[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 189 (Friday, September 29, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50686-50691]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-24213]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 170

[OPP-250108; FRL-4969-5]


Worker Protection Standard; Decontamination Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to amend the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) 
for agricultural pesticides by modifying the current requirements for 
decontamination sites for workers. EPA is proposing to shorten the time 
that decontamination sites are required when certain pesticides are 
used; all other decontamination provisions are unaffected by this 
proposal. The objective of the proposed change is to provide 
flexibility and encourage the use of low-toxicity pesticides, while 
ensuring that there is no increase in worker risk. EPA is also 
clarifying existing decontamination requirements so that agricultural 
employers will better understand their responsibilities under this WPS 
provision.

DATES: Written comments, data, or evidence must be identified by docket 
number and should be submitted on or before November 13, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments in triplicate to: By mail: Program 
Resources Section, Public Response and Program Resources Branch, Field 
Operations Division (7506C), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M 
St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring comments to: Rm. 1132, 
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
    Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by sending 
electronic mail (e-mail) to: [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-250108.'' No Confidential Business Information 
(CBI) should be submitted through e-mail. Electronic comments on this 
document may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries. 
Additional information on electronic submissions can be found in Unit 
VIII. of this document.
    Information submitted as a comment concerning this document may be 
claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as 
CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance 
with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the comment that 
does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public 
record. Information not marked confidential may be disclosed publicly 
by EPA without prior notice. All written comments will be available for 
public inspection in Rm. 1132 at the Virginia address given above from 
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Joshua First or Allie Fields, 
Office of Pesticide Programs, Field Operations Division, Certification, 
Training, and Occupational Safety Branch (7506C), Environmental 
Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. By telephone: 
(703) 305-7437 and (703) 305-5391, respectively. By e-mail: 
[email protected] or [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Statutory Authority

    This proposal is issued under the authority of section 25(a) of the 
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 
136w(a).

II. Background of the Worker Protection Standard

    In 1992, EPA revised the Worker Protection Standard (40 CFR part 
170) (57 FR 38102, August 21, 1992) which is intended to protect 
agricultural workers from risks associated with agricultural 
pesticides. The 1992 WPS expanded the scope of the original WPS to 
include not only workers performing hand labor operations in fields 
treated with pesticides, but also workers in or on farms, forests, 
nurseries, and greenhouses. It also included pesticide handlers who 
mix, load, apply, or otherwise handle pesticides for use at these 
locations in the production of agricultural commodities. The WPS 
contains other requirements for training, notification of pesticide 
applications, use of personal protective equipment, restricted entry 
intervals, decontamination, and emergency medical assistance.
    This proposed WPS amendment is one of a series of Agency actions in 
response to concerns raised by persons affected by the final WPS rule 
since its publication in August 1992. In addition to this proposed 
amendment, EPA will also be publishing a notice soliciting public 
comment about possible modifications to the requirements for the WPS 
warning sign. 

[[Page 50687]]


III. Current Worker Protection Standard Decontamination Requirement

    Section 170.150 of the WPS requires that workers be provided with a 
decontamination site (water, soap, disposable towels) for washing off 
pesticide residues whenever a worker performs any task in an area 
where, within the last 30 days, a pesticide has been applied or a 
restricted-entry interval has been in effect, and the worker contacts 
anything that has been treated with the pesticide. Decontamination 
sites must consist of soap and single-use towels sufficient to meet 
workers' needs and enough water for routine washing and emergency eye 
flushing. The sites must be reasonably accessible to workers and not 
more than \1/4\ mile from workers, or at the nearest place of vehicular 
access.
    The water must be of a quality and temperature that will not cause 
injury when it contacts eyes, skin, or when it is ingested. Water 
cannot be stored in tanks used for mixing pesticides, unless the tank 
is equipped with functioning valves or mechanisms that prevent 
pesticides from entering the tank. EPA recommends that at least 1 
gallon of water be available per worker for general washing. When 
workers are engaged in early-entry tasks in areas treated with 
pesticides that require protective eye wear, at least 1 pint of water 
must be immediately available to each worker for emergency eye 
flushing; this water must be carried by the worker, on the vehicle 
which the worker is using, or must be otherwise immediately available. 
At remote work sites, workers may use clean water from streams, 
springs, lakes, or other sources that are more accessible than the 
water at the decontamination site located at the nearest point of 
vehicular access.
    Decontamination sites shall not be in areas being treated with 
pesticides. In general, decontamination sites shall not be in areas 
under a restricted entry interval (REI), unless workers are engaged in 
permitted early-entry tasks and are contacting treated surfaces. For 
workers who have performed early-entry tasks, employers must provide a 
decontamination site at the place where the workers remove their 
protective equipment with a sufficient amount of water to wash 
thoroughly. These requirements are discussed more fully in the next 
unit.

