Exceptions to Worker Protection Standard Early Entry Restrictions; Irrigation Activities

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 170

[OPP-250098; FRL-4917-7]

Exceptions to Worker Protection Standard Early Entry

Restrictions; Irrigation Activities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed exceptions to rule; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is considering exceptions to the Worker Protection

Standard for Agricultural Pesticides (WPS), published at 57 FR 38102

(August 21, 1992), that would allow, under specified conditions,

workers to perform early entry irrigation tasks for more than 1 hour

per day during a restricted entry interval (REI). Early entry is entry

to a pesticide-treated area before expiration of the REI.

DATES: Comments, data, or evidence should be submitted on or before

February 27, 1995. EPA does not intend to extend this comment period.

ADDRESSES: Comments identified by the document control OPP-250098

should be submitted in triplicate by mail to: Public Response and

Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environment Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. All written comments filed pursuant to this

notice will be available for public inspection in Room 1132, Crystal

Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, (703) 305-5805,

from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday thru Friday except legal holidays.

Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by any of

three different mechanisms: by sending electronic mail (e-mail) to:

[email protected]; by sending a ``Subscribe'' message to

[email protected] and once subscribed, send your

comments to RIN-2070-AC69; or through the EPA Electronic Bulletin Board

by dialing 202-488-3671, enter selection ``DMAIL,'' user name ``BB--

USER'' or 919-541-4642, enter selection ``MAIL,'' user name ``BB--

USER.'' 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-250098 since all five documents in

this separate part provide the same electronic address. No CBI should

be submitted through e-mail. Electronic comments on this proposed rule,

but not the record, may be viewed or new comments filed online at many

Federal Depository Libraries. Additional information on electronic

submissions can be found in unit VI. of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeanne Heying, Certification, Training

and Occupational Safety Branch (7506C), Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, (703) 305-7666, or your

regional or State official as noted in the List of Worker Protection

Contact below.

[[Page 2831]]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

This proposed WPS rule amendment is one of a series of Agency

actions in response to concerns raised since publication of the final

rule in August 1992 by those interested in and affected by the rule. In

addition to this proposed amendment, EPA is publishing four other

notices soliciting public comment on concerns raised by various

affected parties. Other actions EPA is considering include: (1)

modification to the worker training requirements; (2) requirements for

crop advisors; (3) reduced restricted entry intervals (REIs) for low

risk pesticides; and (4) reduced early entry restrictions for

activities involving limited contact with treated surfaces. The Agency

is interested in receiving comments on all options and questions

presented.

Section 170.112(e) of the Worker Protection Standard for

Agricultural Pesticides (WPS) (40 CFR part 170), published at 57 FR

38102 (August 21, 1992), provides a mechanism for considering

exceptions to the WPS provision that limits early entry during a

restricted-entry interval (REI) to perform agricultural tasks,

including irrigation tasks. The Agency has received requests for

exceptions to the early entry limitations for performing irrigation

tasks from parties in the States of California and Hawaii. The

California parties also requested an indefinite entry period for frost-

prevention tasks; this request has been returned to the requesters for

additional supporting information and may be considered later. The

Agency is proposing for consideration a national exception to the WPS

early entry restrictions for performing irrigation tasks. The purpose

of this notice is to solicit further information and comment on the

proposal to assist the Agency in determining whether the conditions of

entry under any of the proposed exceptions would pose unreasonable

risks to workers performing the permitted irrigation tasks during a

restricted-entry interval.

In addition, EPA solicits further information about the economic impact

of granting or not granting the proposed exceptions. For further

information please contact the person list under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT above, or your regional or State official as noted

in the following List:

List of Worker Protection Contacts

EPA Regional Contacts

Ms. Pam Ringhoff

U.S. EPA, Region I

Pesticides Section (APP)

John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg.

Boston, MA 02203

Phone: 617/565-3931

FAX: 617/565-4939

Ms. Theresa Yaegel-Souffront

U.S. EPA, Region II, (MS-240)

Pesticides, & Asbestos Section

2890 Woodridge Avenue, Bldg. 209

Edison, NJ 08837

Phone: 908/906-6897

FAX: 908/321-6771

Ms. Magda Rodriguez

U.S. EPA, Region III

Pesticides Section (3AT-32)

841 Chestnut Bldg.

Philadelphia, PA 19107

Phone: 215/597-0442

FAX: 215/597-3156

Ms. Jane Horton

U.S. EPA, Region IV

Pesticides Section (4APT)

345 Courtland Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30365

Phone: 404/347-3222

FAX: 404/347-1681

Mr. Don Baumgartner

Mr. John Forwalter

Ms. Irene Miranda

U.S. EPA, Region V

Pesticides Section (SP-14J)

77 West Jackson Boulevard

Chicago, IL 60604-3507

Phone: 312/886-7835 (Don)

