[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 3, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21960-21965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10873]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 170
[OPP-250098A; FRL-4950-5]
Administrative Exception to Worker Protection Standard Early
Entry Prohibition for Irrigation Activities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Administrative exception decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is granting an administrative exception to the 1992 Worker
Protection Standard (WPS) allowing early entry into pesticide treated
areas to perform certain irrigation activities. The exception is in
response to formal requests the Agency received from the States of
California and Hawaii, a petition from many organizations in the
agricultural community, and informal requests from other States. The
exception allows workers to perform necessary irrigation activities,
which if delayed could cause significant economic loss, and that result
in minimal contact with pesticide-treated surfaces, for a maximum of 8
hours in a 24-hour period during a restricted-entry interval (REI). EPA
is granting this exception because it believes the benefits outweigh
the risks and the potential risk from this exception is not
unreasonable.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 1995.
ADDRESSES: The Agency invites any interested person who has concerns
about the implementation of this action to submit written comments
identified by docket number ``OPP-250098A'' to: By mail: Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,
DC 20460. In person, bring comments to: Rm. 1132, Crystal Mall #2, 1921
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII file
format. All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by
the docket number ``OPP-250098A.'' No Confidential Business Information
(CBI) should be submitted through e-mail. Electronic comments on this
document may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
Additional information on electronic submissions can be found in Unit
VII of this document.
Information submitted as a comment concerning this document may be
claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as
CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance
with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the comment that
does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public
record. Information not marked confidential may be disclosed publicly
by EPA without prior notice. All written comments will be available for
public inspection in Rm. 1132 at the Virginia address given above from
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
The exception requests and all comments submitted on the proposed
exception are available for public inspection in the Office of
Pesticide Programs' public docket, Rm. 1132, Crystal Mall #2, 1921
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. Office hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Ager, Office of Pesticide
Programs (7506C), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Office location, telephone number, and e-mail
address: 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Rm. 1121, Crystal Mall #2,
Arlington, VA, (703) 305-7666, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is one of a series of Agency actions to
revise elements of the WPS. These actions were published on January 11,
1995 (60 FR 2820), and proposed to: (1) Shorten the time periods before
which employers must train workers and retrain workers and handlers in
pesticide safety; (2) exempt those who perform crop advising tasks from
certain requirements; (3) allow early entry to pesticide-treated areas
to perform certain time-sensitive irrigation activities; (4) allow
early entry to pesticide-treated areas to perform certain time-
sensitive activities resulting in ``limited contact'' with pesticide
treated surfaces; and (5) allow workers to enter areas treated with
certain lower risk pesticides after 4 hours rather than 12 hours. This
action addresses allowing early entry to pesticide-treated areas to
perform certain time-sensitive irrigation activities. Final
determinations on the other four actions mentioned above are being
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
I. Background
On August 21, 1992, EPA issued a final rule (57 FR 38102) revising
the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) for agricultural pesticides (40
CFR part 170). The WPS prohibits routine entry by workers into
pesticide-treated areas during REIs. An REI is the time after the end
of a pesticide application during which entry into the treated area is
restricted. Section 170.112(e) of the WPS provides a process for
considering exceptions to this prohibition against early entry to
treated areas.
In 1994, both California and Hawaii specifically requested that EPA
grant an exception to allow early entry to pesticide-treated areas,
prior to the expiration of the REI, to perform necessary irrigation
tasks involving limited contact with treated surfaces. Specifically,
the Agency was asked to consider allowing unlimited early entry during
the REI if workers would not have substantial contact with pesticide-
treated surfaces. The Agency was also asked to consider establishing a
single requirement for personal protective equipment (PPE) that could
be worn by irrigation workers.
The irrigation exception requests from California and Hawaii, and a
petition from a coalition of agricultural and commodity groups,
persuaded EPA that there is a potential for significant economic impact
if growers could not tend to irrigation tasks in a timely manner due to
REIs. In response to these requests, EPA proposed a national exception
for irrigation activities to be performed within the REI, provided
certain conditions were met.
EPA received comments supporting and opposing the proposed
exception. [[Page 21961]] Information received during the public
comment period persuaded EPA that there could be significant economic
impact if irrigation activities, resulting in minimal contact, were
prohibited during the REI. EPA has been persuaded by comments that the
irrigation tasks are relevant to the production of a wide variety of
agricultural plants across a broad geographic area.
