishments currently apply the 
principles of source reduction as follows:
    (1) Avoid creating a contaminated stormwater stream by enclosing 
pesticide bulk storage tanks and loading pads under a roof.
    (2) Prevent the stormwater from being contaminated through better 
housekeeping, such as prompt cleanup of spills and leaks, and increased 
inspection and maintenance to avoid leaks.
    (3) Recover product value contained in rinsates through reuse when 
applying pesticides.
    At the time of the proposal of the PFP effluent guidelines, EPA 
will request comment on a number of issues related to refilling 
establishments, including the technical practicality and feasibility of 
the practices listed above and their economic achievability at 
refilling establishments. EPA will also solicit information on whether 
other source reduction practices should be considered.

F. Schedule

    EPA's proposed effluent guidelines regulation for the pesticide 
formulators and packagers industry (40 CFR part 455), which would 
include the effluent guidelines regulation for refilling 
establishments, is scheduled to be issued in January 1994. Promulgation 
of the effluent guidelines regulation is scheduled for August 1995.

IX. Relationship to Other Programs

    Certain laws administered by EPA and other agencies may affect the 
design of pesticide containers or procedures and standards for removal 
of residue from pesticide containers. This section identifies the laws 
that EPA considers to have the most significant impact on pesticide 
containers. The description of these laws is for informational purposes 
only; no changes are being proposed in the laws described below. 
Nothing in this proposal, if ultimately implemented, is intended to 
alter obligations under other statutes. However, EPA solicits comment 
on any changes that should be made to this proposal to aid in 
coordinating with these or other applicable laws and regulations.

A. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

    Requirements under RCRA may affect the handling of pesticide 
containers under certain circumstances. RCRA Subtitles C and I are 
described briefly below.
    FIFRA sections 19(f)(3) and 19(h) specify that FIFRA section 19 
does not affect the requirements or authorities of RCRA. Accordingly, 
this proposal does not alter any existing RCRA requirements, and any 
applicable RCRA provisions will apply in addition to the provisions of 
any final rule issued under FIFRA section 19. In addition, FIFRA 
section 19(f)(1)(B)(iv) specifies that the residue removal regulations 
may be coordinated with requirements for container rinsing under RCRA. 
As outlined below, this proposal would provide for coordination in this 
area.
    1. Hazardous waste requirements. Subtitle C of RCRA creates a 
cradle-to-grave system for managing hazardous wastes. RCRA Subtitle C 
regulations include requirements for generators, transporters, and 
others who handle hazardous wastes. The regulations cover any ``solid 
waste'' (defined at 42 U.S.C. 1004 and 40 CFR 261.2) that is listed as 
a hazardous waste or exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste, as 
set out in part 261. Pesticides and pesticide containers that are 
discarded or intended to be discarded may qualify as hazardous wastes 
if they are listed under Sec. 261.33 (discarded commercial chemical 
products, off-specification products or manufacturing intermediates, 
container residues, and spill residues), or if they exhibit a 
characteristic of hazardous waste as described in part 261 subpart C, 
and are not otherwise exempt from regulation.
    A hazardous waste remaining in a container is not subject to 
Subtitle C regulation if, among other things, the container is 
``empty'' as defined in Sec. 261.7. A container is ``empty'' if the 
wastes are removed pursuant to Sec. 261.7(b)(1) or (b)(2), or, in the 
case of an acute hazardous waste, the container has been triple rinsed 
or otherwise cleaned pursuant to Sec. 261.7(b)(3). It is EPA's intent 
that triple rinsing as provided in this proposal would meet the 
requirements of Sec. 261.7(b)(3), thus meeting the directive in FIFRA 
section 19(f)(1)(B)(iv).
    2. Underground storage tanks. RCRA Subtitle I provides for the 
development and implementation of a comprehensive regulatory program 
for ``underground storage tanks'' (USTs), defined at 42 U.S.C. 6991 and 
40 CFR 280.12 as tanks that are used to contain an accumulation of 
``regulated substances'' and whose volume (including underground pipes 
connected thereto) is 10 percent or more below ground. Regulated 
substances include petroleum or substances defined as hazardous under 
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 
Act of 1980 (CERCLA) (except hazardous wastes regulated under RCRA 
Subtitle C). CERCLA hazardous substances, enumerated at 40 CFR part 
302, include a number of pesticides. UST requirements at 40 CFR part 
280 include standards for new tanks as well as requirements for leak 
detection, closure, corrective action, and financial responsibility.
    EPA is not aware of the extent of industry use of USTs to store 
agricultural pesticides, and therefore has not made specific provision 
in subpart H of this proposal for containers that may be subject to UST 
requirements. EPA specifically solicits comment on the use of 
underground tanks to store agricultural pesticides and on the preferred 
means of coordinating UST and FIFRA requirements (e.g., by exempting 
containers regulated under the UST program from the FIFRA requirements 
for bulk containers).

B. Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC)

    Under section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), EPA has 
promulgated regulations at 40 CFR part 112 (known as the SPCC 
regulations) for the prevention of oil spills into navigable waters and 
adjoining shorelines. The regulations apply to facilities that, because 
of their location, could reasonably be expected to discharge oil into 
navigable waters or adjoining shorelines. Part 112 includes spill 
prevention procedures, methods, and equipment requirements for non-
transportation related facilities with total aboveground oil storage 
capacity greater than 1,320 gallons (or greater than 660 gallons 
aboveground in a single tank) or buried underground oil storage 
capacity greater than 42,000 gallons. On October 22, 1991 (Ref. 88), 
EPA proposed revisions to these regulations clarifying the mandatory 
nature of the rule requirements governing SPCC plans.
    Because the definition of ``oil'' under CWA section 311 is very 
broad (including oil ``of any kind and in any form''), it could 
potentially include pesticides that contain oil or are oil-based. EPA 
expects that comparatively few of the facilities covered by today's 
proposal would be subject to SPCC requirements. For those few, however, 
both today's proposed rule and the SPCC requirements would apply.

C. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Requirements

    The Occupational Safety and Health Act (U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) 
addresses occupational safety and health hazards by establishing 
requirements for employers and employees and authorizing OSHA to 
establish mandatory occupational safety and health standards.
    Tanks and containers that are used to store flammable and 
combustible liquids in occupational settings are subject to OSHA 
requirements under 29 CFR 1910.106. For storage tanks, Sec. 1910.106(b) 
contains design and construction requirements, including standards for 
materials, spacing, venting, drainage and diking, fire and flood 
resistance, and testing for strength and tightness. Section 1910.106(c) 
contains specifications for piping, valves, and fittings. Section 
1910.106(d) sets out design and construction requirements for 
containers and portable tanks, and also contains specifications for 
storage areas.

D. Department of Transportation (DOT) Hazardous Materials Regulations

    The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1974, (49 U.S.C. 1801 
et seq) authorizes DOT to designate as hazardous materials those 
materials that may pose unreasonable risk to health and safety or 
property, and regulate the handling and transportation of such 
materials.
    DOT regulates the transportation of hazardous materials at 49 CFR 
parts 171 through 180 (Hazardous Materials Regulations) by prescribing 
rules for, among other things, the manufacture, marking, and testing of 
the packaging or container for the hazardous material. A hazardous 
material is defined at 49 CFR 171.8 as a substance that has been 
determined by the Secretary of Transportation to be capable of posing 
an unreasonable risk to health, safety, and property when transported 
in commerce. DOT lists specific hazardous materials at 49 CFR 172.101 
and 172.102, and also defines several categories of hazardous materials 
in 49 CFR part 173.
    Some pesticides classify as hazardous materials. For such 
pesticides, the containers would have to comply with DOT's requirements 
(if the pesticide is being transported in commerce) as well as the 
container design rules being proposed today. There would be some 
overlap between DOT's hazardous materials regulations and EPA's 
container design regulations. More specifically, DOT's testing 
requirements for non-bulk packaging at 49 CFR part 178 include drop-
test requirements similar to EPA's proposed drop-test regulations for 
refillable minibulk containers. EPA does not intend to subject 
pesticide containers to two sets of drop test requirements. If a 
registrant is required to package its pesticide in containers that meet 
these DOT testing requirements, then such containers will be considered 
to satisfy EPA's proposed drop test requirement. Additionally, EPA 
believes that containers manufactured to DOT specifications would meet 
EPA container integrity requirements. Thus, if a pesticide is required 
to be transported in a particular DOT specification container, then 
that container would be likely to meet EPA's proposed container 
integrity requirements for nonrefillables at Sec. 165.102(b), for 
minibulk containers at Sec. 165.124(c), or for bulk containers at 
Sec. 165.124(f)(1), whichever applies.

X. Statutory Review Requirements

    As required by FIFRA 25(a), this proposal was submitted to the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) for review and comment. USDA elected 
not to comment officially on this proposal.
    This proposal was submitted to the Committee on Agriculture of the 
U.S. House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry of the U.S. Senate. EPA did not receive 
comments on this proposal.
    The FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) waived its review of this 
proposal.

XI. Public Docket

    EPA has established a public docket (OPP-190001) containing the 
material used to develop this proposed rule, as well as all of the 
material referenced in the References section below. The public docket 
is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, and is located in 
Rm 1132, Cyrstal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, 
Virginia.