IV. Discussion of Comments Received and Clarification of 
Requirements

    The Agency has received comments and requests from stakeholders 
that changes to the WPS decontamination requirement be made. EPA has 
held meetings with agricultural industry representatives and farmworker 
representatives to discuss their concerns about potential changes in 
the decontamination requirement. EPA has also received written comments 
on the subject. Concerns expressed by stakeholders in both 
correspondence and in meetings are reviewed below.

A. Stakeholder Concerns

    In a July 8, 1994, petition for rulemaking, the National 
Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) requested that 
EPA narrow WPS decontamination supply requirements to periods which EPA 
has previously identified as posing potential contact with residues. In 
particular, NASDA asked for decontamination supplies to be required 
only during REIs or ``immediately following the pesticide 
application.'' NASDA stated that the duration of the 30-day requirement 
is ``unnecessary and wasteful'' because decontamination supplies must 
be provided even when there is no apparent risk.
    NASDA stated that pesticide dusts and mists settle after a 
pesticide application, which minimizes the opportunity for workers to 
contact the pesticide residues. Moreover, NASDA argued that, unless EPA 
has a specific health-based concern about a particular pesticide, which 
should be reflected in the pesticide's REIs, decontamination supplies 
should not be required beyond a pesticide's REI because foliar residues 
should be largely dissipated by the time the REI expires; NASDA stated 
that risks are relatively low when foliar residues are mostly 
dissipated. NASDA also argued that it is impractical to place a 
decontamination site where potential risks from residues are arguably 
low, instead of in areas where potential risks are known to be high.
    The Farm Bureau, the Cotton Council, and other stakeholders have 
stated in correspondence and in meetings with EPA that the requirement 
is unduly burdensome because there is little or no worker risk from 
what pesticide residues remain after the respective REIs expire. These 
commenters believe that the sites would be better utilized in more 
recently treated areas. Industry stakeholders comments have focused on 
the risks associated with pesticides' acute toxicity.
    Some agricultural industry stakeholders stated that putting 
decontamination sites in areas of arguably low risk, such as areas 
where the REIs have expired, results in the inefficient use of 
transport equipment. For example, on some cotton farms work crews are 
large, and decontamination supplies and facilities are transported in 
trailers. Commenters have stated that the trailers are expensive, are 
difficult to move around, and that purchasing several of them, instead 
of moving one trailer to the area most in need of a decontamination 
site, is an added burden and an inefficient use of equipment. Some 
commenters have stated that other vehicles, such as pickup trucks, are 
also not efficiently used, because large water tanks are kept in the 
truck's bed and the truck must remain with the workers.
    On the other hand, stakeholders representing farmworker concerns 
have taken issue with the proposed changes to the decontamination 
requirement. For example, the Farmworker Justice Fund and the American 
Farmworker Opportunities Program have requested that EPA not make any 
changes to the requirement. They have stated that a change to the 
requirement may be perceived as a weakening of the requirement and 
might promote less compliance. Stakeholders representing farmworkers 
have said that implementing any of the possible changes mentioned in 
this proposal will weaken the requirement. They have said that these 
changes will result in increased risks to farmworkers, because the 
number of opportunities for farmworkers to wash themselves during 
working hours will decrease. These commenters have also stated that the 
requirement is easy to meet because of its low costs and, therefore, 
there is no basis for changing it.

B. Clarification of Current Worker Protection Standard Decontamination 
Requirement

    EPA has received comments and requests to provide clarification 
about the WPS decontamination requirement. The Agency has realized from 
these questions that the requirement is not completely understood by 
agricultural employers. In response, EPA is providing the following 
information.
    1. When a decontamination site must be provided and when it is not 
required. A decontamination site is only required whenever workers 
perform tasks resulting in contact with pesticide-treated surfaces in 
an area that has been treated with pesticides within the last 30 days, 
or an REI has been in effect in the area within the last 30 days. The 
decontamination site is not required to be left in or near a pesticide-
treated area when workers are not present, nor is a decontamination 
site required to be left in or near a pesticide-treated area in the 
event that it might be needed at some future time. 