A. WPS Early Entry Restrictions
In general, the WPS prohibits agricultural workers from entering a
pesticide-treated area during the REI. REIs are based on the toxicity
of the active ingredient in the product and other factors. They are
specified on pesticide product labels and typically range from 12 to 72
hours or possibly longer where product-specific REIs have been
determined.
Additionally, workers engaging in early-entry work are not
permitted to engage in hand labor, which results in substantial contact
with treated surfaces. The WPS defines hand labor as any agricultural
activity performed by hand or with hand tools that causes a worker to
have substantial contact with surfaces (such as plants or soil) that
may contain pesticide residues.
B. WPS Exceptions to Early Entry Restrictions
Currently, the WPS contains the following exceptions to the general
prohibition against worker early entry: entry resulting in no-contact
with treated areas; entry allowing short-term tasks, with required PPE
and other conditions; entry to perform tasks associated with
agricultural emergencies; and an exception process for EPA to determine
on a case-by-case basis whether entry is warranted for activities not
covered in the previous exceptions.
II. EPA's Exception Decision
EPA is granting an exception to the early-entry prohibition to
allow irrigation tasks to be performed. Based on the information
submitted in comments and EPA's experience over many years of reviewing
agricultural practices in connection with pesticide use, EPA has
concluded that this exception appropriately balances the potential risk
of worker exposure and the significant economic impact which could be
incurred if growers are not allowed to tend to irrigation tasks at
necessary times.
The exception is designed to minimize risk to workers conducting
early-entry irrigation tasks while providing growers the needed
flexibility to irrigate their crops. EPA has reviewed information on
the risks and benefits associated with granting an exception for
necessary irrigation activities and believes that the benefits outweigh
the risks. This assessment is based on EPA's evaluation of the risk
reduction provided by the provisions contained in this exception and
the benefits which may be obtained by allowing the exception.
Furthermore, where the benefits outweighed the risks, EPA has, in the
context of the WPS, previously made exceptions to the general
prohibition against early entry, even for hand labor activities. [See
Hand Labor Tasks on Cut Flowers and Ferns Exception (57 FR 38175,
August 21, 1992)]. Because hand labor as defined in the WPS involves
substantial worker contact with surfaces that may contain pesticide
residues, and this exception is limited to irrigation tasks where
workers' contact with treated surfaces would be minimal and limited to
the workers' feet, lower legs, hands, and forearms, EPA believes that
pesticide exposure to workers performing irrigation tasks under the
terms of this exception would be less than exposures to workers
performing hand labor tasks in the same treated area. Therefore, EPA
believes that early entry under the terms of the exception (see unit IV
of this document), will not pose unreasonable risk to irrigation
workers.
The category of activity envisioned by this exception includes only
those irrigation tasks which cannot be delayed until the expiration of
the REI. The definition of a task that cannot be delayed is one that,
if not performed before the expiration of the REI, would cause
significant economic loss and where there are no alternative practices
which would prevent the loss. By this definition, EPA has defined a
category of tasks with significant limits placed on the type and
duration of activity in which a worker can be engaged and the economic
circumstances under which the exception can be applied. Taken together,
these elements limit the exception to only high-benefit activities.
Further, EPA has included significant provisions which will limit
pesticide exposure and risk to irrigation workers. This exception
specifically forbids hand labor activity; prohibits entry into a
treated area during the first 4 hours after a pesticide application and
until applicable ventilation criteria and any label-specified
inhalation exposure level have been met; limits the time in treated
areas under a REI for any worker to 8 hours in any 24-hour period;
requires that any contact with treated areas by a worker be minimal and
limited to feet, lower legs, hands, and forearms; excludes pesticides
requiring double-notification; requires PPE; directs the agricultural
employer to notify workers of specific information concerning the
exception; and ensures that the requirements of Sec. 170.112(c)(3)-
(c)(9) are met. These terms will limit worker exposure and,
consequently, worker risk.
The WPS's general prohibition against early entry is designed to
limit worker exposure during the critical REI. In granting this
irrigation exception, EPA has weighed the risk to irrigation workers
against the benefits of early-entry irrigation activities and finds
justification for this exception. EPA believes that this exception
adequately addresses and balances worker exposure concerns with the
commercial needs of agriculture.
III. Summary of Major Issues
EPA received over 80 comments on the proposed irrigation exception.
Comments were received from State agencies, grower groups, farmworker
groups, and individuals.
A. Need for the Exception
An exception for allowing irrigation activities is needed because
failure to irrigate crops in a timely manner could cause a significant
economic impact. The existing exceptions do not adequately address
irrigation needs.