XII. References and Support Documents

    1. Archer, T., ``Removal of 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid (2,4-D) 
Formulations from Noncombustible Pesticide Containers,'' Bulletin of 
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 13, 44-51 (1975).
    2. Association of American Pesticide Control Officials. ``SFIREG 
Survey Report Regarding Agrichemical Site Remediation and Disposition 
of Certain Agrichemical Containing Materials,'' (1992).
    3. Braun, H.E., et. al. ``Efficiency of Water Rinsing for the 
Decontamination of Used Pesticide Containers,'' Archives of 
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 12, 257-264 (1983).
    4. Broder, M. Tennessee Valley Authority, ``Containment of 
Fertilizers and Pesticides at Retail Operations,'' TVA/NFERC-91/3. 
Circular Z-291. Muscle Shoals, AL (1991).
    5. Broder, M., D. Nguyen, and A. Harner. Tennessee Valley 
Authority, ``Effects of Fertilizer and Pesticide on Concrete,'' 
presentation to American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 
International Summer Meeting, Charlotte, NC, (1992).
    6. Buzicky, G. Minnesota Department of Agriculture, [Costs for 
cleanup of agrichemical dealerships in Minnesota], Personal 
communication to U.S. EPA, summarized in memorandum by D. Howard, 
November 11 (1991).
    7. Callier, D. U.S. EPA, Region 7, [Information on bulk repackaging 
and cross-contamination], Personal communication to attendees of 
Technical Meeting on Bulk Repackaging Issues, May 4 (1993).
    8. Conover, W.J. Practical Nonparametric Statistics, 2nd edition, 
New York, Wiley and Sons (1980).
    9. Dade County Environmental Resources Management. ``Agrichemical 
Mixer-Loader Wells in Dade County, Florida: Potential for Groundwater 
Pollution,'' Miami, Florida (1989).
    10. Dwinell, S. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, 
``Final Report: Jackson County Pesticide Container Recycling 
Demonstration Project,'' (1991).
    11. Dwinell, S. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, 
``Final Report: South Florida Pesticide Container Recycling 
Demonstration Project,'' (1991).
    12. Elsner, G. Minnesota Department of Agriculture, ``Earthen Dikes 
as Secondary Containment for Fertilizers,'' (1991).
    13. Fawcett, R.S. ``Big Spring Revisited,'' Agrichemical Age, 
(October, 1989).
    14. Frank, R., et. al. ``A System for Rinsing Herbicide Residues 
from Drums During Highway Right-of-Way Spray Operations,'' Bulletin of 
Environmental Contamination Toxicology, 39, 680-687 (1987).
    15. Frieberg, D. Iowa Fertilizer and Chemical Association, 
``Environmental Cleanup of Fertilizer and Agricultural Chemical Dealer 
Sites,'' (1991).
    16. Frieberg, D. Iowa Fertilizer and Chemical Association, ``Final 
Report on Iowa Pesticide Container Recycling Project'' (1990).
    17. Frieberg, D. Iowa Fertilizer and Chemical Association, ``Iowa 
Pilot Project: Less than 56 Gallon Repackaging,'' (1990).
    18. Gilding, T. National Agricultural Chemicals Association, 
[Results of NACA pesticide container survey], Personal communication to 
U.S. EPA, October 12 (1989).
    19. Good, G. and A.G. Taylor. Illinois Environmental Protection 
Agency, ``A Review of Agrichemical Programs and Related Water Quality 
Issues,'' Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Report, Springfield, 
Illinois (1987).
    20. Habecker, M. A. Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade 
Consumer Protection, ``Environmental Contamination at Pesticide Mixing/
Loading Facilities: Case Study, Investigation and Remedial Action 
Evaluation,'' (1989).
    21. Hallberg, G. Cooperative Extension Service, ``Agricultural 
Chemicals and Groundwater Quality in Iowa: Status Report, 1985,'' Iowa 
State University, Ames, IO (1985).
    22. Hallberg, G. ``Overview of Agricultural Chemicals in Ground 
Water. Agricultural Impacts on Ground Water: A Conference,'' National 
Well Water Association (1986).
    23. Hansen, R. Minnesota Department of Agriculture, [Results of 
pesticide container collection programs], Personal communications to 
U.S. EPA, October 4, 1990, November 1, 1990, January 28, 1991 (1990-
1991).
    24. Hansen, R. and L. Palmer. Minnesota Department of Agriculture, 
``Pesticide Container Collection and Recycling in Minnesota,'' 
Pesticide Waste Management: Technology and Regulation, American 
Chemical Society, Washington, DC (1992).
    25. Hsieh, D., et. al., ``Decontamination of Non-combustible 
Agricultural Pesticide Containers by Removal of Emulsifiable 
Parathion,'' Environmental Science and Toxicology, 5, 826-829 (1972).
    26. Illinois Department of Agriculture and Illinois State 
Geological Survey, ``Agrichemical Facility Site Contamination Study'' 
(1993).
    27. Jennings, G.D. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, 
``Pesticides in Private Wells in Moore and Hoke Counties,'' Draft 
report, North Carolina State University (1991).
    28. Kammel, D., R. Noyes, G. Riskowski, and V. Hofman. ``Designing 
Facilities for Pesticide and Fertilizer Containment,'' MidWest Plan 
Service-37, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa (1991).
    29. Kelleher, K. Houston County Recycling Coordinator, 
[Observations from a pesticide container collection program], Personal 
communication to U.S. EPA, October 24 (1990).
    30. Lamberton, J., et. al., ``Pesticide Container Decontamination 
by Aqueous Wash Procedure,'' Bulletin of Environmental Contamination 
and Toxicology, 16, 528-535 (1976).
    31. Leasure, J.K. ``Triple Rinsed -- Or Equivalent,'' Southern 
Illinois University, unpublished report (1978).
    32. Lohafer, Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, 
[Results of minibulk sampling], Personal communication to U.S. EPA, 
December 7 (1990).
    33. Long, T. ``Groundwater Contamination in the Vicinity of 
Agrichemical Mixing and Loading Facilities,'' Illinois Agricultural 
Pesticides Conference [includes updated and supplemental data] (1989).
    34. MacDonald, B. Mitchell Systems Corporation, ``Summarization of 
Nebraska Agrichemical Spill Data,'' memorandum to U.S. EPA, July 17 
(1991).
    35. Magnusson, M. Minnesota Department of Agriculture, [Summary of 
the Minnesota Bulk Pesticide Repackaging Survey], Personal 
communication within the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, January 
15 (1993).
    36. Michigan Department of Agriculture. ``Agricultural Chemicals in 
Michigan Groundwater Pilot Survey of 1989,'' Pesticide and Plant Pest 
Management Division (1989).
    37. Michigan Department of Agriculture. ``Environmental Stewardship 
and the Michigan Department of Agriculture: A Report to Governor John 
Engler'' (1993).
    38. Midwest Agricultural Chemicals Association, Inc. ``Revised 
MACA-75 Manufacturer Specification and User Guidelines for Portable 
Agri-Chemical Tanks,'' June (1992).
    39. Miles, J., et. al., ``Assessment of Hazards Associated with 
Pesticide Container Disposal and of Rinsing Procedures as a Means of 
Enabling Disposal of Pesticide Containers in Sanitary Landfills,'' 
Journal of Environmental Science and Health, B, 305-315 (1983).
    40. Minnesota Department of Agriculture. ``Bulk Pesticide Storage 
Regulations,'' Chapter 1505.3010, Subpart 2.
    41. Minnesota Department of Agriculture. ``Minnesota Superfund: A 
Report on Use of the Minnesota Environmental Response, Compensation, 
and Compliance Fund During Fiscal Year 1991'' (1991).
    42. Morrison, P. Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and 
Consumer Protection, ``Bulk Pesticide Facility Spills,'' Personal 
communication to Mitchell Systems, Arlington, VA (1991).
    43. Morrison, P. Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and 
Consumer Protection, [Costs for cleanup of agrichemical dealerships in 
Wisconsin], Personal communication to U.S. EPA summarized in November 
12 memorandum by D. Howard (1991).
    44. Morrison, P. Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and 
Consumer Protection, [Explanation of certain portions of Wisconsin's 
bulk pesticide rules], Personal communication to U.S. EPA (1991).
    45. Morrison, P. and S. Kefer. Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, 
Trade, and Consumer Protection and Wisconsin Department of Natural 
Resources, ``Report on Wisconsin Pesticide Mixing and Loading Site 
Study,'' (1991).
    46. Myrick, C. National AgriChemical Retailers Association, [Brief 
summarization of contamination characteristics associated with 
agrichemical dealerships], Personal communication to U.S. EPA, July 21 
(1992).
    47. Novak, M. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, ``Survey of 
Potential Soil and Groundwater Contamination at Licensed Pesticide 
Dealers in Utah,'' (1991).
    48. Ozkan, H. Ohio State University, ``Proper Rinsing and Disposal 
of Pesticide Containers,'' February 14 (1991).
    49. Palmer, L. and R. Hansen. Minnesota Department of Agriculture, 
[Information on pesticide container collection programs], Personal 
communication to members of the Minnesota Pesticide Container Advisory 
Committee, September 30 (1991).
    50. Paulson, D. Ciba-Geigy, ``Why Containment - Industry's 
Perspective,'' Conference Proceedings, National Symposium on Pesticide 
and Fertilizer Containment: Design and Management, MidWest Plan Service 
(1992)
    51. Peck, D. ``The Determination of Residue of Certain Pesticides 
After Triple Rinsing,'' August (1985).
    52. Read, D. Minnesota Department of Agriculture, ``Agricultural 
Containment Failures,'' Personal communication to U. S. EPA. January 28 
(1992).
    53. Sausville, P. New York Department of Environmental 
Conservation, ``The Pros and Cons of Concrete,'' Aboveground Tank 
Update, July, pp. 13-14 (1991).
    54. Stumpf, K. Ciba-Geigy, [Examples of point source contamination 
involving pesticides], Personal communication to U.S. EPA, July 24 
(1992).
    55. Taylor, A. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, ``Field 
Investigation Reports of Seven Agrichemical Transportation Spills in 
Illinois,'' (1990).
    56. Taylor, A. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, [Costs for 
cleanup of agrichemical dealerships in Illinois], Personal 
communication with U.S. EPA summarized in November 15 memorandum by D. 
Howard (1991).
    57. Taylor, A. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 
``Testimony in Support of Regulatory Proposals Regarding Agrichemical 
Storage and Handling Facilities,'' (1989).
    58. Tennessee Valley Authority. ``Environmental Handbook for 
Fertilizer and Agrichemical Dealers,'' editor: J. Parker, TVA/NFERC-91/
11. Circular Z-303. Muscle Shoals, AL (1991).
    59. Tiernan, T. Wright State University, ``Assessment of Rinsing 
Procedures for Removing Pesticides from Containers Used by Agricultural 
Applicators,'' Quarterly Progress Report submitted to U.S. EPA, 
February 1 (1990).
    60. U.S. Coast Guard. National Response Center [selected spill data 
with summary notes by U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs] (1982 
through 1991).
    61. U.S EPA and Paper Shipping Sack Manufacturers Association, 
``EPA/PSSMA Paper Bag Residue Study'' (1993).
    62. U.S. EPA, Office of Compliance Monitoring. ``Amendment to the 
July 11, 1977 Enforcement Policy Applicable to Bulk Shipment of 
Pesticides,'' March 4 (1991).
    63. U.S. EPA, Office of Compliance Monitoring. ``Enforcement Policy 
Applicable to Bulk Shipment of Pesticides,'' July 11 (1977).
    64. U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs. ``Label Improvement 
Program -- Storage and Disposal Label Statements,'' Pesticide 
Regulation Notice 83-3 (1983).
    65. U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs. ``Pesticide Containers: 
A Report to Congress,'' EPA publication number EPA 540/09-91-116, May 
(1992).
    66. U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs. ``Registrant 
information on bulk-related spills,'' September 25 (1992).
    67. U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs. ``Regulatory Impact 
Analysis: Proposed Container Design and Residue Removal Regulations 
Under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act as Amended 
1988,'' (1993).
    68. U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs. ``Regulatory Impact 
Analysis: Standards for Pesticide Containment Structures Under the 
Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act as Amended, 1988,'' 
(1993).
    69. U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs. Research conducted by 
Formulogics, Inc., ``Triple Rinsing of Containers, Rinsing Variables'' 
(1991).
    70. U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs. ``State of the States: 
Pesticide Storage, Disposal and Transportation,'' prepared for EPA by 
Mitchell Systems Corporation, EPA publication number EPA 734-R-92-012 
(1992).
    71. U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs. ``Status of State 
Regulations for Containment of Pesticide Bulk Containers,'' December 31 
(1992).
    72. U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs. ``Supporting Statement 
for SF-83 Container Design and Residue Removal Regulations (40 CFR part 
165),'' prepared for EPA by Mitchell Systems Corporation (1993).
    73. U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs. ``Supporting Statement 
for SF-83 Containment Structure Regulations (40 CFR part 165),'' 
prepared for EPA by Mitchell Systems Corporation (1993).
    74. U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs. ``Trip Report to 
Missouri,'' May 25 (1990).
    75. U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. ``NPDES best 
management practices guidance document,'' EPA publication number EPA-
600/9-79-045, December (1979).
    76. United Nations. ``Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous 
Goods,'' 6th revised edition, New York (1989).
    77. Vieira, K. Clorox, [Data from container rinsing tests conducted 
by Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association], Personal 
communication to U.S. EPA, July 13 (1993).
    78. Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer 
Protection. ``Background Report on Proposed Chapter Ag 163, Wisconsin 
Administrative Code (pesticide bulk storage),'' (1985).
    79. Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer 
Protection, Agricultural Resource Management Division. ``Explanations 
and Interpretations of Ag 163, Wisconsin Administrative Code, Pesticide 
Bulk Storage,'' (1989).
    80. Zuelsdorff, N. Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and 
Consumer Protection, ``Pesticide Storage and Spill Containment; State 
Initiatives,'' Proceedings, National Symposium on Pesticide and 
Fertilizer Containment: Design and Management, MidWest Plan Service, 
Iowa State University, Ames, IO (1991). Legislative/Administrative 
References.
    81. Leahy, P., 134 Congressional Record S13454, daily edition 
September 28 (1988).
    82. U.S. DOT. ``Performance-Oriented Packaging Standards; Changes 
to Classification, Hazard Communication, Packaging and Handling 
Requirements Based on UN Standards and Agency Initiative,'' 55 FR 
52402, December 21 (1990).
    83. U.S. DOT. ``Performance-Oriented Packaging Standards; Revisions 
and Response to Petitions for Reconsideration,'' 56 FR 66124, December 
20 (1991).
    84. U.S. DOT. ``Intermediate Bulk Containers for Hazardous 
Materials,'' 57 FR 36694, August 14 (1992).
    85. U.S. EPA, Office of Air. ``Approval and Promulgation of State 
Implementation Plans: Clean Air Act Amendments to Prevent Significant 
Deterioration, 43 FR 26395, June 19 (1978).
    86. U.S. EPA, Office of Compliance Monitoring. ``Interim 
Determination of Adequacy of State Pesticide Residue Removal 
Programs,'' 58 FR 43994, August 18 (1993).
    87. U.S. EPA, Office of Compliance Monitoring. ``Pesticide 
Management and Disposal,'' 58 FR 26856, May 5 (1993).
    88. U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. ``Oil 
Pollution Prevention; Non-transportation Related Onshore and Offshore 
Facilities; Proposed Rules,'' 56 FR 54612, October 22 (1991).
    89. U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs. ``Incentives for 
Development and Registration of Reduced Risk Pesticides,'' 57 FR 32140, 
July 20 (1992).
    90. U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs. ``Notice of Voluntary 
Packaging Standardization Scheme for Liquid Agricultural Pesticide 
Formulations,'' 49 FR 212, October 31 (1984).
    91. U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs. ``Reporting 
Requirements for Risk/Benefit Information,'' 57 FR 44290, September 24 
(1992).
    92. U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs. ``Worker Protection 
Standard,'' 57 FR 38102, August 21 (1992).
    93. U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste. ``Hazardous Waste Management 
System: General,'' 45 FR 33066, May 19 (1980).
    94. U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste. ``Wood Preserving; 
Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Final Rule,'' 55 FR 
50450, December 6 (1990).
    95. U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste. ``Wood Preserving; 
Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Standards and Interim 
Status Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, 
Storage, and Disposal Facilities; Proposed Rulemaking,'' 56 FR 63848, 
December 5 (1991).
    96. U.S. EPA, Office of Underground Storage Tanks. ``Underground 
Storage Tanks; Technical Requirements and State Program Approval; Final 
Rules,'' 53 FR 37082, September 23 (1988).
    97. U.S. EPA, Office of Water. ``Pesticide Chemicals Manufacturing 
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards,'' 57 FR 12560, April 10 
(1992).
    98. U.S. EPA. ``Pollution Prevention Strategy,'' 56 FR 7849, 
February 26 (1991).