[[Page 50688]]

    Decontamination sites are not required when there are no workers 
present in the treated area. Decontamination sites are not required 
when workers are engaged in work that does not result in contact with 
pesticide-treated surfaces. For example, a decontamination site is not 
required for a worker who walks into a treated field to place a flag 
without handling the crop or otherwise contacting treated surfaces. 
Likewise, a decontamination site is not required for workers who enter 
fields where the treated surface(s) has been completely removed.
    The removal of treated surfaces can occur during the harvest of 
some crops. However, not all harvesting will result in the removal of 
all treated surfaces. The harvest of some crops is accomplished in 
stages, such as melons. Melons ripen throughout the growing season and 
it is likely that many melons remaining in the field will have 
pesticides residues on them that are less than 30 days old, due to 
periodic retreatment. With other crops, such as orchard fruits, 
harvesting cannot completely remove all treated surfaces, which include 
tree leaves and branches. However, the remains of some field crops are 
plowed under after harvest. In that case, there would be no treated 
surfaces remaining.
    2. How to transport and provide a decontamination site. Employers 
have expressed concern about ways to transport and provide 
decontamination sites, particularly the water. Employers have stated 
that providing large containers of water limits the use of the 
transport vehicle, which is often left stationary with the supplies in 
or on it. In response, the Agency would like to emphasize that the 
method of providing decontamination supplies is at the discretion of 
the employer. Examples of placement of the supplies can include in a 
shed, trailer, pickup truck, carboy, or enclosed container.
    Decontamination water must be sufficient for workers' needs. If 
running water is not immediately available, EPA recommends that at 
least 1 gallon of water be provided for each worker. The water need not 
necessarily be in a single large container that would be kept in or on 
a vehicle. It can be provided in smaller containers, such as large and 
medium coolers, or even 1 gallon jugs. Whenever possible, EPA 
recommends that employers provide larger water containers. Small ones, 
such as 1 gallon jugs, are more easily contaminated because they are 
handled more, and more easily moved and knocked over than larger 
containers.
    3. Duration of decontamination sites. The decontamination 
requirement does not require that a permanent supply site be built, 
such as a shed. The requirement will be satisfied so long as the 
decontamination supplies are reasonably accessible to workers (within 
\1/4\ mile or at the nearest point of vehicular access), and the water 
is of a quality and temperature that will not cause illness or injury 
when it contacts the skin or eyes or if it is swallowed. Water can be 
kept at acceptable temperatures any number of ways, the most common 
being shade, although coolers are also common.
    4. Decontamination sites in areas under an REI. A decontamination 
site can be placed in a pesticide-treated area, including an area under 
an REI. The decontamination site can be in an area under an REI only if 
intended for workers engaged in early entry tasks in that area.
    In the case of workers engaged in early entry work in an area under 
an REI, it is the employer's discretion on where to provide the 
decontamination site. The site can be placed at the edge of the area 
under the REI, where there is less opportunity for it to contact 
pesticide residues. However, the employer may also wish to place the 
site in the area under the REI, where it would be closer to the 
workers. The site must be within \1/4\ mile of the work area or at the 
nearest point of vehicular access.
    Workers entering areas under an REI in a vehicle, such as a truck 
or tractor, may bring decontamination supplies with them in the 
vehicle, so long as the supplies will not contact pesticides or their 
residues. One way of ensuring that the decontamination supplies do not 
contact pesticides or their residues is to store them in an enclosed 
container. An enclosed container can be a closable plastic bag, a hard 
plastic box with a sealable lid, or other similar container.
    When decontamination sites are in a treated area, and there is no 
REI in effect, enclosed containers or other measures to ensure that the 
decontamination supplies do not contact pesticide residues are not 
required, although EPA recommends that they be used.
    5. Federal and State Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
(OSHA) Requirements. The OSHA Field Sanitation Standard (29 CFR 
1928.110) sets sanitation requirements similar to those promulgated by 
EPA for worker decontamination. Several states, such as Washington, 
California, and Oregon, have requirements similar to or stricter than 
the OSHA requirements. These states appear to be the exception, 
however. The vast majority of states do not have requirements similar 
to OSHA's. To the extent that the provision of state and OSHA-required 
facilities coincide with WPS decontamination requirements, it is 
acceptable to use the state or OSHA-required facility. Therefore, 
employers meeting the OSHA or state requirement will not incur 
additional cost or burden in complying with the WPS decontamination 
requirement.
    The OSHA standard requires agricultural employers who employ more 
than 10 workers at a given time to provide to those workers, among 
other things, hand washing facilities, including potable water, when 
workers are engaged in hand labor operations in the production of crops 
in the field. OSHA's Standard differs significantly from the WPS 
requirement in the following ways: It applies only to larger 
establishments; it applies to all hand labor (not work resulting in 
limited contact with pesticide-treated surfaces); and it applies only 
to more than 3 hours of labor. The WPS decontamination requirements 
apply to any labor resulting in any contact with treated surfaces.
    6. Length of time that decontamination sites are required after the 
REI. Decontamination sites are required for 30 days after a pesticide 
has been applied or after a REI has expired. All but a few pesticides 
have at least 4-hour REIs; therefore, it is highly likely that 
decontamination sites will be required for 30 days in almost all 
situations where pesticides are used. If the employer wishes to do so, 
decontamination sites can be provided to employees for longer than 30 
days.
    Should the proposed change in this proposed rule be implemented, 
the period for which decontamination sites would be required for 
certain low-toxicity pesticides will be shortened from 30 days to 
between 1 and 15 days. The interval will be determined after the 45-day 
comment period on this proposed rule.