886-7834 (John)

353-9686 (Irene)

FAX: 312/353-4342

Mr. Jerry Oglesby

U.S. EPA, Region VI

Pesticides Section (6T-PP)

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

Phone: 214/665-7563

FAX: 214/665-2164

Ms. Kathleen Fenton

U.S. EPA, Region VII

Pesticides Section (TOPE)

726 Minnesota Avenue

Kansas City, KS 66101

Phone: 913/551-7874

FAX: 913/551-7065

Mr. Ed Stearns

U.S. EPA, Region VIII

Pesticides Section (8ART-TS)

999 18th Street, Suite 500

Denver, CO 80202-2405

Phone: 303/293-1745

FAX: 303/293-1647

Ms. Katherine H. Rudolph

U.S. EPA, Region IX

Pesticides Section (A-4-5)

75 Hawthrone Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: 415/744-1065

FAX: 415/744-1073

Mr. Allan Welch

U.S. EPA, Region X

Pesticides Section (AT-083)

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101

Phone: 206/553-1980

FAX: 206/553-8338

National Contacts

REGION I

Connecticut

Ms. Debra Cattucio

Pesticides/PCB Management Division

Dept. of Environmental Protection

165 Capitol Avenue

Hartford, CT 06106-1600

Phone: 203/566-5148

FAX: 203/566-4379

Maine

Ms. Tammy Gould

Board of Pesticide Control

ME Dept. of Agriculture/Food & Rural Resources

Station 28

State Office Building

Augusta, ME 04333-0028

Phone: 207/287-2731

FAX: 207/287-7548

Massachusetts

Ms. Lillian Rivera

Pesticide Bureau/Department of Food & Agriculture

Department of Agriculture

100 Cambridge Street

Boston, MA 02202-0009

Phone: 617-727-3020

FAX: 617/727/7235

New Hampshire

Mr. Murray L. McKay, Director

Division of Pesticide Control

New Hampshire Dept. of Agriculture

Caller Box 2042

Concord, NH 03302-2042

Phone: 603/271-3550

FAX: 603/271-1109

Rhode Island

Ms. Elizabeth M. Lopes-Duguay

Senior Plant Pathologist

Division of Agriculture

Department of Environmental Management

22 Hayes Street

Providence, RI 02908-5025

Phone: 401/277-2781

FAX: 401/277-6047

Vermont

Mr. John Berino

Division of Plant Industry

Laboratories & Consumer Assurance

Dept. of Agriculture, Food & Markets

116 State Street

Montpelier, VT 05620-2901

Phone: 802/828-2431

FAX: 802/828-2361

[[Page 2832]]

REGION II

New Jersey

Mr. Raymond Ferrarin

Assistant Director

Pesticide Control Program

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy

CN 411

Trenton, NJ 08625

Phone: 609/530-4122

FAX: 609/530-8324

New York

Mr. James S. Moran, PE, Supervisor

Bureau of Pesticides Regulation

New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation

50 Wolf Road

Albany, NY 12233-7254

Phone: 518/457-7482

FAX: 518/457-0629

Puerto Rico

Ms. Arline R. de Gonzalez, Director

Agriculture Materials Laboratory

Puerto Rico Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 10163

Santurce, PR 00908

Phone: 809/796-1710

FAX: 809/796-4426

Virgin Islands

Mr. Leonard Reed

Assistant Director

Division of Environmental Protection

Virgin Islands Dept. of Planning

& Natural Resources

Nisky Center, Suite 231

Nisky 45 A

St. Thomas, U.S. VI 00802

Phone: 809/774-3320

FAX: 809/774-5416

REGION III

Delaware

Mr. Larry Towle

Delaware Dept. of Agriculture

2320 S. Dupont Highway

Dover, DE 19901

Phone: 302/739-4811

FAX: 302/697-6287

District of Columbia

Mr. Mark Greenleaf (C-T)