XIII. Regulatory Assessment Requirements

A. Executive Order 12291

    Under Executive Order 12291, EPA must determine whether a rule is 
``major'' by performing a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). EPA has 
determined that this is not a major rule because it is not likely to 
have: (1) An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, (2) 
a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual 
industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic 
regions, or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, 
investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United 
States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in 
domestic or export markets. Two RIAs -- one for the container and 
labeling requirements and one for the containment requirements -- have 
been developed and submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for review (Refs. 67 and 68). These documents are available for 
public inspection at the address given at the beginning of this Federal 
Register notice. In addition, this proposed rule was submitted to OMB 
for review as required by E.O. 12291. Unless otherwise specified, the 
discussion below represents a summary of the two RIAs together.
    In developing the proposed regulations, EPA analyzed three 
regulatory options in each of the RIAs. Regulatory Option 2 represents 
EPA's proposed rule, Regulatory Option 1 represents a less stringent 
option and Regulatory Option 3 represents a more stringent option.
    The proposed rule would primarily affect registrants (formulators) 
who package formulated pesticide products (formulating industry), 
refillers/refilling establishments (generally agrichemical dealers) who 
refill refillable containers (refilling industry), independent (for-
hire) aerial and ground applicators who apply agricultural pesticides 
for compensation, and household and certain institutional end users who 
will be affected by a triple rinse requirement for the first time. 
Representative facilities were developed for each of the groups (except 
end users) according to size and, for formulators, the pesticide market 
segment served.
    The costs of compliance were estimated on an individual facility 
and a total industry basis, resulting in uneven cost streams 
representing capital, initial, intermittent, compliance period and 
operational and maintenance (annual) costs of compliance. Such 
compliance streams were converted to an equivalent, constant-level cost 
per year (an annualized cost) using an annual revenue requirement (ARR) 
methodology. The annualized cost or ARR for each representative 
facility was then compared to that facility's sales and profits before 
tax to estimate the impacts of compliance. Any facility with an ARR to 
sales ratio greater than 1.0 percent and an ARR to profits before tax 
ratio of greater than 20 percent would be considered significantly 
affected.
    The total combined estimated costs of compliance for the proposed 
rule would be $27.2 million to $37.7 million under Regulatory Option 1; 
$38.7 million to $49.9 million under Regulatory Option 2 (EPA's 
proposed option); and $102.6 million to $113.8 million under Regulatory 
Option 3.
    Under Regulatory Option 2 (the proposed rule), the total costs to 
each of the industry sectors would be $19.9 million to $27.2 million 
for the formulating industry, $11.2 million for the refilling industry, 
$1.6 million for the independent (for-hire) applicator industry, and 
$6.0 million to $9.9 million for end users. The formulating industry 
would be most affected, bearing at least 50 percent of the total costs 
of these proposed regulations.
    The container RIA analyzes each of the regulatory options in two 
scenarios, based on the number of container/formulation combinations 
that are assumed would be tested for the nonrefillable container 
residue removal standard. Scenario 1 assumes 50 percent of all rigid 
container/dilutable formulation combinations would be tested for 
residue removal, and Scenario 2 assumes 100 percent of all such 
combinations would be tested.
    In general, formulating facilities would not be significantly 
affected under Scenario 1 of Regulatory Option 2. However, under 
Scenario 2 of Regulatory Option 2, the following representative 
formulating facilities would be affected significantly: small 
formulating facilities in all of the pesticide sectors, one of the 
model large agricultural facilities, and medium representative 
industrial facilities.
    Refilling facilities would not incur significant impacts as a 
result of either the container standards or the containment standards. 
Some independent (for-hire) aerial and ground applicators (less than 20 
small and less than 80 medium aerial applicators) would be 
significantly affected by the proposed rule. The number of small 
applicators projected to be significantly affected as a result of the 
costs of compliance does not represent a substantial number of small 
aerial applicators.
    EPA believes that rinsates and runoff from pads will not be 
required to be treated as hazardous wastes. According to an Office of 
Water survey, 98 percent of facilities surveyed are able to recycle 
rinsates as reusable pesticide. The remainder of facilities will be 
accounted for under water effluent guidelines. Thus EPA estimates that 
the additional costs imposed by the proposed containment rule for 
disposal of runoff and rinsates are zero.
    The combined direct benefits of the rule have been estimated in a 
range of $11.1 million to $16.0 million, with the midpoint at $13.6 
million, as well as 1,650 to 2,250 acute illness incidents avoided 
annually. The proposed container design/residue removal regulations are 
expected to generate direct health and environmental benefits due to 
fewer incidents of container failure, better ``usability'' of 
containers, and less human and environmental exposure to insufficiently 
rinsed containers. These benefits are expected to range from $4.1 to 
$5.0 million and 1,650 to 2,250 acute illness incidents avoided 
annually. The proposed containment regulations are expected to generate 
direct environmental and health benefits due to fewer uncontrolled 
releases of pesticides into the environment. These benefits are 
evaluated in terms of avoided costs for remediating contaminated sites 
and are estimated to range from $7.0 to $11.0 million annually.
    In addition, indirect benefits are estimated based on the expected 
shift from nonrefillable to refillable containers. All of these 
indirect benefits ($106.1 million) are attributable to the shift from 
nonrefillables to refillables. It is possible that all of this shift 
could occur without this regulation over time. Therefore, it is assumed 
that 25 to 75 percent of this shift is due to this rule. In this case, 
total indirect benefits would be estimated at $26.5 to $79.6 million 
annually. EPA solicits comments on the extent to which the indirect 
benefits as characterized in the Container Design/Residue Removal RIA 
properly reflect the percentage of indirect benefits that would be 
attributable to the rule.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule was reviewed under the provisions of section 3(a) of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) [5 U.S.C. 605(b)]. The results of that 
review have been incorporated into the regulatory impact analyses.
    The RFA requires that regulatory agencies consider the potential 
impacts of regulations on small businesses. A significant adverse 
impact exists if one of the following criteria is met: (1) Annual 
compliance costs increase total costs of production for small entities, 
for the pertinent process or product being regulated, by more than five 
percent, (2) compliance costs as a percent of sales for small entities 
are at least ten percent higher than compliance costs as a percent of 
sales for large entities, (3) capital costs of compliance represent a 
significant portion of capital available to small entities, considering 
internal cash flow plus external financial capabilities, and (4) the 
requirements of the regulation are likely to result in closure of small 
entities.
    In developing these regulations, EPA has considered impacts on 
small businesses by analyzing different stringency levels of 
regulations (Regulatory Options 1, 2, and 3). Further, as indicated in 
Unit XIII.A of this preamble, sensitivity analysis was evaluated on the 
residue removal testing issue through the inclusion of scenarios 1 and 
2 under each regulatory option in the container RIA. Scenario 1 assumes 
50 percent of all rigid container/dilutable formulation combinations 
would be tested for residue removal, and Scenario 2 assumes 100 percent 
of all such combinations would be tested.
    The analysis indicates small facilities would not be significantly 
impacted under Regulatory Option 1 and Scenario 1 of Regulatory Option 
2. Scenario 1 reflects EPA's anticipation that many container/
formulation combinations will not require residue removal testing. This 
is because registrants (formulators) would acquire data that is 
acceptable to EPA from other registrants and sources. If formulators 
can demonstrate that a product shares the same formulation 
characteristics as one that has met the residue removal standard and is 
packaged in the same container that has been documented as meeting the 
standard with that type of formulation, the burden on small formulators 
is smaller. While it is not known just what percentage of container/
formulation combinations would ultimately be tested, analysis clearly 
indicates that if all rigid/dilutable combinations were tested, small 
formulating facilities in all of the pesticide sectors would likely 
experience significant impacts under two regulatory options.
    Neither the container RIA nor the containment RIA indicate that the 
representative refillers/refilling establishments would be adversely 
affected by compliance with the proposed regulations.
    Some small for-hire applicators, primarily aerial application 
businesses, (1) may experience increases in total costs of production 
that are greater than five percent, (2) may have compliance costs at 
least ten percent higher than those for large entities, and (3) may 
face closure as a result of the proposed rule. However, the number of 
small aerial applicators adversely impacted cannot be considered 
``substantial,'' and such entities could avoid the costs of compliance 
with the containment portion of the proposed rule by working from 
smaller, nonbulk containers.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements contained in this proposed 
rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 
Two Information Collection Requests (ICRs) -- one for the container and 
labeling requirements and one for the containment requirements -- have 
been prepared by EPA (Refs. 72 and 73) and copies may be obtained from 
Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch (2136), EPA, 401 M St., SW., 
Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740.
    According to the container ICR, the total annual burden to 
respondents and EPA is estimated to be 573,425 hours. In addition, 
total annual costs to respondents and EPA are estimated to be 
$16,869,059. Public respondent burden for this collection of 
information (for the container standards) is estimated to average 93.90 
hours per response, including the time for: reviewing instructions; 
planning and coordinating compliance activities; creating new and 
gathering existing data; compiling and reviewing data; completing 
paperwork and submitting the required data to EPA; and maintaining data 
in company files.
    According to the containment ICR, the total annual burden to 
industry and EPA is estimated to be 15,519 hours. Total annual costs to 
respondents and EPA are estimated to be $473,263. Public respondent 
burden for this collection of information (for the containment 
standards) is estimated to average 2.72 hours per response, including 
the time for: reviewing instructions; planning and coordinating 
compliance activities; creating new and gathering existing data; 
compiling and reviewing data; completing paperwork; and maintaining 
data in company files.
    Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect 
of these collections of information, including suggestions for reducing 
the burden, to Chief, Information Policy Branch, 2136, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC. 20460; 
and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attn: Desk Officer for 
EPA. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the 
information collection contained in this proposal.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 156

    Environmental protection, Labeling, Pesticides and pests.

40 CFR Part 165

    Environmental protection, Packaging and containers, Pesticides and 
pests, Waste treatment and disposal.

    Dated: February 2, 1994.

Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter E, be 
amended as follows:

PART 156--[AMENDED]

    1. In part 156:
    a. The authority citation would continue to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136-136y.


    b. In Sec. 156.10 by adding paragraph (d)(7), and by revising 
paragraphs (f) and (i)(2)(ix) to read as follows:


Sec. 156.10  Labeling requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (7) For pesticide packaged in a refillable container, an 
appropriately sized area on the label shall be left blank to allow the 
net weight or measure of content to be marked in by the refilling 
establishment prior to distribution or sale of the pesticide.
* * * * *
    (f) Producing establishments registration number. The producing 
establishment registration number preceded by the phrase ``EPA Est.'', 
of the final establishment at which the product was produced may appear 
in any suitable location on the label or immediate container. It must 
appear on the wrapper or outside container of the package if the EPA 
establishment registration number on the immediate container cannot be 
clearly read through such wrapper or container. For pesticide packaged 
in a refillable container, an appropriately sized area on the label 
shall be left blank after the phrase ``EPA Est.'' to allow the EPA 
establishment registration number to be marked in by the refilling 
establishment prior to distribution or sale of the pesticide.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ix) Specific directions concerning the storage, residue removal 
and disposal of the pesticide and its container, in accordance with 
Sec. Sec. 156.140 and 156.144 and part 165 of this chapter and other 
Agency instructions. These instructions shall be grouped and appear 
under the heading, ``Storage and Disposal.''
* * * * *
    c. By adding subpart H entitled ``Container Labeling,'' consisting 
of Sec. Sec. 156.140 and 156.144, to read as follows:
Subpart H - Container Labeling
Sec.
156.140   Identification of container types.
156.144   Residue removal instructions.

Subpart H-- Container Labeling


Sec. 156.140  Identification of container types.

    The following statement(s) shall be placed on the label or 
container. The information may be located on any part of the container 
except the closure. If the statements are placed on the container, they 
shall be permanently marked on the container.
    (a) Nonrefillable container -- (1) Statement identifying a 
nonrefillable container. The following statement is required:

    Nonrefillable container. Do not reuse or refill this container. 
Offer for recycling if possible.


    (2) Batch code. A lot number, or other code used by the registrant 
or producer to identify the batch of the pesticide product which is 
distributed and sold.
    (b) Refillable container. The following statement is required:

    Refill this container only with pesticide. Do not reuse this 
container for any other purpose.

Sec. 156.144  Residue removal instructions.

    (a) General. Except as provided by paragraph (b) of this section, 
each pesticide product must bear on the label instructions pertaining 
to the removal of pesticide residues from the container prior to 
container disposal that are specified in this section. The residue 
removal statements and instructions are required for both nonrefillable 
and refillable containers.
    (b) Modification. EPA may, on its own initiative or based on data 
submitted by any person, modify or waive the requirements of this 
section, or permit or require alternative labeling statements.
    (c) Placement and subheading of residue removal statements -- (1) 
Placement. All residue removal statements and instructions shall be 
placed under the `Directions for Use' portion of the label, under the 
heading ``Storage and Disposal.''
    (2) Subheading. All residue removal statements and instructions 
shall be grouped together under the subheading `Container Cleaning'.
    (d) Residue removal statements for nonrefillable containers. The 
label of each pesticide packaged in a nonrefillable container shall 
bear the following residue removal statements and instructions as 
appropriate.
    (1) Rigid container containing a liquid or dry dilutable pesticide. 
The statement in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section and the 
instructions of either paragraph (d)(1)(ii) or (d)(1)(iii) of this 
section, as appropriate, shall appear on the label of liquid or dry 
dilutable pesticides packaged in rigid containers.
    (i) Timing of the residue removal procedure. (A) The following 
statement must immediately precede the instructions required in 
paragraph (d)(1)(ii) or (d)(1)(iii) of this section:

    Clean container immediately after emptying.


    (B) When both triple and pressure rinse procedures will be allowed, 
the statement of paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A) of this section may be 
substituted with the following statement:

    Triple rinse or pressure rinse container immediately after 
emptying.


    (C) When only a triple rinse container cleaning procedure will be 
required, the statement of paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A) of this section may 
be substituted with the following statement:

    Triple rinse container immediately after emptying.


    (D) When only a pressure rinse container cleaning procedure will be 
required, the statement of paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A) of this section may 
be substituted with the following statement:

    Pressure rinse container immediately after emptying.


    (ii) Residue removal instructions for dilutable liquid pesticides. 
One of the following instructions shall appear on the label of 
dilutable liquid pesticide products, but both instructions may be used.
    (A) Triple rinse. For triple rinse, use the following label 
instruction:

    Triple Rinse as follows: Empty the remaining contents of this 
container into application equipment, and drain for 30 seconds after 
the flow begins to drip. Fill the container 1/4 full with water and 
recap. Agitate for 30 seconds. Pour rinsate into application 
equipment or store rinsate for later use or disposal. Drain for 30 
seconds after the flow begins to drip. Repeat this procedure two 
more times.
    (B) Pressure rinse. For pressure rinse, use the following label 
instruction:

    Pressure rinse as follows: Empty the remaining contents of this 
container into application equipment, and continue to drain for 30 
seconds after the flow begins to drip. Hold container over 
application equipment or collect rinsate for later use or disposal. 
Insert pressure rinsing nozzle, and rinse at 40 PSI for 30 seconds. 
Drain for 30 seconds after the flow begins to drip.


    (iii) Residue removal instructions for dilutable dry pesticides. 
One of the following instructions shall appear on the label of 
dilutable dry pesticide products, but both instructions may be used.
    (A) Triple rinse. For triple rinse, use the following label 
instruction:

    Triple Rinse as follows: Empty the remaining contents of this 
container into application equipment. Fill the container 1/4 full 
with water and recap. Agitate for 30 seconds. Pour rinsate into 
application equipment or store rinsate for later use or disposal. 
Drain for 30 seconds after the flow begins to drip. Repeat this 
procedure two more times.