V. Options Considered and EPA's Proposal

    EPA considered several possible changes to the decontamination 
requirement, and is proposing to change the length of time 
decontamination supplies are required for pesticide-treated areas that 
have been under a 4-hour REI, e.g., end-use products containing active 
ingredients that have passed EPA's low toxicity screening criteria. The 
Agency believes that this proposed change will provide regulatory 
flexibility and promote the use of low-toxicity pesticides, while 
ensuring that worker risk is not increased. Although the Agency is not 
proposing any of the 

[[Page 50689]]
other changes it considered at this time, EPA desires comments on these 
possible changes. Should EPA receive comments on these options that the 
Agency finds to be compelling, it is possible that one or more of the 
options could be implemented.

A. Options EPA Considered

    1. Eliminating the requirement of a decontamination site after 
crops are harvested. EPA considered the option of eliminating the 
decontamination requirement after certain crops are harvested. EPA is 
not proposing this option for the following reasons.
    First, tasks which occur after harvesting can result in high 
exposures to pesticide-treated surfaces and, therefore, high exposures 
to pesticide residues if residues remain. Implementing this option 
would contradict EPA's regulation that tasks resulting in any contact 
with pesticide-treated surfaces must be accompanied by a 
decontamination site. Depending on the persistence of the pesticide 
residues and the time that has elapsed between application and harvest, 
the risks could still be high. For example, this option could not be 
applied to orchard crops, melons, and other crops where significant 
amounts of live plant material or foliage remain after the crop 
harvest. Because so many different crops leave similar amounts of 
foliage after harvest, determining the crops that are ineligible for 
this option would be too resource-intensive.
    Second, in those cases where the treated surfaces have been 
completely removed during harvest, the rule already allows entry with 
no contact without requiring decontamination supplies.
    Finally, the costs of providing a decontamination site (which 
consists of water, soap, and disposable towels) are quite low. In 
certain situations, potential exposure to pesticide residues from 
activities in treated areas, and potential risks, even after harvest, 
can be high. Therefore, the Agency believes that the risks avoided by 
having decontamination sites available to workers appear to justify the 
very small costs of meeting that requirement.
    2. Ending the decontamination requirement when REIs expire. EPA 
considered eliminating the requirement for decontamination sites after 
the particular REI has expired. This option is appealing because the 
REI represents the time of greatest exposure potential and the greatest 
potential acute risk. The WPS establishes interim REIs, based on 
toxicity, for pesticides which have not been through the reregistration 
process. Excluding the interim REIs set by the WPS, EPA sets permanent 
REIs through the registration, reregistration and special review 
processes to coincide with the dissipation of pesticide residues, 
thereby minimizing potential worker exposure to residues.
    EPA is not proposing this option for several reasons. First, 
pesticide residues often remain even after the REI. The residues 
present after the REI may not always pose an acute risk, but EPA is 
also concerned about other risks that they may pose, such as 
reproductive effects and carcinogenicity. If the decontamination 
requirements were to be eliminated immediately following the expiration 
of the REI, the workers would be subject to higher risks. The Agency 
believes that washing with soap and water will mitigate, to a 
substantial extent, the potential acute, chronic, and subchronic risks 
posed by pesticide residues which may remain after the REI.
    Second, EPA does not yet have complete data sets on residue 
dissipation for all pesticides which have not been through the 
reregistration process; thus, interim REIs may not accurately reflect 
all potential risk to workers. Based on its experience with the 
reregistration process, the Agency believes that some REIs may be 
increased in the future.
    3. Relating the length of time a decontamination site is required 
to toxicity category. EPA considered relating the length of time a 
decontamination site is required to broad toxicity categories (such as 
Toxicity Categories I through IV). EPA is not willing to propose this 
option because many pesticides can present risk beyond the REI, 
particularly for the higher toxicity pesticides. Pesticides can also 
present other than acute risks and EPA believes that provision of 
decontamination supplies should continue as currently required for most 
pesticides.
    EPA is willing to propose a reduced decontamination period for a 
specific subset of pesticides, such as certain determined low-toxicity 
pesticides that have had 4-hour REIs approved for their use. EPA 
believes that pesticides that qualify for 4-hour REIs have been shown 
to present far less risk than pesticides with longer REIs. EPA does not 
believe that it is prudent to completely eliminate the decontamination 
requirement for these low-toxicity pesticides based upon the assumption 
that additional risks, such as carcinogenicity and mutagenicity, may 
still exist.