Commenters described many circumstances where failure to irrigate
before the expiration of the REI could cause a significant economic
impact. Comments from nurseries and greenhouses stated that frequently
they need to water more than once a day. Several commenters stated
their dependency on the irrigation districts for water and noted that
often a grower has only a few hours notice before water arrives from
the irrigation contractor. USDA cited the need for the exception for
United States agriculture to be competitive in international markets.
EPA agrees with these comments, and is persuaded that it is
necessary to allow early entry during the REI to perform irrigation
activities. EPA has written specific restrictions into this exception
to reduce risk to irrigators.
B. Geographic Limitation
The States of California and Hawaii formally requested an exception
for irrigation activities. In response to other States, informally
expressing the need to irrigate before the expiration of the REI, the
Agency requested comments on the need for a national exception.
Comments were received from: Arkansas, Arizona, California, Delaware,
Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri,
[[Page 21962]] Montana, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington. Most comments opposed a
geographic limitation and several commenters stated their irrigation
needs were similar to California and Hawaii. The greenhouse and nursery
industry, which is national in scope, expressed the importance of
watering-in pre-emergent herbicides. One commenter stated that a
geographic limitation could pose an economic disadvantage to parts of
the country where the exception is not applicable. However, another
commenter stated, that a national exception would heighten the risk of
poisonings and another commenter stated, that criteria should be
established and applied on a case-by-case basis.
Based on the comments received, EPA has concluded that a nationwide
irrigation exception is necessary. Although irrigation practices and
the circumstances in which irrigation is employed vary considerably
throughout the country, the need for early entry to perform irrigation
tasks, that cannot be delayed without incurring significant economic
loss, is common nationwide. The provisions of the exception which
define the category of acceptable tasks limits those activities to ones
which are needed nationwide. Granting exceptions for certain geographic
areas is appropriate to address local, particularized needs. But in the
present instance, EPA believes that such a case-by-case approach is
unwarranted and overly burdensome given that the need is common and
amenable to a more generalized exception.
The disruption of needed irrigation can lead to significant and
even catastrophic economic losses. All types of irrigation require
occasional maintenance, repair or adjustment necessitating early entry.
This exception will allow such activities during the REI only if the
failure to act during the REI will result in significant economic loss.
By limiting the exception in this manner, EPA intends to prevent use of
the exception for routine irrigation activities.
Furthermore, EPA's analysis takes into account the concern that
this exception should adequately protect worker safety. Among other
limitations to ensure appropriate protection for irrigation workers,
EPA is limiting the tasks that may be engaged in by time (a maximum of
8 hours during any 24-hour period), necessity, and economic impact.
These measures will provide workers with adequate protection while
allowing growers the needed flexibility to prevent significant economic
losses due to problems with their irrigation systems.
C. Two-Year Expiration Date
Under the proposal, this exception would have expired 24 months
after the implementation date. Most commenters were opposed to an
expiration date and stated that 2 years was not sufficient time to
gather data concerning any documented increase in incidents. Several
commenters were in favor of the 2-year expiration as a period to be
used to monitor the need for further restriction if necessary.
EPA agrees with comments opposed to the 24-month expiration. The 2-
year time period would not provide adequate time for EPA to evaluate
the impact of the exception date. In general, changes in pesticide use
practices do not occur suddenly, and there is often a lag time in
reporting and analysis of incident data. Therefore, EPA expects it
might be several years before data would be available to evaluate the
impact of this exception. EPA, of course, may use the procedure in
Sec. 170.112(e)(5) to revoke the exception at any time that data become
available indicating that such action is necessary.
D. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
The Agency was asked to consider establishing a generic PPE set.
Since irrigation workers may work in several different treated areas,
they could be required to comply with several different label
requirements for PPE. EPA proposed a generic PPE set which would
consist of coveralls, chemical resistant gloves, socks, and chemical
resistant footwear. EPA proposed that the employer may choose to
provide employees with PPE that either: (a) conforms with the label
requirements for early-entry PPE; or (b) conforms with the generic PPE.
The proposed alternative generic PPE requirement includes eyewear, if
on the label.
Several commenters expressed concern that irrigators may be at risk
of heat stress from performing strenuous tasks in coveralls. Several
commenters maintained that bodily contact with treated surfaces would
be limited to areas protected by gloves and boots. One commenter
mentioned that the use of gloves would be impractical for certain
tasks.