DCRA/ERA/ECD

Pesticides Section - Suite 203

2100 Martin Luther King, Jr. Ave. SE

Washington, DC 20020

Phone: 202/645-6080

FAX: 202/645-6622

Maryland

Mr. John Bergquist

Pesticide Regulation Section

Maryland Dept. of Agriculture

50 Harry S. Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21401

Phone: 410/841-5710

FAX: 410/841-2765

Pennsylvania

Mr. Dave Bingamen

Bureau of Plant Industry

PA Department of Agriculture

2301 N. Cameron Street

Harrisburg, PA 17110-9408

Phone: 717/787-4843

FAX: 7l7/783-3275

Virginia

Mr. Don Delorme

Office of Pesticide Management

VA Department of Agriculture

& Consumer Services,

P.O. Box 1163, Rm. 403

1100 Bank Street

Richmond, VA 23219

Phone: 804/371-6558

FAX: 804/371-8598

West Virginia

Mr. Ed Hartman

West Virginia Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 66

Inwood, WV 25428

Phone: 304/229-0981

FAX: 304/229-2510

REGION IV

Alabama

Mr. Pat Morgan

Pesticide Administrator

AL Dept. Agriculture & Industries P.O. Box 3336

Montgomery, AL 36109-0336

Phone: 205/242-2656

FAX: 205/240-3103

Florida

Dr. Marion Fuller

Ms. Mari Dugarte-Stavania

Florida Dept. of Agriculture

3125 Conner Boulevard, MC-2

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650

Phone: 904/488-3314

FAX: 904/922-2134

Georgia

Mr. Mike Evans

Special Projects Coordinator

Georgia Dept. of Agriculture

Entomology & Pesticides

Capitol Square, Suite 550

Atlanta, GA 30334

Phone: 404/651-7861

FAX: 404/656-3644

Kentucky

Mr. Ken Richeson

Worker Protection Coordinator

Kentucky Agriculture

Div. of Pesticides

500 Metro Street

Frankfort, KY 40601

Phone: 502/564-7274

FAX: 502/564-3773

Mississippi

Mr. Tommy McDaniel

Pesticide Coordinator

MDAC, Bureau of Plant Industry

P.O. Box 5207

Miss. State, MS 39762

Phone: 601/325-3390

FAX: 601/325-8397

North Carolina

Ms. Kay Glenn

Pesticide Specialist

N.C. Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 27647

Raleigh, NC 27611

Phone: 919/733-3556

FAX: 919/733-9796

South Carolina

Dr. Neil Ogg

Ms. Tammy Lark

Special Programs Manager

Dept. of Fertilizer & Pesticide

Control

257 Poole Agricultural Center

Clemson University, Box 340394

Clemson, SC 29634-0394

Phone: 803/656-3171

FAX: 803/656-3219

Tennessee

Ms. Karen Roecker

Worker Safety Coordinator

Tenn. Dept. of Agriculture

Div. of Plant Industries

P.O. Box 40627, Melrose Station

Nashville, TN 37204

Phone: 615/360-0795

FAX: 615/360-0757

REGION V

Illinois

Mr. Thomas Walker, Manager

Support Services

Bureau of Environmental Programs

IL Department of Agriculture

State Fairgrounds, P.O. Box 19281

Springfield, IL 62706

Phone: 217/785-2427

FAX: 217/785-4884

Indiana

Mr. Joseph Becovitz

Office of Indiana State Chemist

Purdue University

1154 Biochemistry Building

West Lafayette, IN 47907-1154

Phone: 317/494-1585

FAX: 317/494-4331

Michigan

Ms. Katherine Fedder

[[Page 2833]]

MI Department of Agriculture

Pesticides & Plant Pest Management Division

611 West Ottawa Street

P.O. Box 30017

Lansing, MI 48909

Phone: 517/373-1087

FAX: 517/373-4540

Minnesota

Mr. Steve Poncin, Supervisor

Pesticide Enforcement Unit

MN Department of Agriculture

90 West Plato Blvd.

St. Paul, MN 55107

Phone: 612/296-5136

FAX:

Ohio

Mr. Robert DeVeny

Pesticide Division Inspector

OH Department of Agriculture

65 South Front Street

Columbus, OH 43068

Phone: 216/297-6452

FAX: 614/759-1467

Wisconsin

Mr. Eric Nelson

WI Department of Agriculture

Trade & Consumer Protection

801 West Badger Road

Madison, WI 53708

Phone: 608/266-9429

FAX: 608/266-5307

REGION VI

Arkansas

Mr. Don Alexander/

Mr. Charles Armstrong

Arkansas State Plant Board

P.O. Box 1069

Little Rock, AR 72203

Phone: 501/225-3590

FAX: 501/225-3590

Louisiana

Mr. Peter Grandi

LA Department of Agriculture

& Forestry

P.O. Box 3596

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3596

Phone: 504/925-3760

FAX: 504/925-3760

New Mexico

Ms. Sherry Sanderson

New Mexico Department

P.O. Box 30005, Dept. 3AQ

Las Cruces, NM 88003-0005

Phone: 505/646-4837

FAX: 505/646-5977

Oklahoma

Mr. Jerry Sullivan

Plant Industry & Consumer Services

OK State Department of Agriculture

2800 North Lincoln Blvd.

Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4298

Phone: 405/521-3864

FAX: 405/521-4912

Texas

TX Department of Agriculture

Stephen F. Austin Bldg.