    (B) Pressure rinse. For pressure rinse, use the following label 
instruction:

    Pressure rinse as follows: Empty the remaining contents of this 
container into application equipment. Hold container over 
application equipment or collect rinsate for later use or disposal. 
Insert pressure rinsing nozzle, and rinse at 40 PSI for 30 seconds. 
Drain for 30 seconds after the flow begins to drip.


    (iv) Non-water diluent. (A) A registrant who wishes to require 
users to clean a container with a diluent other than water (e.g., 
solvents) must submit to the Agency a written request to modify the 
residue removal instructions of paragraph (d)(1)(ii) or (iii) of this 
section, as applicable. The registrant may not distribute or sell the 
pesticide until the Agency approves the request in writing.
    (B) The registrant must indicate why a non-water diluent is 
necessary for efficient residue removal, and must propose residue 
removal instructions that are appropriate for the characteristics and 
formulation of the pesticide product and non-water diluent. The 
proposed residue removal instructions must identify the diluent. If the 
Directions for Use permit the application of a mixture of the pesticide 
and the non-water diluent, the instructions may allow the rinsate to be 
added to the application equipment. If the Directions for Use do not 
identify the nonwater diluent as an allowable addition to the 
pesticide, the instructions must require collection and storage of the 
rinsate in a rinsate collection system.
    (C) The Agency may approve the request if the Agency finds that the 
proposed instructions are necessary and appropriate.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (e) Residue removal statements for refillable containers. The label 
of pesticide packaged in refillable containers shall bear the following 
statements and instructions.
    (1) Timing of the residue removal procedure. (i) The following 
statement must immediately precede the instructions required in 
paragraph (e)(2) of this section:

    Clean container before disposal.


    (ii) The statement in paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section may be 
substituted with the following statement or another phrase that more 
precisely describes the cleaning procedure:

    Pressure rinse container before disposal.


    (2) Residue removal instructions prior to container disposal. (i) A 
statement giving instructions on cleaning each refillable container 
prior to disposal is required. Instructions shall be given for all 
pesticide products, including those that do not require dilution prior 
to application.
    (ii) The statement on residue removal instructions shall be 
appropriate for the characteristics and formulation of the pesticide 
product and must be adequate to protect human health and the 
environment.
    (iii) Subject to meeting the standard in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of 
this section, the statement on residue removal instructions could 
include any one of the following:
    (A) The refilling residue removal procedure developed by the 
registrant for the pesticide product.
    (B) Standard industry practices for pesticide refillable 
containers.
    (C) For pesticides that require dilution prior to application, the 
following statement:

    Empty the remaining contents from this container. Fill the 
container about 10 percent full with water. Agitate vigorously or 
recirculate water with the pump for 2 minutes. Pour or pump rinsate 
into application equipment or rinsate collection system. Repeat this 
rinsing procedure two more times.


    (D) Any other statement the registrant considers appropriate.
    (f) Compliance date. As of [2 years after the date of publication 
of the final rule in the Federal Register] the labels of all pesticide 
products distributed or sold by the registrant in nonrefillable and 
refillable containers shall be in compliance with the requirements of 
this part.

PART 165-- [AMENDED]

    2. In part 165:
    a. By revising the authority citation to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136a, 136f, 136m, 136q and 136w.

Sec. 165.11 [Removed]

    b. By removing Sec. 165.11

Sec. Sec. 165.1-165.10 [Redesignated]

    c. By redesignating Sec. Sec. 165.1 through 165.10 as set forth in 
the table below, and by transferring all of the newly redesignated 
sections to subpart A of part 165:


                          Redesignation Table                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Old                                  New  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
165.1..........................................................   165.3 
165.2..........................................................   165.1 
165.3..........................................................   165.5 
165.4..........................................................   165.7 
165.5..........................................................   165.8 
165.6..........................................................   165.10
165.7..........................................................   165.12
165.8..........................................................   165.11
165.9..........................................................   165.14
165.10.........................................................   165.16 
------------------------------------------------------------------------


SUBPARTS B-D [Reserved]

    d. By removing and reserving the designations for subparts B 
through D.
    e. By revising newly redesignated Sec. 165.1 to read as follows:


Sec. 165.1  Authorization and scope.

    (a) The regulations and recommended procedures in this part address 
management of excess pesticides, management of pesticide containers, 
and acceptance by the Administrator of pesticides for safe disposal. 
The following provisions apply only to subpart A of this part:
    (1) Regulations for acceptance for safe disposal of pesticides 
canceled under section 6(c) and recommended procedures for disposal or 
storage of pesticides, pesticide containers, and pesticide-related 
wastes are those which the Administrator judges as necessary, with an 
adequate margin of safety, to protect public health and the 
environment. Such procedures are subject to addition and revision as 
the Administrator deems necessary.
    (2) The recommended procedures for the disposal of pesticides and 
pesticide containers apply to all pesticides, pesticide-related wastes 
(and their containers) including those which are or may in the future 
be registered for general use or restricted use, or covered under an 
experimental use permit, except those single containers discussed in 
paragraph (a)(4) of this section. These disposal procedures are 
mandatory only for the Agency in carrying out its pesticide and 
container disposal operations.
    (3) The recommended procedures and criteria for the storage of 
pesticides and pesticide containers apply to all pesticides and excess 
pesticides and to used empty containers and containers which contain 
pesticides. These procedures and criteria apply to all sites and 
facilities where pesticides that are classed as highly toxic or 
moderately toxic, and bear the signal words DANGER, POISON, or WARNING, 
or the skull and crossbones symbol, on the label are stored. Pesticides 
covered by an experimental use permit should also be stored in 
accordance with these procedures. These procedures are mandatory only 
for the Agency in carrying out its pesticide and container storage 
operations. Temporary storage by the user of the quantity of the 
pesticide needed for a single application may be undertaken in isolated 
areas in accordance with the procedures and criteria given in 
Sec. 165.16(a).
    (4) Recommended pesticide and pesticide container disposal 
procedures shall not apply to containers of pesticides registered for 
use in the home and garden if securely wrapped in several layers of 
paper and disposed of singly during routine municipal solid waste 
disposal, nor to containers of pesticides used on farms and ranches 
where disposal by an open-field burial of single containers is 
undertaken with due regard to the protection of surface and sub-surface 
waters.
    (b) As a general guideline, the owner of excess pesticides should 
first exhaust the two following avenues before undertaking final 
disposal:
    (1) Use for the purpose originally intended, at the prescribed 
dosage rates, providing these are currently legal under all Federal, 
State, and local laws and regulations.
    (2) Return to the manufacturer or distributor for potential re-
labeling, recovery of resources, or reprocessing into other materials. 
Transportation must be in accordance with all currently applicable U.S. 
Department of Transportation regulations.

Sec. 165.3 [Amended]

    f. Newly designated Sec. 165.3 is amended by removing paragraphs 
(a), (d), (e), (g), (h), (i), (l), (p), (s), (u), and (y).
    g. Section 165.3 is further amended by removing the remaining 
paragraph designations, arranging the remaining definitions in 
alphabetical order, revising the definitions for ``Container,'' and 
``Triple rinse,'' and by adding alphabetically the other terms and 
definitions set forth below to read as follows:


Sec. 165.3  Definitions.

*    *    *    *    *
    Act means the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.
*    *    *    *    *
    Agricultural pesticide means any pesticide product labeled for use 
in a nursery or greenhouse or for use in the production of any 
agricultural commodity, including any plant, plant part, animal, or 
animal product produced by persons (including farmers, ranchers, 
vineyardists, plant propagators, Christmas tree growers, 
aquaculturalists, horticulturists, orchardists, foresters, or other 
comparable persons) primarily for sale, consumption, propagation or 
other use by man or animals.
    Appurtenances means equipment or devices which are used for the 
purpose of transferring pesticides from a bulk container or to any 
refillable container, including but not limited to, hoses, fittings, 
plumbing, valves, gauges, pumps and metering devices.
    Container means any package, can, bottle, bag, barrel, drum, tank, 
or other containing-device (excluding spray applicator tanks) used to 
enclose a pesticide or pesticide-related waste. Containers that are 
used to sell or distribute a pesticide product and that are also spray 
applicator tanks are considered to be containers for the purposes of 
this part.
    Containment pad means any structure that is designed and 
constructed to intercept and contain pesticides, rinsates, and 
equipment wash water and prevent them from running off or leaching from 
a pesticide dispensing area.
    Containment structure means either a secondary containment unit or 
a containment pad.
    Design type means the characteristics of design and construction of 
a container that render it distinguishable from other containers. A 
container design type is defined by the following parameters: 
structural design, size, material of construction, wall thickness, 
manner of construction, and, for refillable containers as appropriate, 
pump fittings. A change in any one of these parameters constitutes a 
different design type, except that a design type may include containers 
with various surface treatments and containers that differ only in 
their lesser design height.
    Dry bulk container means a refillable container designed and 
constructed to hold only dry pesticide formulations with the capacity 
to hold undivided quantities of greater than 2,000 kilograms (4,409 
pounds).
    Dry minibulk container means a refillable container designed and 
constructed to hold only dry pesticide formulations with the capacity 
to hold undivided quantities of less than or equal to 2,000 kilograms 
(4,409 pounds).
    Dry pesticide means any pesticide that is in solid form and that 
has not been combined with liquids; this includes formulations such as 
dusts, wettable powders, dry flowable powders, granules, and dry baits.
*    *    *    *    *
    Establishment means any site where a pesticidal product, active 
ingredient, or device is produced, regardless of whether such site is 
independently owned or operated, and regardless of whether such site is 
domestic and producing a pesticidal product for export only, or whether 
the site is foreign and producing any pesticidal product for import 
into the United States.
*    *    *    *    *
    Liquid bulk container means a refillable container designed and 
constructed to hold liquid pesticide formulations with the capacity to 
hold undivided quantities of greater than 3,000 liters (793 gallons).
    Liquid minibulk container means a refillable container designed and 
constructed to hold liquid pesticide formulations with the capacity to 
hold undivided quantities of less than or equal to 3,000 liters (793 
gallons).
    Nonrefillable container means a container that is not a refillable 
container and that is designed and constructed for one time containment 
of a pesticide.
*    *    *    *    *
    One-way valve means a valve that is designed and constructed to 
allow the withdrawal of material from, but not the introduction of 
material into, a container.
*    *    *    *    *
    Operator means any person in control of, or having responsibility 
for, the daily operation of a facility at which a containment structure 
is required.
    Owner means any person who owns a facility at which a containment 
structure is required.
    Pesticide dispensing area means an area in which pesticide is 
transferred out of or into a container.
*    *    *    *    *
    Pressure rinse means the flushing of the container to remove 
pesticide residue by using a pressure method.
    Produce means to manufacture, prepare, propagate, compound, or 
process any pesticide, including any pesticide produced pursuant the 
section 5 of the Act, and any active ingredient or device, or to 
package, repackage, label, relabel, or otherwise change the container 
of any pesticide or device.
    Producer means any person, as defined by the Act, who produces any 
pesticide, active ingredient, or device (including packaging, 
repackaging, labeling and relabeling).
    Refillable container means a container that is intended to be 
filled with pesticide more than once.
    Refiller means a person who engages in the activity of repackaging 
pesticide product into refillable containers. This could include a 
registrant, a person operating under contract to a registrant, or a 
person operating under written authorization from a registrant.
    Refilling establishment means an establishment where the activity 
of repackaging pesticide product into refillable containers occurs.
*    *    *    *    *
    Repackage means, for the purposes of this part, to transfer a 
pesticide formulation from one container to another without a change in 
the composition of the formulation or the labeling content, for sale or 
distribution.
*    *    *    *    *
    Secondary containment unit means any structure, including rigid 
diking, that is designed and constructed to intercept and contain 
pesticide spills and leaks and prevent runoff or leaching from 
stationary bulk containers.
*    *    *    *    *
    Stationary bulk container means a liquid bulk container or a dry 
bulk container that is fixed at a single facility or establishment or, 
if not fixed, remains at the facility or establishment for at least 14 
consecutive days, during all of which time the container holds 
pesticide.
    Tamper-evident device means a device which can be visually 
inspected to determine if a container has been opened.
    Transport vehicle means a cargo-carrying vehicle such as an 
automobile, van, tractor, truck, semitrailer, tank car or rail car used 
for the transportation of cargo by any mode.
    Triple rinse means the flushing of the container three times to 
remove pesticide residue by using a non-pressurized method.
*    *    *    *    *
    25-year, 24-hour rainfall event means a rainfall event with a 
probable recurrence interval of once in 25 years, as defined by the 
National Weather Service in Technical Paper Number 40, ``Rainfall 
Frequency Atlas of the United States'', May, 1961, and subsequent 
amendments, or equivalent regional or State rainfall probability 
information developed therefrom. Technical Paper Number 40 may be 
obtained from the National Climatic Data Center, Federal Building, 
Ashville, NC 28801-2696; telephone 704-259-0682.
* * * * * *
    h. By adding and reserving subpart E and adding new subparts F, G, 
and H to part 165 to read as follows:
Subpart F-- Nonrefillable Container Standards: Container Design and 
Residue Removal
Sec.
165.100   Scope and applicability.
165.102   Container design standards.
165.104   Residue removal standards.
165.106   Rigid/dilutable residue removal methodology.
165.111   Certification.
165.114   Recordkeeping and inspections.
165.117   Compliance dates.
165.119   Waiver from standardized closures requiring Agency 
approval.
Subpart G -- Refillable Container Standards: Container Design and 
Residue Removal
165.120   Scope.
165.122   Applicability.
165.124   Container design standards.
165.125   Minibulk container drop test methodology.
165.126   Certification.
165.128   Container design recordkeeping and inspection.
165.129   Transfer of registered pesticide products into refillable 
containers.
165.130   Registrant responsibilities concerning refilling 
activities.
165.132   Registrant recordkeeping and inspections.
165.134   Refiller responsibilities and procedures.
165.136   Refiller recordkeeping and inspections.
165.139   Compliance dates.
Subpart H -- Standards for Pesticide Containment Structures
165.140   Scope and purpose.
165.141   Applicability to facilities and persons.
165.142   Applicability to stationary bulk containers and pesticide 
dispensing areas.
165.144   Existing and new containment structures.
165.146   Containment structures: general requirements.
165.148   Specific requirements for containment of stationary liquid 
bulk containers.
165.150   Specific containment requirements for stationary dry bulk 
containers.
165.152   Specific containment requirements for pesticide dispensing 
areas.
165.153   Integrated systems.
165.156   Compliance dates.
165.157   Recordkeeping requirements and inspections.