Some commenters stated that the complete PPE was necessary because
it could not be assumed that exposure would be only to feet, lower
legs, hands and forearms. It was mentioned that irrigators may not have
considerable contact with foliage, but do have significant contact with
contaminated soil and pipes. Several commenters responded favorably to
the option of wearing generic PPE, in lieu of the label requirements,
because it would reduce confusion for irrigators entering multiple
fields in a single day. One commenter opposed the use of generic PPE,
in lieu of the label PPE, because irrigation workers will be exposed
through incidental exposure, such as residues dripping from orchards,
irrigation water, or wiping perspiration from the face. Even while
wearing PPE, injuries have been reported.
EPA has concluded that rather than require eyewear as part of the
generic PPE, the use of protective eyewear should be consistent with
the early-entry PPE requirement on the labeling. EPA is not requiring
respiratory equipment because the exception expressly prohibits workers
from entering treated fields during the first 4 hours after application
and until applicable ventilation criteria have been met, and until any
label-specified inhalation exposure level has been reached.
While the terms of the exception require that the contact be
limited to feet, lower legs, hands, and forearms, the Agency believes
that incidental, unintended, or accidental exposure to other parts of
the body, besides the lower legs, feet, forearms and hands, may be
possible and thus, is requiring coveralls as part of the generic PPE.
The WPS requires that PPE not be worn home and that it must be properly
maintained by agricultural employers. The requirement for coveralls
could decrease exposure risk to residues from long-sleeved shirts and
long pants which could be worn home.
In response to concerns regarding heat stress from wearing PPE, EPA
notes that the agriculture employer is required, under unit IV.7 of
this document, to assure that no worker is allowed or directed to
perform the early-entry activity without implementing, when
appropriate, measures to prevent heat-related illness.
E. Time Allowed in the Treated Area
EPA proposed that the time in treated areas under the REI for each
worker not exceed 8 hours in any 24-hour period.
Many comments recommended unlimited entry during the REI for
irrigation. Several commenters favored the 8-hour limit in any 24-hour
period and one commenter said it would be difficult and uncommon for an
irrigator to exceed 8 hours in a treated area during even the longest
work shift. One commenter indicated that pesticide-treated surfaces
cannot be controlled and that PPE may not adequately protect for 8
hours. It was also suggested that [[Page 21963]] time in the treated
area should be determined by the toxicity of the chemical, allowing up
to 6 hours per 24-hour period.
EPA has designed this exception by balancing the benefits of giving
employers the flexibility to perform irrigation tasks against the added
risks resulting from increased exposure during early entry. In this
case, one way to limit risk is to limit exposure to 8 hours, rather
than to allow unlimited entry as commenters requested. Entry for up to
8 hours affords employers considerably more flexibility in using
workers than a shorter period. EPA is retaining the 8 hours maximum
time allowed within a 24-hour period. The Agency concludes that this is
a sufficient amount of time to address most irrigation needs and, after
considering this provision in combination with the other protections
required under this exception, that the benefits of an 8-hour period
outweigh the risk of exposure in that period.
F. Exclusion of Double-Notification Pesticides
Entry into areas treated with pesticides requiring double
notification is not allowed under the terms of this exception. The
``double-notification'' provision relates to pesticides that are highly
toxic, dermally irritating, or have other health effects that set them
apart from other pesticides and requires growers to both post the
treated area and orally notify workers of the application.
Several commenters opposing the exclusion of double-notification
pesticides, asserted that the same tasks are necessary and believed the
risks would be low since workers would have only ``minimal contact with
treated surfaces'' and that PPE would provide adequate protection.
Other alternatives proposed included: allowing entry to fields based on
the height of the crop or on the nature of the task rather than the
toxicity of the pesticide; and reducing the maximum time allowed in
fields treated with double-notification pesticides.
Several commenters supported excluding double-notification
pesticides and one commenter stated that the double-notification
pesticides should also be excluded from the other exceptions. One
commenter stated that category B or C carcinogens, identified as
developmental or reproductive toxins or known to be sensitizers, and
pesticides with the signal word DANGER should also be excluded from the
exception. Another commenter expressed concern over the methodology of
compiling the double-notification list and expressed concern regarding
other risky pesticide exposures, especially from the standpoint of eye
exposure and chronic toxicity.