B. Proposed Change

    This proposal is in response to the input EPA has received from its 
stakeholders. It addresses only the requirement that decontamination 
sites be provided to workers for 30 days after the expiration of REIs. 
Other decontamination provisions will not be affected by this proposal.
    1. Reasons for proposal. In considering the requests to change the 
decontamination requirement, EPA has reassessed the initial analysis 
used to establish the 30-day requirement. This reassessment is based on 
two factors. The first is the Agency's experience with recent data from 
the reregistration process. Through the reregistration process, it has 
been demonstrated that many pesticides pose additional risks, such as 
carcinogenicity and developmental effects. Second, agricultural 
pesticides that have not been through the reregistration process lack 
complete or substantially-complete data sets, making it difficult for 
the Agency to make an accurate estimate of the risks that these 
pesticides may pose. Although the Agency has established product 
specific REIs for pesticides that have completed the reregistration or 
special review processes, the Agency believes that products with 
permanent REIs, as well as those products with interim REIs should 
retain the 30 day decontamination period.
    However, EPA has sufficient information to support the proposition 
that, because different pesticides pose different levels of risk, the 
current decontamination requirement does not adequately fit all 
pesticides. EPA is willing to decrease the time a decontamination site 
is required for pesticides which have been demonstrated to pose low or 
insignificant worker risks. The criterion EPA is using to determine 
which pesticides pose low or insignificant worker risks is a 4-hour 
REI. Any end-use pesticide that has had 4-hour REIs approved will have 
met or exceeded the standard for low or insignificant risk described in 
the May 3, 1995 Policy Statement (60 FR 21965).
    In that policy statement, EPA identified 114 active ingredients 
which do not appear to pose any significant risks to workers. Based on 
substantial data sets (many of the 114 active ingredients have complete 
data sets) and a thorough screening of each pesticide, EPA believes 
that the 114 active ingredients listed in the Policy Statement present 
low risk. This is because of the active ingredients' low acute 
toxicity, an absence of reported worker poisonings associated with 
their 

[[Page 50690]]
use, and because no other toxicity or risk concerns have been 
identified with them. For active ingredients lacking complete data 
sets, EPA substituted analog data, which the Agency believes is 
sufficient for the purpose of the screening. The screening process EPA 
employed could be compared to a shortened version of the reregistration 
process, in terms of determining potential risk.
    EPA is comfortable with the degree of risk posed by the chemicals 
that qualify for the reduced REIs. EPA's screening process for active 
ingredients and end-use products was designed to eliminate chemicals 
that posed too many unknown risks because of data gaps, absence of 
chronic effects data, or no analog data. EPA believes that because the 
active ingredients associated with 4-hour REIs do not appear to pose 
any significant worker risks, decontamination supplies should be 
required for less than the current 30-day period. Therefore, the Agency 
proposes to reduce the 30-day decontamination requirement for all 
pesticides for which EPA approves 4-hour REIs.
    2. Proposal. EPA is proposing a range of 1 to 15 days for those 
pesticides with 4-hour REIs. However, EPA will consider other lengths 
of time if appropriate data are submitted to support any requested 
periods. After 45 days from the publication of this proposed rule, EPA 
will evaluate public comments, select an interval, and issue its 
conclusions in the final rule.
    This change is not proposed for situations where two or more 
pesticides are mixed together, unless the mixed pesticides have 4-hour 
REIs, or have all met or exceeded the criteria in the policy statement, 
or are designated by EPA as having the same or lower risk profile as 
those chemicals on the list of active ingredients in the policy 
statement.
    Because of the low costs associated with providing decontamination 
sites and the potential risks workers face from exposure to pesticide 
residues, EPA is not proposing any other change to the decontamination 
requirement. EPA has not made the risk-benefit finding necessary to 
eliminate or otherwise alter the length of the decontamination 
requirement, except for products with 4-hour REIs.