Subpart F -- Nonrefillable Container Standards: Container Design 
and Residue Removal


Sec. 165.100  Scope and applicability.

    This subpart establishes design and construction standards and 
requirements for nonrefillable containers used for the sale or 
distribution of pesticide products. This subpart applies to 
registrants. This subpart does not apply to containers that contain 
manufacturing use products, as defined in Sec. 158.153(h) of this 
chapter.


Sec. 165.102  Container design standards.

    (a) General. (1) A registrant shall not sell or distribute a 
pesticide product in a nonrefillable container unless the nonrefillable 
container meets the standards of this section.
    (2) Information on container failures or other incidents involving 
pesticide containers that may result in releases of pesticide may be 
reportable under section 6(a)(2) of the Act.
    (3) Compliance with part 165 container design requirements does not 
exempt registrants from compliance with the Department of 
Transportation's (DOT) Hazardous Materials Regulations at 49 CFR parts 
171 through 180, if DOT's requirements are applicable.
    (b) Container integrity. Each nonrefillable container design type 
shall prevent leakage under conditions of normal storage, distribution, 
sale, and use, and shall be compatible with the pesticide formulation 
it contains.
    (c) Permanent marking. Each nonrefillable container shall be 
permanently marked with the information listed in this paragraph. The 
information shall be visibly located on the outside part of the 
container except on a closure. Placement on the label or labeling is 
not sufficient unless the label is an integral, permanent part of or 
permanently stamped on the container. The information shall include:
    (1) The EPA registration number of the pesticide.
    (2) The name, symbol, or code of the material(s) from which the 
container is constructed.
    (d) Container dispensing capability. Each nonrefillable container 
design type for liquid pesticide shall:
    (1) Allow the contents of the nonrefillable container to pour in a 
continuous, coherent stream.
    (2) Eliminate dripping so that no pesticide is visible on the 
outside of the nonrefillable container during the use of the container 
or after the closure (cap) is removed and the container is emptied.
    (3) Reclose securely so as not to allow the escape of any pesticide 
or rinsate during storage or the triple rinse residue removal 
procedure.
    (e) Standardized closures -- (1) Requirement. A liquid agricultural 
pesticide that is packaged in a rigid nonrefillable container greater 
than or equal to 3.0 liters (0.79 gallons) shall be packaged in a 
container having one of the following standardized closures:
    (i) Bung, 50.0 millimeters (2.0 inches), external threading, 11.5 
threads per 25.4 millimeters (11.5 threads per inch) National Pipe 
Threading (NPT) standard.
    (ii) Bung, 50.0 millimeters (2.0 inches), external threading, 5 
threads per 25.4 millimeters (5 threads per inch).
    (iii) Screw cap, 63.0 millimeters (2.5 inches), at least one thread 
revolution at 6 threads per 25.4 millimeters (6 threads per inch).
    (iv) Screw cap, 38.0 millimeters (1.5 inches), at least one thread 
revolution at 6 threads per 25.4 millimeters (6 threads per inch). Cap 
to fit on separate rigid spout or on flexible pull-out plastic spout 
designed to crimp-on container with a 63.0 millimeter (2.5 inch) 
orifice.
    (2) Non-standardized closure. A registrant may request approval to 
use a non-standardized closure by following the procedures established 
in Sec. 165.119.
    (3) Exemptions. Aerosol and pressurized containers are exempt from 
the requirements for standardized closures in this paragraph.


Sec. 165.104  Residue removal standards.

    (a) Residue removal standard. Each nonrefillable container design 
type and pesticide formulation combination shall meet the applicable 
residue removal standard of this section.
    (b) Standard for rigid containers with dilutable pesticide -- (1) 
Requirement. If the nonrefillable container is rigid and the pesticide 
product labeling allows or requires the pesticide product to be mixed 
with a liquid diluent prior to application (dilutable), then the 
registrant shall demonstrate for each container/formulation combination 
that at least 99.9999 percent removal of each active ingredient is 
achieved using the rigid/dilutable residue removal methodology of 
Sec. 165.106. Percent removal represents the percent of the original 
concentration of the active ingredient when compared to the 
concentration of that active ingredient in the fourth rinse.
    (2) Good Laboratory Practice Standards. The testing shall be 
conducted in accordance with the Good Laboratory Practice Standards in 
part 160 of this chapter.
    (c) Modification. The Agency may, on its own initiative or based on 
data submitted by any person, modify or waive the requirements of this 
section.


Sec. 165.106  Rigid/dilutable residue removal methodology.

    (a) General. The rigid/dilutable residue removal methodology of 
paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of this section shall be adhered to in 
demonstrating compliance with the residue removal standard of 99.9999 
percent removal of Sec. 165.104.
    (b) General testing methodology. The methodology used in conducting 
testing under paragraph (c) of this section shall adhere to the 
following:
    (1) The number of containers tested shall be adequate to meet the 
residue standard specified in Sec. 165.104(b) in a statistically valid 
manner, with the minimum requirements being as follows: A minimum of 19 
containers shall be selected at random and tested, with at least a 95 
percent confidence that at least 85 percent of containers tested will 
meet the minimum residue removal standard.
    (2) The temperature of the distilled water used to rinse the 
containers in each rinse cycle shall be 23  3 degrees 
Celsius (73  5 degrees Fahrenheit).
    (3) The volume of distilled rinse water used in each rinse cycle 
shall be 25  1 percent of the rated volume of the 
container. The volume of distilled rinse water added to the container 
in each rinse cycle shall be recorded.
    (c) Test methods. The testing shall be conducted by following the 
steps in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section in sequence.
    (1) Step 1. The container shall be filled to its rated capacity 
with the pesticide formulation, capped and then shaken vigorously in 
order to expose the entire inside of the container to the pesticide.
    (2) Step 2. The cap shall be removed from the container. The 
contents of the container shall be emptied by inverting it over a 
suitable collection vessel and, if a liquid formulation, allowed to 
drain for 30 seconds after the flow begins to drip. The container shall 
be recapped to prevent the residue from evaporating. The rinse cycle of 
paragraph (c)(3) of this section shall begin within 30 minutes.
    (3) Step 3. Distilled rinse water, according to paragraphs (b)(2) 
and (b)(3) of this section, shall be added to the drained container. 
The cap shall be placed back on the container and the container shall 
be shaken vigorously for 30 seconds. The cap shall be removed from the 
container. The container shall be inverted over a clean collection 
vessel and allowed to drain for 30 seconds after the flow begins to 
drip.
    (4) Step 4. The rinse cycle of paragraph (c)(3) of this section 
shall be repeated three more times, i.e., conducted a total of four 
times (four rinse cycles). The rinsate from the fourth rinse cycle 
shall be analyzed following the methods in paragraph (d) of this 
section.
    (d) Analysis methods. The analysis of the test shall adhere to the 
following steps:
    (1) The rinsate from the fourth rinse cycle shall be analyzed for 
each active ingredient using any validated analytical procedure 
suitable for the analysis of the active ingredient in water.
    (2) The temperature of the fourth rinsate when tested shall be 23 
 3 degrees Celsius (73  5 degrees Fahrenheit).
    (3) The rinsate ratio and percent removal shall be calculated as 
follows below, and both calculations shall be recorded.
    (i) The rinsate ratio is the ratio of the concentration of active 
ingredient found in the fourth rinse to the formulation's original 
active ingredient concentration. This rinsate ratio quantity shall be 
calculated as follows:


TP11FE94.011

    (ii) The percent removal compares the active ingredient 
concentrations in the fourth rinsate and the original formulation, 
measuring how much the concentration of active ingredient found in the 
fourth rinsate has been reduced from the formulation's original active 
ingredient concentration. The percent removal shall be calculated as 
follows:

    percent removal = [1.0 - A] X 100.0.

Sec. 165.111  Certification.

    (a) Certification. The registrant shall certify to the Agency that 
all nonrefillable container(s) used for each registered pesticide 
product meet the standards of Sec. 165.102 and Sec. 165.104.
    (b) Submission of certification. Certification shall be submitted 
with each application for a new registration. For pesticide products 
registered as of [date of publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register], a certification shall be submitted according to the 
compliance schedule in Sec. 165.117. The certification shall be 
submitted to the address given in Sec. 165.119(a)(2).
    (c) Contents of certification. The certification shall contain the 
following information:
    (1) The name and EPA registration number of the pesticide product 
to which the certification applies; the registrant's name and address; 
the date; and the name, title, signature, and telephone number of the 
company official authorized to make the certification.
    (2) A written statement that the nonrefillable container(s) in 
which the pesticide product is distributed or sold meet the standards 
of Sec. 165.102 and Sec. 165.104. The statement, ``I certify that the 
nonrefillable container(s) that are used for the distribution or sale 
of this pesticide product meet the standards of 40 CFR 165.102 and 
165.104.'' will satisfy this requirement.


Sec. 165.114  Recordkeeping and inspections.

    The registrant shall maintain the records required by this section 
for as long as the nonrefillable container design type is used with the 
registered pesticide product, and for 3 years thereafter. The 
registrant, upon request of any officer or employee of the Agency or of 
any State or political subdivision duly designated by the Agency, shall 
furnish and make available for inspection and copying the records 
specified in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section.
    (a) General information. The registrant shall keep the name and EPA 
registration number of the pesticide product, and description of the 
design type of the nonrefillable container(s) in which the pesticide 
product is distributed or sold.
    (b)  Certification. The registrant shall keep a copy of the 
certification described in Sec. 165.111 for each pesticide product.
    (c) Container dispensing capability. The registrant shall keep at 
least one of the following records pertaining to the requirements of 
Sec. 165.102(d) for each nonrefillable container design type for each 
pesticide product:
    (1) Test data or documentation demonstrating that the nonrefillable 
container with the pesticide product meets the standard in 
Sec. 165.102(d).
    (2) Test data or documentation showing a different nonrefillable 
container with the same or a different pesticide product meets the 
standard in Sec. 165.102(d), together with a written explanation of why 
such data or documentation demonstrates that the container meets the 
standard in Sec. 165.102(d).
    (d)  Standardized closures. The registrant shall keep at least one 
of the following records pertaining to the requirements of 
Sec. 165.102(e) for each nonrefillable container design type for each 
pesticide product:
    (1) A letter or literature from the container supplier.
    (2) A specification in the contract between the registrant or 
applicant and the container supplier.
    (3) A copy of the Agency approval of any non-standardized closure.
    (e) Residue removal. (1) The registrant shall keep at least one of 
the following records pertaining to the residue removal standard of 
Sec. 165.104 for each nonrefillable container design type for each 
pesticide product:
    (i) Test data showing that the container design type and pesticide 
formulation combination meets the standard in Sec. 165.104 and that 
residue removal methodology in Sec. 165.106 was followed.
    (ii) Test data showing a different nonrefillable container with the 
same or a different pesticide formulation meets the standard in 
Sec. 165.104, together with a written explanation of why such data 
demonstrates that the container design type and pesticide formulation 
combination meets the standard in Sec. 165.104.
    (iii) A letter from the facility that conducted the test describing 
the specific test type, a description of the container design type, a 
description of the pesticide formulation, the test results, and the 
location of the original data.
    (2) The registrant shall keep with the residue removal records a 
statement of compliance or noncompliance with respect to Good 
Laboratory Practice Standards as described at Sec. 160.12 of this 
chapter.
    (3) The Agency reserves the right to require, on a case by case 
basis, submission of the residue removal test data for any pesticide 
product registered or proposed for registration.


Sec. 165.117  Compliance dates.

    (a) As of [2 years after the date of publication of the final rule 
in the Federal Register], all pesticide products distributed or sold by 
the registrant in nonrefillable containers shall be distributed or sold 
in compliance with this subpart.
    (b) As of [5 years after the date of publication of the final rule 
in the Federal Register], all pesticide products distributed or sold by 
persons other than the registrant in nonrefillable containers shall be 
distributed or sold in compliance with this subpart.
    (c) Certifications for pesticide products registered as of [date of 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] shall be 
submitted to and received by the Agency by [2 years after the date of 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register].


Sec. 165.119  Waiver from standardized closures requiring Agency 
approval.

    (a) General. Requests for a waiver from the standardized closure 
requirement of Sec. 165.102(e) shall be submitted in writing to the 
Agency.
    (1) The Agency must have approved in writing the request for the 
waiver before the registrant is allowed to distribute or sell the 
pesticide product in the nonconforming nonrefillable container.
    (2) Requests shall be submitted to the following address: U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, 
Registration Division (7505C), 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
    (3) Requests shall be accompanied by two copies of the following 
information, which may be part of an application for registration or 
amended registration:
    (i) The name and address of the registrant; the date; and the name, 
title, signature, and phone number of the company official making the 
request.
    (ii) The name and EPA registration number of the pesticide product 
for which the waiver is requested.
    (iii) A statement indicating that the request is for a waiver from 
the standardized closure requirement of Sec. 165.102(e).
    (iv) A description of the design type of the nonrefillable 
container for which the waiver is requested.
    (v) Documentation or justification to demonstrate that the non-
standardized closure meets one of the criteria in paragraph (b) of this 
section.
    (b) Approval of waiver. The Agency may approve a nonstandardized 
closure when the Agency is satisfied that:
    (1) The non-standardized closure is necessary for the proper 
mixing, loading, or application of the pesticide product.
    (2) The non-standardized closure will offer exposure protection to 
handlers during mixing and loading that is the same or greater than 
that provided by the standardized closures.