The Agency is convinced that allowing workers to enter a field
treated with a double-notification pesticide before the expiration of
the REI would pose an unreasonable risk. Incidental exposure to double-
notification pesticides, such as brushing against a treated surface,
more than with other pesticides, has the potential to cause an acute
illness or a delayed effect. There are reports of acute poisonings
which have occurred after short-term exposure to many of these highly-
toxic pesticides. Thus, shortening the period allowed for early entry
may still not provide adequate protection. EPA has data demonstrating
that the majority of pesticides requiring double-notification are
responsible for many reported incidents of worker poisonings. The
Agency is prohibiting early entry during the REI to fields treated with
pesticide products which require both the posting of treated areas and
oral notification to workers (i.e. double-notification).
G. Notification Requirements to Workers
The exception proposed 10 posting requirements. Many of these
requirements duplicated requirements of the WPS and one (the posting of
the 2-year expiration date) is no longer relevant.
The Agency is requiring growers that use this exception to inform
workers, either in writing or orally in language the worker
understands, that: (1) The establishment is relying on the irrigation
exception to allow workers to enter treated areas to complete
irrigation tasks; (2) no entry is allowed for the first 4 hours
following an application, and until applicable ventilation criteria
have been met, and until any label-specified inhalation exposure level
has been reached; and (3) the time in the treated area under a REI for
any worker may not exceed 8 hours in any 24-hour period.
H. Poisoning Information
Several commenters supplied the Agency with poisoning incident
data. Many poisoning incidents, while involving irrigators, appear to
be accidents and would not be affected by this exception. Also, many of
these pre-WPS incidents would constitute non-compliance with the
federal WPS requirements if they had been in effect. These incidents
have reinforced the Agency's conclusion about the potential for risk
reduction by wearing PPE when entering treated fields before the REI
expires.
Implementation of the WPS will reduce the number of pesticide-
related incidents by requiring irrigators to wear PPE if entering
before the REI expires and by not allowing any entry until the 4 hours
after application and until inhalation/ventilation criteria have been
met.
IV. Terms of the Exception
The terms of the exception are essentially the same as those
proposed in the Federal Register of January 11, 1995 (60 FR 2830), with
two minor differences; the final exception is not limited to 2 years
and the 10 posting requirements have been changed to 3 notification
requirements. It should be noted that because this exception allows
tasks to be performed during the REI, all persons engaged in irrigation
tasks under this exception must be trained.
The exception described in this document may be used unless early
entry is expressly prohibited in product labeling. For example, some
labels prohibit entry--including entry that would otherwise be
permitted under the WPS and this exception--by any person other than
trained and equipped handlers performing handling tasks for specified
periods after the application.
Under the terms of this exception, a trained worker may enter a
treated area during a REI to perform tasks related to operating,
moving, or repairing irrigation or watering equipment, if the
agricultural employer ensures that all of the following requirements
are met:
1. The need for the task could not have been foreseen and cannot be
delayed until after the expiration of the REI. A task that cannot be
delayed is one that, if not performed before the REI expires, would
cause significant economic loss, and there are no alternative practices
which would prevent significant loss.
2. No hand labor activity is performed. (The WPS defines ``hand
labor'' as any agricultural activity performed by hand or with hand
tools that causes a worker to have substantial contact with surfaces
(such as plants, plant parts, or soil) that may contain pesticide
residues.)
3. The worker's only contact with treated surfaces (including but
not limited to soil, water, surfaces of plants, crops, and irrigation
equipment) is minimal and is limited to feet, lower legs, hands, and
forearms.
4. The PPE for early entry must be provided to the worker by the
agricultural employer for all tasks. Such PPE shall either: (a) conform
with the label requirements for early-entry PPE; or (b) consist of
coveralls, chemical resistant gloves, socks, and chemical
[[Page 21964]] resistant footwear, and eyewear (if eyewear is required
for early-entry PPE by the product labeling). In either case, the PPE
must conform to the standards set out in Sec. 170.112(c)(4)(i) through
(c)(4)(x).
5. The pesticide product does not have a statement in the pesticide
product labeling requiring both the posting of treated areas and oral
notification to workers (double notification), or a restriction
prohibiting any person, other than an appropriately trained and
equipped handler, from entering during the REI.
6. The time in treated areas under a REI for any worker does not
exceed a maximum of 8 hours in any 24-hour period.
7. For all irrigation tasks, the requirements of
Sec. 170.112(c)(3)-(c)(9) are met. These are WPS requirements for all
early-entry situations that involve contact with treated surfaces, and
include:
i. A prohibition against entry during the first 4 hours, and until
applicable ventilation criteria have been met, and until any label
specified inhalation exposure level has been reached.
ii. Informing workers of safety information on the product
labeling.
iii. Provision, proper management, and care of PPE.
iv. Heat-related illness prevention.
v. Requirements for decontamination facilities.
vi. Prohibition on taking PPE home.