VI. Solicitation of Comments

    EPA is interested in receiving comments and information on the 
proposal and on options presented, and is providing 45 days for the 
submission of comments.
    While stakeholders did not submit any data to support their request 
to shorten the period when decontamination sites are required, EPA 
believes that there is merit to the assertion that the 30-day 
decontamination requirement may be inappropriate for some low-toxicity 
pesticides. Therefore, EPA is issuing this proposal to notify the 
public about possible changes in the WPS decontamination requirement 
and to solicit information and comments. This information will assist 
EPA in determining whether the conditions resulting from the proposed 
change would pose unreasonable risks to workers. In addition, EPA is 
soliciting information about the economic impact of the proposed option 
in this document. EPA desires comments on all of the options considered 
by the Agency, as presented in this proposed rule.
    EPA is especially interested in receiving information about the 
potential implications for regulatory compliance and enforcement that 
the proposed change might create. Many commenters have requested that 
the WPS be changed to better fit actual field situations. EPA has 
responded to these requests by making changes to the WPS where they are 
justified by weighing the risks and the benefits. However, EPA has 
received many comments that the WPS is too complicated as a result of 
these changes, and that these changes result in a more complex rule 
that is more difficult to comply with and to enforce. Any information 
that will help EPA resolve the relative trade-offs between regulatory 
flexibility and more complex regulations will be useful.
    EPA is also interested in receiving worker exposure data or worker 
incident data related to decontamination requirements. Information on 
the possible risks to workers that could result from any of the 
proposed options is of interest to EPA. Information from sources such 
as state incident reporting, poison control centers, hospital surveys, 
and worker exposure studies (studies involving passive dosimetry are 
particularly desirable) is valuable.

VII. Statutory Requirements

    As required by FIFRA section 25(a), this proposed rule was provided 
to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and to Congress for review. The 
FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel waived its review.

VIII. Public Docket

    A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket 
number ``OPP-250108 '' (including comments and data submitted 
electronically as described below). A public version of this record, 
including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does 
not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection 
from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The public record is located in Rm. 1132 of the Public 
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division 
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
    Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:

    [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 this rulemaking, as well as the public 
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly, 
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed, 
paper form as they are received and will place the paper copies in the 
official rulemaking record which will also include all comments 
submitted directly in writing. The official rulemaking record is the 
paper record maintained at the address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the 
beginning of this document.

IX. Regulatory Assessment Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 
it has been determined that this is not a ``significant regulatory 
action.'' OMB has waived its review.
    This proposal does not increase requirements which would increase 
costs to any person. Any optional changes implemented would reduce the 
regulatory burden.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed rule was reviewed under the provisions of section 
3(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and it was determined that the 
rule would not have an adverse impact on any small entities. Moreover, 
this proposed rule would provide regulatory relief and would not impose 
any additional costs (in fact, it could lower costs). I therefore 
certify that this proposal does not require a separate analysis under 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

[[Page 50691]]


C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposal contains no information collection requirements, and 
is therefore not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

List of Subjects in Part 170

    Environmental protection, Intergovernmental relations, Occupational 
safety and health, Pesticides and pests, and Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 25, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 170 be amended as 
follows:
    1. The authority citation for part 170 would continue to read as 
follows:

Part 170--[Amended]

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136w.

    In 170.150, by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec. 170.150   Decontamination.

    (a) Requirement. (1) If any worker on an agricultural establishment 
performs an activity in an area where a pesticide has been applied, or 
a restricted-entry interval (REI) has been in effect, and the worker 
contacts anything that has been treated with the pesticide, including, 
but not limited to, soil, water, plants, plant surfaces, and plant 
parts, the agricultural employer shall provide, in accordance with this 
section, a decontamination site for washing off pesticide residues for 
a 30-day period following the expiration of the REI.
    (2) If the pesticide (end-use product) that has been applied 
requires a REI of 4 hours or less, then notwithstanding the requirement 
for 30 days in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the agricultural 
employer shall provide a decontamination site for not less than [1 to 
15] days following the expiration of the REI.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95-24213 Filed 9-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F