Subpart G -- Refillable Container Standards: Container Design and 
Residue Removal


Sec. 165.120  Scope.

    (a) Container design. This subpart sets forth design and 
construction standards and requirements for refillable containers used 
for the distribution or sale of pesticide products.
    (b) Refilling requirements. This subpart establishes the standards 
and requirements for repackaging pesticide products into refillable 
containers.


Sec. 165.122  Applicability.

    (a) The requirements of this subpart apply as follows:
    (1) Registrants who distribute or sell pesticide products in 
refillable containers shall comply with:
    (i) Section 165.124 with respect to container design of refillable 
containers, Sec. 165.125 with respect to the minibulk container drop 
test methodology, Sec. 165.126 with respect to certification of 
containers, and Sec. 165.128 with respect to recordkeeping pertaining 
to container design.
    (ii) Section 165.130 with respect to registrant responsibilities 
concerning refilling activities and Sec. 165.132 with respect to 
recordkeeping pertaining to these responsibilities.
    (iii) Section 165.134 with respect to refiller responsibilities and 
procedures and Sec. 165.136 with respect to recordkeeping pertaining to 
these responsibilities and procedures.
    (iv) Section 165.139 with respect to compliance dates.
    (2) Registrants who distribute or sell pesticide products to 
refillers for repackaging into refillable containers shall comply with:
    (i) Section 165.124 with respect to container design of refillable 
containers, Sec. 165.126 with respect to certification of containers, 
and Sec. 165.128 with respect to recordkeeping pertaining to container 
design.
    (ii) Section 165.129 with respect to the transfer of pesticide 
products into refillable containers.
    (iii) Section 165.130 with respect to registrant responsibilities 
concerning refilling activities and Sec. 165.132 with respect to 
recordkeeping pertaining to these responsibilities.
    (iv) Section 165.139 with respect to compliance dates.
    (3) Refillers shall comply with:
    (i) Section 165.134 with respect to refiller responsibilities and 
procedures and Sec. 165.136 with respect to recordkeeping pertaining to 
these responsibilities and procedures.
    (ii) Section 165.139 with respect to compliance dates.
    (b) The requirements of this subpart do not apply to:
    (1) Containers that contain manufacturing use products, as defined 
in Sec. 158.153(h) of this chapter.
    (2) Transport vehicles that contain pesticide in pesticide holding 
tanks that are an integral part of the transport vehicle and that are 
the primary containment for the pesticide.


Sec. 165.124  Container design standards.

    (a) General. (1) A pesticide product shall not be distributed or 
sold in a refillable container unless the container meets the standards 
of this section. The registrant is responsible for assuring that the 
refillable containers in which the registrant's product is distributed 
or sold meet the standards of this section.
    (2) Information on container failures or other incidents involving 
pesticide containers which may result in releases of pesticide may be 
reportable under section 6(a)(2) of the Act.
    (3) Compliance with part 165 container design requirements does not 
exempt registrants from compliance with the Department of 
Transportation's (DOT) Hazardous Materials Regulations at 49 CFR parts 
171 through 180, if DOT's requirements are applicable.
    (b) Permanent marking. (1) Each refillable container shall be 
permanently marked with the information listed in this paragraph. The 
information shall be visibly located on the outside part of the 
container except on a closure. Placement on the label or labeling is 
not sufficient unless the label is an integral, permanent part of or 
permanently stamped on the container. The information shall include:
    (i) The name of the container manufacturer.
    (ii) The model number assigned to the design type of the container, 
preceded by the phrase ``Model No.''.
    (iii) The date of manufacture of the container in the order of the 
month (two digits) and year (last two digits).
    (iv) The rated capacity of the container, in appropriate units of 
weight or volume.
    (v) The name, symbol, or code of the material(s) from which the 
container is constructed.
    (vi) A serial number or other identifying code that will 
distinguish each individual container from all other containers.
    (vii) The phrase ``Meets EPA standards for refillable pesticide 
containers.''
    (2) If any of this information, such as the date of manufacture, 
the rated capacity, the material of construction, or the serial number, 
is required by the DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations at 49 CFR parts 
171 through 180 or by the terms of a DOT exemption issued under 49 CFR 
part 107, then compliance with DOT's requirement will satisfy the 
corresponding requirement of paragraph (b).
    (c) Minibulk integrity. Each minibulk container design type shall 
prevent leakage under conditions of normal storage, distribution, sale, 
and use.
    (d) Drop test for minibulk containers. (1) The applicable drop test 
specified in Sec. 165.125 shall be successfully performed on each 
minibulk container design type before a container of the design type is 
used for the sale or distribution of the pesticide product. Section 
165.125 prescribes the drop test methodology for flexible, metal, and 
rigid plastic minibulk containers.
    (2) Each minibulk container shall be capable of passing the 
appropriate drop test.
    (3) The testing shall be conducted in accordance with the Good 
Laboratory Practice Standards in part 160 of this chapter.
    (4) If a pesticide product is required to be packaged according to 
the DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations at 49 CFR parts 171 through 180 
or by the terms of a DOT exemption issued under 49 CFR part 107 and the 
DOT requirements include a drop test, then compliance with DOT's drop 
test requirements will satisfy the requirements of this paragraph.
    (e) Apertures. Each aperture of a liquid minibulk container shall 
have a one-way valve, a tamper-evident device, or both.
    (f) Standards for bulk containers. The standards in Sec. 165.124(f) 
apply only to bulk containers at the refilling establishments of 
refillers operating under written contract to or written authorization 
from a registrant.
    (1) Container integrity. (i) Except during a civil emergency or an 
act of God (any unanticipated grave natural disaster or other natural 
phenomenon of an exceptional, inevitable, and irresistible character, 
the effects of which could not have been prevented or avoided by the 
exercise of due care or foresight), each liquid bulk and dry bulk 
container and its appurtenances shall meet the following standards:
    (ii) Each liquid bulk and dry bulk container and its appurtenances 
shall be resistant to extreme changes in temperature and constructed of 
materials that are adequately thick to not fail and that are resistant 
to corrosion, puncture, or cracking.
    (iii) Each liquid bulk and dry bulk container shall be capable of 
withstanding all operating stresses, taking into account static head, 
pressure buildup from pumps and compressors, and any other foreseeable 
mechanical stresses to which the container may be subjected in the 
course of operations.
    (2) Vent. Each liquid bulk container shall be equipped with a vent 
or other device designed to relieve excess pressure, prevent losses by 
evaporation, and exclude precipitation.
    (3) Gauge. External sight gauges, which are pesticide containing 
hoses or tubes that run vertically along the exterior of the container 
from the top to the bottom, are prohibited on liquid bulk containers.
    (4)  Shutoff valve. Each liquid bulk container connection, except 
for vents, shall be equipped with a shutoff valve which can be locked 
closed.


Sec. 165.125  Minibulk container drop test methodology.

    (a) General. This section prescribes the drop test methodology for 
flexible, metal, and rigid plastic minibulk containers.
    (b) Preparation. (1) The test sample shall consist of at least one 
minibulk container taken at random.
    (2) The test shall be carried out on minibulk containers prepared 
for transport. Any pump, valve, meter, hose, or other appurtenance that 
would be attached to the container during transportation, storage, or 
use shall be attached during the test.
    (3) The pesticide to be transported in the minibulk container may 
be replaced by other substances, as specified in paragraph (b)(4), 
(b)(5), or (b)(6) of this section. The registrant is responsible for 
selecting an appropriate test substance.
    (4) For dry pesticides, when another substance is used it shall 
have the same physical characteristics (mass, grain size, etc.) as the 
pesticide to be carried. It is permissible to use additives, such as 
bags of lead shot, to achieve the requisite total package mass, so long 
as they are placed so that the test results are not affected.
    (5) For liquid pesticides, when another substance is used, its 
relative density and viscosity shall be similar to those of the 
pesticide to be carried. The registrant is responsible for determining 
whether a test substance has a relative density and viscosity similar 
to the pesticide to be carried.
    (6) Water may be used for the liquid drop test under the following 
conditions:
    (i) Where the pesticide to be carried has a relative density not 
exceeding 1.2, the drop height shall be that specified in paragraph 
(d)(6) or (e)(7) of this section for that minibulk container.
    (ii) Where the pesticide to be carried has a relative density 
exceeding 1.2, the drop height shall be that specified in paragraph 
(d)(6) or (e)(7) of this section for that minibulk container multiplied 
by the ratio of the relative density of the pesticide to be carried, 
rounded off to the first decimal, to 1.2, i.e., relative density x 
specified drop height.
    (7) If the minibulk container passes the test, the test records 
shall include the number of containers of that particular design type 
that were tested.
    (c) Dry minibulk containers that consist of flexible bodies. (1) 
Minibulk containers with flexible bodies are those that consist of a 
body constituted of film, woven fabric or any other flexible materials 
or combinations thereof.
    (2) The dry minibulk container shall be filled to not less than 95 
percent of its capacity and to its maximum permissible load, the load 
being evenly distributed.
    (3) The dry minibulk container shall be dropped on its base on to a 
rigid, non-resilient, smooth, flat, and horizontal surface.
    (4) The dry minibulk container shall be dropped from a height of at 
least 0.8 meters (2.6 feet).
    (5) The dry minibulk container shall pass the test successfully if 
there is no loss of contents after one drop. A slight discharge, e.g., 
from closures or stitch holes, upon impact shall not be considered to 
be a failure of the dry minibulk container provided that no further 
leakage occurs after the dry minibulk container has been raised clear 
of the ground.
    (d) Minibulk containers that consist of metal bodies. (1) A dry 
minibulk container shall be filled to not less than 95 percent of its 
capacity.
    (2) A liquid minibulk container shall be filled to not less than 98 
percent of its capacity.
    (3) Pressure relief devices shall be removed and their apertures 
plugged, or shall be rendered inoperative.
    (4) The minibulk container shall be dropped on to a rigid, non-
resilient, smooth, flat, and horizontal surface, in such a manner as to 
ensure that the point of impact is on that part of the base of the 
minibulk container considered to be the most vulnerable.
    (5) A dry minibulk container shall be dropped from a height of at 
least 0.8 meters (2.6 feet).
    (6) A liquid minibulk container shall be dropped from a height of 
at least 1.2 meters (3.9 feet).
    (7) The minibulk container shall pass the test successfully if 
there is no loss of contents after one drop. A slight discharge from a 
closure upon impact shall not be considered to be a failure of the 
minibulk container provided that no further leakage occurs.
    (e) Minibulk containers that consist of rigid plastic bodies. (1) A 
dry minibulk container shall be filled to not less than 95 percent of 
its capacity.
    (2) A liquid minibulk container shall be filled to not less than 98 
percent of its capacity.
    (3) Arrangements provided for pressure relief may be removed and 
plugged or rendered inoperative.
    (4) This test shall be carried out when the temperature of the test 
container and its contents have been reduced to -18 degrees Celsius (0 
degrees Fahrenheit) or lower. Test liquids shall be kept in the liquid 
state, if necessary by the addition of anti-freeze.
    (5) The minibulk container shall be dropped on to a rigid, non-
resilient, smooth, flat, and horizontal surface, in such a manner as to 
ensure that the point of impact is on that part of the base of the 
minibulk container considered to be the most vulnerable.
    (6) A dry minibulk container shall be dropped from a height of at 
least 0.8 meters (2.6 feet).
    (7) A liquid minibulk container shall be dropped from a height of 
at least 1.2 meters (3.9 feet).
    (8) The minibulk container shall pass the test successfully if 
there is no loss of contents after one drop. A slight discharge from a 
closure upon impact shall not be considered to be a failure of the 
minibulk container provided that no further leakage occurs.


Sec. 165.126  Certification.

    (a) Certification. Each registrant who distributes or sells a 
pesticide product to a refiller for repackaging into refillable 
containers and each registrant who distributes or sells a pesticide 
product in refillable containers shall certify to the Agency that all 
refillable containers in which the pesticide product is distributed or 
sold meet the standards of Sec. 165.124.
    (b) Contents of the certification. The certification for each 
pesticide product shall contain the following:
    (1) The name and EPA registration number of the pesticide product 
to which the certification applies; the registrant's name and address; 
the date; and the name, title, signature, and telephone number of the 
company official making the certification.
    (2) A written statement that the refillable container(s) in which 
the pesticide product is distributed or sold meet the standards of 
Sec. 165.124. The statement, ``I certify that the refillable 
container(s) used for the distribution or sale of this pesticide 
product meet the standards of 40 CFR 165.124.'' will satisfy this 
requirement.
    (c) Submission of certification. Certification shall be submitted 
with each application for a new registration. For pesticide products 
registered as of [date of publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register], a certification shall be submitted according to the 
compliance schedule in Sec. 165.139.
    (d) Address. Certifications shall be submitted to the following 
address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide 
Programs, Registration Division (7505C), 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC 
20460.


Sec. 165.128  Container design recordkeeping and inspection.

    Each registrant who distributes or sells a pesticide product to a 
refiller for repackaging into refillable containers and each registrant 
who distributes or sells a pesticide product in refillable containers 
shall maintain the records in this section for the refillable 
containers which are listed as acceptable for the sale or distribution 
of the product. The records shall be maintained for as long as the 
registrant authorizes the container to be used and for 3 years 
thereafter. The registrant, upon request of any officer or employee of 
the Agency or of any State or political subdivision duly designated by 
the Agency, shall furnish or make available for inspection and copying 
the records as specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. 
The records in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall be 
maintained for each design type.
    (a) Description of container. The registrant shall keep, for all 
refillable containers, a description of the container, including but 
not limited to the kind of refillable container (liquid minibulk, 
liquid bulk, etc.), the model number of the container, the container 
manufacturer, and its design type parameters.
    (b) Minibulk containers. (1) The registrant shall keep at least one 
of the following records pertaining to the drop test requirement in 
Sec. 165.124(d) for minibulk containers:
    (i) A copy of the test data, including a description of the test, a 
description of the container tested (including all of the information 
specified in paragraph (a) of this section), the test results 
(including the results of any failed test(s)), the date and location of 
the test, and the names of the test operators.
    (ii) A letter from the container manufacturer that verifies that 
the container design type has been tested according to the methodology 
in Sec. 165.125 and that includes a description of the test, a 
description of the container tested (including all of the information 
specified in paragraph (a) of this section), the test results 
(including the results of any failed test(s)) and the location of the 
original test data.
    (iii) A letter from the facility that conducted the test that 
verifies the container design type has been tested according to the 
methodology in Sec. 165.125 and that includes a description of the 
test, a description of the container including all of the information 
specified in paragraph (a) of this section, the test results (including 
the results of any failed test(s)) and the location of the original 
test data.
    (2) The registrant shall keep with the drop test records a 
statement of compliance or noncompliance with respect to Good 
Laboratory Practice Standards, as described at Sec. 160.12 of this 
chapter.
    (3) The Agency reserves the right to require the registrant, on a 
case by case basis, to submit the drop test data for any pesticide 
product registered or proposed for registration.
    (c) Certification. The registrant shall keep a copy of the 
certification described in Sec. 165.126 for each pesticide product.