8. The agricultural employer shall notify workers before entering a
treated area, either orally or in writing, in a language the worker
understands, that:
i. The establishment is relying on this exception to allow workers
to enter treated areas to complete irrigation tasks.
ii. No entry is allowed for the first 4 hours following an
application, and until applicable ventilation criteria have been met,
and until any label-specified inhalation exposure level has been
reached.
iii. The time in a treated area under a REI for any worker cannot
exceed 8 hours in any 24-hour period.
EPA reserves the right to withdraw exceptions, in accordance with
Sec. 170.112(e)(6), if the Agency receives information or any other
data that indicates the health risks posed by activities permitted
under the exception are unreasonable, that the provisions of this
exception are being abused, or that indicates the exception no longer
has benefits that outweigh the risks.
V. Reevaluation of Irrigation Exception
The Agency is adopting this exception in order to provide the
flexibility to the agriculture sector to avoid significant economic
losses while still providing agricultural workers protection under the
WPS. As discussed more fully above, the Agency believes that any added
risks associated with pesticide exposure of irrigation workers, from
activities permitted by this action, will be limited by the specific
conditions imposed in the irrigation exception. The Agency intends,
over the next several growing seasons, to collect information to
evaluate the effectiveness of this exception. In particular, EPA is
interested in determining whether the conditions imposed by this action
successfully protect workers against pesticide poisonings. EPA is also
interested in better characterizing the circumstances in which this
exception is being used and in understanding whether the exception
addresses the needs of growers adequately. Finally, EPA would like to
obtain information on the extent of compliance with the conditions in
the irrigation exception and any practical problems with enforcement.
To obtain a better understanding of the implementation and impacts
of this irrigation exception, EPA will work with USDA and States to
gather relevant information. The Agency will hold public meetings in
agricultural areas to provide those directly affected by the WPS--
growers, enforcement staff, and agricultural workers--an opportunity to
comment on these actions and the WPS rule in general. As appropriate,
EPA may conduct surveys and review incident data to assess how the
rules are affecting agriculture. The Agency invites any interested
person who has concerns about the implementation of this action to send
comments to the Agency at the address listed at the beginning of this
Notice under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
VI. List of Exceptions in 40 CFR 170.112
In a technical amendment published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register, EPA is amending Sec. 170.112 of the WPS by adding to
Sec. 170.112(e)(7) a referencing of this administrative exception for
irrigation tasks and its effective date. EPA will ensure that the
regulated community is aware of the terms and conditions of the
exception, and is able to locate this and future administrative
exceptions. The technical amendment to Sec. 170.112(e)(7) does not make
any substantive changes in the WPS or in Sec. 170.112.
VII. Public Docket
A record has been established for the WPS rulemaking and this
administrative decision under docket number ``OPP-250098A'' (including
comments and data submitted electronically as described below). A
public version of this record, including printed, paper versions of
electronic comments, which does not include any information claimed as
CBI, is available for inspection from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The public record is located
in Rm. 1132 of the Public Response and Program Resources Branch, Field
Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
[email protected]
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for the WPS rulemaking and this administrative
decision, as well as the public version, as described above will be
kept in paper form. Accordingly, EPA will transfer all comments
received electronically into printed, paper form as they are received
and will place the paper copies in the official rulemaking record which
will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. The
official rulemaking record is the paper record maintained at the
address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the beginning of this document.
VIII. Consultations and Reviews
A. Statutory Reviews
As required by FIFRA section 25(a), this administrative decision
was provided to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and to Congress for
review. The FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel waived its review.
B. OMB Review
This action was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for their informal review. Any comments or changes made during
OMB's review have been documented in the public record.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,
which the President signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA has assessed
the effects of this administrative decision on State, local, and tribal
governments, and the private sector. This action does not result in the
expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local or tribal
governments, or by anyone in the [[Page 21965]] private sector. In
fact, this action actually involves a reduction in burden and overall
cost.
In addition to the consultations prior to proposal, EPA has had
several informal consultations regarding the proposed rule with some
States through the EPA regional offices and at regularly scheduled
State meetings. No significant issues or information were identified as
a result of EPA's discussion with the States.
List of Subjects
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Labeling, Occupational safety and health, Pesticides and pest.
Dated: April 24, 1995.
Lynn R. Goldman,
Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances.
[FR Doc. 95-10873 Filed 5-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F