Sec. 165.129  Transfer of registered pesticide products into refillable 
containers.

    (a) A registrant may allow a refiller to repackage the registrant's 
pesticide product into refillable containers and to distribute or sell 
such repackaged product under the registrant's existing registration if 
the following conditions are met:
    (1) The repackaging results in no change to the pesticide 
formulation.
    (2) The pesticide product is repackaged at a producing 
establishment registered with EPA as required by Sec. 167.20 of this 
chapter.
    (3) The registrant has made one of the following arrangements, if 
applicable.
    (i) The registrant has entered into a written contract with the 
refiller to repackage the pesticide product at a registered 
establishment and to use the registrant's pesticide product label.
    (ii) The registrant has provided written authorization to the 
refiller to repackage the pesticide product at a registered 
establishment and to use the registrant's pesticide product label.
    (4) The pesticide product is repackaged only into refillable 
containers that meet the container design standards of Sec. 165.124.
    (5) The pesticide product is labeled with the product's label with 
no changes except the addition of an appropriate net contents statement 
and the EPA establishment number.
    (b) Repackaging a pesticide product for distribution or sale 
without either obtaining a registration, or meeting all of the 
conditions in paragraph (a) of this section is a violation pursuant to 
section 12 of the Act.
    (c) Both the registrant and the refiller that is repackaging the 
pesticide product under contract to or written authorization from the 
registrant may be liable for violations pertaining to the repackaged 
product.


Sec. 165.130  Registrant responsibilities concerning refilling 
activities.

    (a) General responsibilities. (1) If a registrant is allowing a 
refiller to repackage the registrant's product under a written contract 
or a written authorization as specified in Sec. 165.129(a), the 
registrant shall provide the written contract or written authorization 
to the refiller before the registrant distributes or sells the 
pesticide product to the refiller.
    (2) The registrant is responsible for the pesticide product 
repackaged and distributed or sold by a refiller operating under 
written contract or written authorization not being adulterated or 
different from the composition as described in the statement required 
in connection with registration under section 3 of the Act.
    (b) Developing information. Each registrant who distributes or 
sells a pesticide product to a refiller for repackaging into refillable 
containers and each registrant who distributes or sells pesticide 
product in refillable containers shall develop the following:
    (1) The registrant shall develop, for the pesticide product, a 
written refilling residue removal procedure, which describes the 
procedures for removing pesticide residues from a container before it 
is refilled.
    (i) The refilling residue removal procedure shall be adequate to 
ensure that the composition of the pesticide does not differ at the 
time of its distribution or sale from its composition as described in 
the statement required to be submitted by the registrant in connection 
with registration under section 3 of the Act.
    (ii) If the refilling residue removal procedure requires the use of 
a solvent other than the diluent used for application of the pesticide 
as specified on the label under ``Directions for Use'', or if there is 
no diluent used for application, the refilling residue removal 
procedure shall describe how to manage the rinsate resulting from the 
procedure in accordance with applicable Federal and State regulations.
    (2) The registrant shall develop a written list of acceptable 
refillable containers (minibulk and bulk) which can be used for the 
sale or distribution of the registrant's pesticide product.
    (i) Acceptable containers are those which the registrant has 
determined meet the standards in Sec. 165.124 and are compatible with 
the pesticide formulation to which the written list of acceptable 
containers applies.
    (ii) The registrant shall identify the containers as acceptable by 
specifying, at a minimum, the manufacturer of the container and the 
model number of the container.
    (c) Providing information. (1) Each registrant whose pesticide 
product is repackaged by a refiller into refillable containers shall 
provide the refiller with all of the information and documentation 
described in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (c)(2)(iii) of this section 
before or at the time of sale or distribution of the pesticide product 
to the refiller.
    (2) The registrant shall provide the refiller with:
    (i) The written refilling residue removal procedure for the 
pesticide product.
    (ii) The written list of acceptable containers for the pesticide 
product.
    (iii) The pesticide product's label and labeling.


Sec. 165.132  Registrant recordkeeping and inspections.

    (a) Each registrant who distributes or sells a pesticide product to 
a refiller for repackaging into refillable containers shall maintain 
the records listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(3) of this section 
for that pesticide product. The records shall be maintained for as long 
as the registrant distributes or sells the pesticide product to a 
refiller and for 3 years thereafter.
    (b) Each registrant who distributes or sells a pesticide product in 
refillable containers shall maintain the records listed in paragraphs 
(d)(2) through (d)(3) of this section for that pesticide product. The 
records shall be maintained for as long as the registrant distributes 
or sells the pesticide product in refillable containers and for 3 years 
thereafter.
    (c) The registrant, upon request of any officer or employee of the 
Agency or of any State or political subdivision duly designated by the 
Agency, shall furnish or make available for inspection and copying the 
records specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(3) of this section.
    (d) The registrant shall keep the following records:
    (1) Each written contract entered into with a refiller and each 
written authorization provided to a refiller for repackaging the 
registrant's pesticide product into refillable containers.
    (2) The written refilling residue removal procedure for the 
pesticide product.
    (3) The written list of acceptable containers for the pesticide 
product.


Sec. 165.134  Refiller responsibilities and procedures.

    All refilling operations by a refiller shall be conducted in 
accordance with this section.
    (a) Items in possession of refiller. Before repackaging a pesticide 
product into any refillable container for distribution or sale, a 
refiller shall have in its possession the following items:
    (1) The written contract or written authorization, as described in 
Sec. 165.129(a), from the product's registrant for the pesticide 
product. A written contract or written authorization is not required if 
the registrant of the product is the refiller.
    (2) The pesticide product's label and labeling.
    (3) The registrant's written refilling residue removal procedure 
for the pesticide product.
    (4) The registrant's written list of acceptable containers for the 
pesticide product.
    (b) Product integrity. A refiller is responsible for the pesticide 
product which the refiller repackages into refillable containers and 
distributes or sells not being adulterated or different from the 
composition as described in the statement required in connection with 
registration under section 3 of the Act.
    (c) Refilling conditions. (1) A refiller shall:
    (i) Repackage a pesticide product only into a refillable container 
that is identified on the list of acceptable containers provided by the 
registrant.
    (ii) Not change the pesticide formulation, unless the refiller has 
a registration for the new formulation.
    (2) Standards that may be applicable for secondary containment 
units and containment pads are located in subpart H of this part.
    (d) Identification of pesticide previously contained in refillable 
container. A refiller shall identify the pesticide product previously 
contained in the refillable container to determine whether a residue 
removal procedure must be conducted in accordance with paragraph (g) of 
this section. The refiller can identify the previous pesticide product 
by reference to the label or labeling.
    (e) Container inspection. Before repackaging a pesticide product 
into any refillable container, a refiller shall visually inspect the 
exterior and interior (if possible) of the container and the exterior 
of appurtenances to determine whether the container meets the necessary 
criteria with respect to continued container integrity, required 
markings, age of the container, and tamper-evident devices. The 
container shall fail the inspection, and shall not be refilled, if:
    (1) The integrity of the container is compromised in any of the 
following ways:
    (i) There is significant corrosion or ultraviolet light damage.
    (ii) There are structural defects including, but not limited to, 
significant cracks, visible holes, bad dents, or defective or weakened 
welds.
    (iii) There is damage to the fittings, valves, tamper-evident 
devices or other appurtenances that could affect the integrity of the 
container.
    (2) The container does not bear the permanent markings required by 
Sec. 165.124, or such markings are not legible.
    (3) The container does not have an intact and functioning one-way 
valve or tamper-evident device on each aperture, if required.
    (f) Age of plastic liquid minibulk containers. A refiller shall not 
repackage a pesticide product into a plastic liquid minibulk container 
more than 6 years after the date of manufacture of the container.
    (g) Residue removal procedures. (1) A refiller shall conduct the 
pesticide product's refilling residue removal procedures before 
repackaging the pesticide product into a refillable container, unless 
all of the following conditions are met:
    (i) Each tamper-evident device is intact, if the refillable 
container has one or more tamper-evident devices.
    (ii) The container previously held a product with a single active 
ingredient and is being used to repackage a product with the same 
single active ingredient.
    (iii) There is no reaction or interaction between the pesticide 
product being repackaged and the residue remaining in the container 
that would cause the composition of the product being repackaged to 
differ from its composition as described in the statement required to 
be submitted by the registrant in connection with registration under 
section 3 of the Act.
    (2) In addition to conducting the refilling residue removal 
procedure, in all cases where the container has a broken (not intact) 
tamper-evident device, other procedures may need to be taken to assure 
that product integrity is maintained.
    (h) Quantity that may be refilled. A refiller may repackage any 
quantity of a pesticide product into a refillable container up to the 
rated capacity of the container.
    (i) Relabeling procedures. A refiller shall securely attach the new 
label (such that the label can reasonably be expected to remain affixed 
during the foreseeable conditions and period of use). The new label and 
labeling shall comply in all respects with the requirements of 
Sec. 156.10 of this chapter. In particular, the refiller shall ensure 
that the net contents statement and EPA establishment number appear on 
the new label.


Sec. 165.136  Refiller recordkeeping and inspections.

    Each refiller shall maintain the records listed in this section. 
The refiller, upon request of any officer or employee of the Agency or 
of any State or political subdivision duly designated by the Agency, 
shall furnish or make available for inspection and copying the records 
listed in this section.
    (a) Recordkeeping for each pesticide product. The following records 
shall be maintained for as long as the refiller distributes or sells a 
pesticide product in refillable containers, and for 3 years thereafter. 
The refiller shall maintain copies of the following:
    (1) The written contract or written authorization, as described in 
Sec. 165.129(a), from the product's registrant for the pesticide 
product.
    (2) The registrant's written refilling residue removal procedure 
for the pesticide product.
    (3) The registrant's written list of acceptable containers for the 
pesticide product.
    (b) Return of refillable containers. For each refillable container 
that has been used in the distribution or sale of a pesticide product 
and delivered to the refiller to be refilled, the following information 
shall be recorded and maintained for 3 years after the date of receipt:
    (1) The name and address of the person providing the refillable 
container.
    (2) The serial number of the refillable container.
    (3) The date the refillable container was received.
    (4) The name and EPA registration number of the pesticide product 
that was last distributed or sold in the refillable container.
    (c) Refilling of refillable containers. Each time a refiller 
repackages a pesticide product into a refillable container and 
distributes or sells the product, the following records shall be 
generated and maintained for at least 3 years after the date of 
repackaging:
    (1) The name, EPA registration number, and amount of the pesticide 
product distributed or sold in the refillable container.
    (2) The date of the distribution or sale.
    (3) The name and address of the consignee.
    (4) The serial number of the refillable container.
    (5) A record that the refiller has conducted the container 
inspection procedure and the results.
    (6) A record of whether a refilling residue removal procedure was 
conducted, and if not, why not.


Sec. 165.139  Compliance dates.

    (a) As of [2 years after the date of publication of the final rule 
in the Federal Register] all pesticide product distributed or sold in 
refillable containers shall be distributed or sold only in compliance 
with this subpart.
    (b) Certifications for pesticide products registered as of [date of 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] shall be 
submitted to and received by the Agency by [2 years after the date of 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register].

Subpart H -- Standards for Pesticide Containment Structures


Sec. 165.140  Scope and purpose.

    (a) Scope. This subpart prescribes the requirements for containment 
of stationary bulk containers and pesticide dispensing areas at 
pesticide refilling establishments and at certain other facilities that 
store bulk quantities of pesticide products.
    (b) Purpose. The purpose of this subpart is to protect human health 
and the environment from exposure to pesticides resulting from spills 
and leaks and to reduce the generation of wastes associated with the 
storage and handling of bulk quantities of pesticide products and with 
pesticide container refilling operations.


Sec. 165.141  Applicability to facilities and persons.

    (a) General applicability. The requirements of this subpart apply 
to each facility identified in paragraph (b) of this section which 
contains a stationary bulk container or a pesticide dispensing area 
used for an agricultural pesticide.
    (b) Facilities covered. The requirements of this subpart cover:
    (1) Refilling establishments whose principal business is retail 
sale.
    (2) Custom blenders, as defined in Sec. 167.3 of this chapter.
    (3) Facilities of businesses which apply an agricultural pesticide 
for compensation (other than trading of personal services between 
agricultural producers).
    (c) Responsibilities of owners and operators. The owners and 
operators of the facility are responsible for assuring that the 
facility complies with the requirements of this subpart.


Sec. 165.142  Applicability to stationary bulk containers and pesticide 
dispensing areas.

    (a) Stationary bulk containers. (1) Unless exempted by paragraph 
(a)(2) of this section, each stationary bulk container at a facility 
shall be protected by a containment structure which shall meet:
    (i) The general requirements of Sec. 165.146.
    (ii) The secondary containment requirements of Sec. 165.148 for 
liquid bulk containers or, as applicable, of Sec. 165.150 for dry bulk 
containers.
    (2) A stationary bulk container is exempt from the requirements of 
this subpart if any of the following conditions exists:
    (i) All pesticide that can be removed from the container by 
customary methods such as draining, pumping or aspirating has been 
removed (whether or not residues have been removed by washing or 
rinsing).
    (ii) The container holds only pesticide rinsates or wash waters, 
and is so labeled.
    (iii) The container holds only pesticides which would be gaseous if 
released at atmospheric temperature and pressure.
    (iv) The container is dedicated to non-pesticide use, and is so 
labeled.
    (b) Pesticide dispensing areas. (1) Unless exempted in paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section, each pesticide dispensing area where any of the 
following activities are conducted must be protected by a containment 
structure which meets the general requirements of Sec. 165.146 and the 
specific requirements for containment pads of Sec. 165.152:
    (i) The dispensing of pesticide from a stationary bulk container 
for any purpose, including, but not limited to, refilling refillable 
containers, service containers, transport vehicles or application 
equipment, or emptying prior to cleaning.
    (ii) The dispensing of pesticide from any container other than a 
stationary bulk container for the purpose of refilling a refillable 
container for sale and distribution. Containment requirements do not 
apply if pesticide is dispensed from such containers for purposes other 
than refilling.
    (iii) The emptying, cleaning or rinsing of any refillable 
container.
    (iv) The dispensing of pesticide from a transport vehicle for 
purposes of filling a stationary bulk container.
    (2) A pesticide dispensing area is exempt from the requirements of 
this subpart if any of the following conditions exist:
    (i) The only pesticides in the pesticide dispensing area are 
pesticides which would be gaseous when released at atmospheric 
temperature and pressure.
    (ii) The only pesticide containers refilled or emptied within the 
pesticide dispensing area are stationary bulk containers and the area 
is protected by a secondary containment unit meeting the requirements 
of this subpart.
    (iii) The pesticide dispensing area is used solely for dispensing 
pesticide from a rail car which does not remain at a facility long 
enough to meet the definition of a stationary bulk container.


Sec. 165.144  Existing and new containment structures.

    (a) Existing containment structures. For purposes of this subpart, 
existing containment structure means a containment structure for which 
installation has commenced on or before [3 months after the date of 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register]. Installation is 
considered to have commenced if:
    (1) The owner or operator has obtained all Federal, State, and 
local approvals or permits necessary to begin physical construction of 
the containment structure; and if
    (2)(i) Either a continuous on-site physical construction or 
installation program has begun; or
    (ii) The owner or operator has entered into contractual 
obligations, which cannot be canceled or modified without substantial 
loss, for physical construction or installation of the containment 
structure, to be completed within a reasonable time.
    (b) New containment structures. For purposes of this subpart, new 
containment structure means a containment structure for which 
installation has commenced after May 12, 1994.


Sec. 165.146  Containment structures: general requirements.

    Each stationary bulk container and each pesticide dispensing area 
shall be protected by a containment structure which meets the 
requirements of this subpart.
    (a) Material. (1) The containment structure shall be constructed of 
reinforced concrete or other rigid material which will withstand the 
full hydrostatic head (dynamic or static), load and impact of any 
pesticides, precipitation, other substances, equipment, and 
appurtenances placed within the structure.
    (2) The containment structure shall not be constructed of natural 
earthen material, unfired clay, or asphalt.
    (3)(i) During the interim period as specified in Sec. 165.156(b), 
each existing containment structure shall have a hydraulic conductivity 
less than or equal to 1 x 10-6 centimeters per second. This 
standard may be satisfied by the use, separate or combined, of any of 
the following materials:
    (A) Structural materials.
    (B) Surface sealants or coatings.
    (C) A continuous liner at the bottom of the containment structure.
    (ii) Each new containment structure shall have a hydraulic 
conductivity less than or equal to 1 x 10-7 centimeters per 
second. After the expiration of the interim period specified in 
Sec. 165.156(b), each existing containment structure also shall meet 
this requirement. The standard for hydraulic conductivity may be 
satisfied with materials in the manner specified in paragraph 
(a)(3)(i)(A) through (a)(3)(i)(C) of this section.
    (4) The containment structure shall be constructed of materials 
that are resistant to the pesticide.
    (b) Design and construction. (1) The containment structure shall, 
at a minimum, prevent water and other liquids from seeping into or 
flowing onto it from adjacent land or structures during a 25-year, 24-
hour rainfall event.
    (2) Appurtenances and pesticide containers shall be protected 
against damage from operating personnel and moving equipment. Means of 
protection include but are not limited to supports to prevent sagging, 
flexible connections, the use of guard rails, barriers, and protective 
cages.
    (3) No new containment structure shall have an appurtenance, 
discharge outlet or gravity drain through the base or wall, except for 
direct interconnections between adjacent containment structures which 
meet the requirements of this subpart. Appurtenances shall be 
configured in such a way that spills or leaks readily can be observed. 
After the expiration of the interim period as specified in 
Sec. 165.156(b), each existing containment structure also shall meet 
this standard.
    (c) Operation. (1) The owner or operator shall operate the 
structure in a manner that prevents pesticides or materials containing 
pesticides from escaping from the containment structure. This includes, 
but is not limited to, pesticide residues washed off the containment 
structure by rainfall or liquids used for cleaning the area within the 
containment structure. All materials containing pesticide residue shall 
be handled in accordance with label directions and applicable Federal, 
State and local laws and regulations.
    (2) The owner or operator shall ensure that transfers of pesticides 
between pesticide containers or between transport vehicles and 
containers are attended at all times.
    (3) The owner or operator shall ensure that each lockable valve, if 
required by Sec. 165.124(e)(4), on a stationary bulk container shall be 
locked closed whenever the facility is unattended.
    (4) The owner or operator shall ensure that spills and leaks of 
pesticide on or in any containment structure are collected, and 
recovered in a manner that ensures protection of human health and the 
environment (including surface water and ground water) and ensures the 
maximum practicable recovery of the pesticide spilled or leaked. At a 
minimum, cleanup shall occur no later than the end of each day on which 
pesticides have been spilled or leaked in or on the containment 
structure.
    (5) The owner or operator shall ensure that all materials resulting 
from spills and leaks are managed in accordance with label instructions 
and applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations.
    (d) Inspection and maintenance. (1) At least monthly during periods 
when pesticides are being stored or dispensed on the containment 
structure, the owner or operator shall inspect each stationary bulk 
container and its appurtenances and each containment structure for 
visible signs of wetting, discoloration, blistering, bulging, 
corrosion, cracks or other signs of damage or leakage.
    (2) The owner or operator shall repair any areas showing visible 
signs of damage and seal any cracks and gaps in the containment 
structure and appurtenances with material that is resistant to the 
pesticide being stored or dispensed and that meets the standard for 
hydraulic conductivity set forth in Sec. 165.146(a)(3)(i) or 
(a)(3)(ii), as applicable.
    (3) No pesticide shall be stored or dispensed on a containment 
structure if the structure fails to meet the requirements of this 
subpart, until suitable repairs have been made. Prompt removal of 
pesticides, including emptying of bulk containers, in order to effect 
repairs or recovery of spilled material is acceptable.


Sec. 165.148  Specific requirements for containment of stationary 
liquid bulk containers.

    Each stationary liquid bulk container shall be protected by a 
secondary containment unit which meets the requirements of Sec. 165.146 
and of this section.
    (a) Capacity. (1) During the interim period as specified in 
Sec. 165.156(b), each existing secondary containment unit shall have, 
at a minimum, the following capacity, in addition to compensating for 
any volume displaced by containers and appurtenances:
    (i) At least 110 percent of the capacity of the largest stationary 
bulk container within a secondary containment unit that is not 
protected from precipitation.
    (ii) At least 100 percent of the capacity of the largest stationary 
bulk container within a secondary containment unit that is protected 
from precipitation.
    (2) Each new secondary containment unit shall have, at a minimum, 
the following capacity, in addition to compensating for any volume 
displaced by containers and appurtenances:
    (i) At least 125 percent of the capacity of the largest stationary 
bulk container within a secondary containment unit that is not 
protected from precipitation.
    (ii) At least 110 percent of the capacity of the largest stationary 
bulk container within a secondary containment unit that is protected 
from precipitation.
    (3) After the expiration of the interim period as specified in 
Sec. 165.156(b), each existing secondary containment unit shall meet 
the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (b) Design and construction. (1) Each new secondary containment 
unit shall allow for the observation of leakage from the base of any 
enclosed stationary bulk container. This requirement may be achieved by 
elevating the stationary bulk container on structures such as legs, 
skids, raised beds of rounded gravel, or by other methods, provided 
that leaked material readily can be observed and the integrity of the 
secondary containment unit is preserved. After the expiration of the 
interim period as specified in Sec. 165.156(b), each existing secondary 
containment unit also shall meet this standard.
    (2) Any stationary bulk container protected by a secondary 
containment unit shall be adequately elevated or anchored to prevent 
floatation in the event that the secondary containment unit fills with 
liquid.
    (c) Inspection and maintenance. Each month during the interim 
period as specified in Sec. 165.156(b), the owner or operator shall 
inventory and reconcile the contents of any stationary bulk pesticide 
container which is protected by an existing secondary containment unit 
but not elevated (as described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section) so 
as to allow for observation for leakage beneath the container. 
Inventory and reconciliation shall compare the quantity of material 
measured in the bulk container versus the quantity expected (as 
calculated by adjusting the quantity of pesticide measured in the bulk 
container at the previous month's inventory for subsequent amounts 
dispensed into and from the container).


Sec. 165.150  Specific containment requirements for stationary dry bulk 
containers.

    (a) Each stationary dry bulk container shall be protected by a 
secondary containment unit which meets the requirements of Sec. 165.146 
and of this section.
    (b) Each new secondary containment unit shall have, at a minimum, 
the capacity to contain 100 percent of the volume of the largest 
stationary dry bulk container within the containment structure, in 
addition to compensating for any volume displaced by containers and 
appurtenances. After the expiration of the interim period as specified 
in Sec. 165.156(b), each existing secondary containment unit also shall 
meet this requirement.


Sec. 165.152  Specific containment requirements for pesticide 
dispensing areas.

    Each pesticide dispensing area shall be protected by a containment 
pad which meets the requirements of Sec. 165.146 and this section.
    (a) Capacity. The containment pad shall have, at a minimum, a 
holding capacity of 1,000 gallons or, if no container or pesticide-
holding equipment on the containment pad exceeds a capacity of 1,000 
gallons, the minimum capacity of the containment pad shall be at least 
100 percent of the capacity of the largest pesticide container or 
pesticide-holding equipment used on the pad.
    (b) Design and construction. (1) The containment pad shall be 
designed and constructed to intercept leaks and spills of pesticides 
which may occur in the pesticide dispensing area. The surface area of 
the containment pad shall be sufficient to extend completely beneath 
any container on the pad except transport vehicles which are dispensing 
pesticide for sale or distribution to a facility's stationary bulk 
container. For such vehicles the surface area of the containment pad, 
at a minimum, shall accommodate the portion of the vehicle where the 
delivery hose or device couples to the vehicle.
    (2) The surface of each new containment pad shall be sloped toward 
a liquid-tight sump where liquids can be collected for removal. After 
the expiration of the interim period as specified in Sec. 165.156(b), 
each existing containment pad also shall meet this requirement.
    (3) The containment pad shall have a means of removing and 
recovering spilled, leaked, or discharged material and rainfall such as 
by a manually activated pump. Automatically activated pumps lacking 
automatic overflow cutoff switches for the receiving container are 
prohibited.


Sec. 165.153  Integrated systems.

    Containment pads and secondary containment units may be combined 
into integrated systems provided the requirements of Sec. 165.146 and, 
as applicable, Sec. Sec. 165.148, 165.150, and 165.152 are satisfied 
separately. If more than one stationary bulk container is located at a 
facility, the requirements for secondary containment units may be 
applied individually to each stationary bulk container or collectively, 
at the option of the facility.


Sec. 165.156  Compliance dates.

    (a) As of [2 years after the date of publication of the final rule 
in the Federal Register] each new containment structure shall be in 
compliance with all applicable requirements of this subpart.
    (b) The interim period of this subpart begins on [2 years after the 
date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] and ends 
on [10 years after the date of publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register]. During this interim period, each existing 
containment structure shall be in compliance with those requirements 
identified as interim and shall be fully in compliance with all other 
applicable requirements.
    (c) As of [10 years after the date of publication of the final rule 
in the Federal Register] each existing facility shall be in compliance 
with the full requirements of this subpart. Interim requirements shall 
no longer apply to any facility or containment structure.


Sec. 165.157  Recordkeeping requirements and inspections.

    Each owner or operator shall maintain the records listed in this 
section. The owner or operator, upon request of any officer or employee 
of the Agency or of any State or political subdivision duly designated 
by the Agency, shall furnish or make available for inspection and 
copying the records listed in this section.
    (a) The following records shall be maintained for at least 3 years:
    (1) Records of inspection and maintenance for each containment 
structure and for each stationary bulk container and its appurtenances, 
including the name of the person conducting the inspection or 
maintenance, date, conditions noted, and maintenance performed.
    (2) During the interim period referenced in Sec. 165.156(b), 
monthly records of inventory and reconciliation, including for each 
stationary bulk container applicable under the provisions of 
Sec. 165.148(c), the name of product stored, the quantity measured at 
previous inventory, the quantities dispensed from or added to 
container, and reconciliation with the quantity measured at the most 
recent inventory.
    (3) For any dry or liquid bulk container that holds pesticide but 
is not protected by a secondary containment unit that meets the 
requirements of this subpart, records of the duration over which the 
container remains at the same location at the facility.
    (b) Each owner or operator shall maintain written confirmation of 
hydraulic conductivity as required in Sec. 165.146(a)(3) and (d)(2) and 
statements of resistance to the pesticide as required in 
Sec. 165.146(a)(4) and (d)(2). The owner or operator shall maintain 
these records for as long as the containment structure is in use, and 3 
years thereafter.

[FR Doc. 94-2969 Filed 2-10-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F