P.O. Box 12847

Austin, TX 78711

Phone: 512/463-7717

FAX: 512/475-1618

REGION VII

Iowa

Mr. Jim Ellerhoff

Program Coordinator

IO Department of Agriculture

& Land Stewardship

Henry A. Wallace Building

900 East Grand

Des Moines, IO 50319

Phone: 515/281-8506

FAX: 515/281-6800

Mr. Charles Eckerman

IO Department of Agriculture

& Land Stewardship

Henry A. Wallace Building

900 East Grand

Des Moines, IO 50319

Phone: 515/281-8590

FAX: 515/281-6800

Kansas

Mr. Gary Boutz,

Pesticide Law Administrator

Ms. Glenda Mah,

Programs Coordinator

Kansas State Board of Agriculture

901 S. Kansas, 7th Floor

Topeka, KS 66612-1281

Phone: 913/296-5395 (G. Boutz)

913/296-0672 (G. Mah)

FAX: 913/296-0673

Missouri

Mr. Jim Lea, Supervisor

Plant Health Division

MO Department of Agriculture

P.O. Box 630

Jefferson City, MO 65101

Phone: 314/751-5508

FAX: 314/751-0005

Mr. Paul Andre

Programs Coordinator

MO Department of Agriculture

P.O. Box 630

Jefferson City, MO 65101

Phone: 314/751-9198

FAX: 314/751-0005

Nebraska

Mr. Richard Reiman, Chief

Bureau of Plant Industries

NE Department of Agriculture

P.O. Box 94756, State House Station

Lincoln, NE 68509

Phone: 402/471-2394

FAX: 402/471-3252

Mr. Grier Friscoe, Manager

Mr. Jamie Green, Prog. Coord.

Pesticide/Noxious Weed Prog.

Post Office Box 94756

State House Station

Lincoln, NE 68509

Phone: 402/471-6853 (G. Friscoe)

402/471-6882 (J. Green)

FAX:

REGION VIII

Montana

Mr. Steve Baril

Environmental Management Office

Department of Agriculture

Agriculture Livestock Bldg.

Capitol Station

Helen, MT 59620

Phone: 406/444-2944

FAX: 406/444-5409

North Dakota

Mr. Jack Peterson, Director

ND Department of Agriculture

State Capitol Building

600 East Blvd. 6th Floor

Bismark, ND 58505-0020

Phone: 701/224-2231

FAX: 701/224-4567

South Dakota

Mr. Brad Berven, Administrator

SD Department of Agriculture

Division of Regulatory Services

Anderson Bldg.

Pierre, SD 57501

Phone: 605/773-4012

Mr. Joshua Logg, Jr.

Pesticide Enforcement Program

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe

P.O. Box 590

Eagle Butte, SD 57625

Phone : 605/964-6551

FAX: 605/964-4151

Mr. Irv Provost, Coordinator

Pesticide Enforcement Program

Natural Resources Agency

Oglal Sioux Tribe

P.O. Box 468

Pine Ridge, SD 57770

Utah

Mr. Gary L. King

Department of Agriculture

350 North Redwood Road

Salt Lake City, UT 84116

Phone: 801/538-7188

FAX: 801/538-7126

REGION IX

Arizona

Mr. Dan Danielson

[[Page 2834]]

Environmental Services Division

Department of Agriculture

1688 N. 7th Street

Phoenix, AZ 85006

Phone: 602/407-2910

FAX: 602/407-2909

Navajo Nation

Mr. Jefferson Biakkedy

Pesticide Regulatory Program

Navajo Environmental Protection

Administration

Navajo Nation

P.O. Box 308

Fort Defiance, AZ 86504

Phone: 602/729-4155

FAX: 602/729-5246

Intertribal Council of Arizona

Ms. Elaine Wilson

Inter Tribal Council of Arizona

4205 North 7th Avenue, Suite 200

Phoenix, AZ 85013

Phone: 602/248-0071

FAX: 602/248-0080

California

Ms. Virginia Rosales

Pesticides Enforcement Branch

Department of Pesticide Regulation

CA Environmental Protection Agency

1220 N Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: 916/445-3874

FAX:

Hawaii

Mr. Gerald Kinro

Pesticides Branch

Division of Plant Industry

HI Department of Agriculture

P.O. Box 22159

Honolulu, HI 96822-0159

Phone: 808/973-9401

FAX: 808/973-9418

Nevada

Mr. Chuck Moses

Division of Plant Industry

NV Department of Agriculture

P.O. Box 11100

Reno, NV 89510-1100

Phone: 702/688-1180

FAX: 702/688-1178

REGION X

Alaska

Mr. Karl Kalb

Dept. of Environmental Conservation

500 South Alaska, Suite A

Palmer, AK 99645

Phone: 907/745-3236

FAX: 907/745-8125

Idaho

Mr. John Helsol

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

P.O. Box 306

Fort Hall, ID 83203

Phone: 208/238-3860

FAX: 208/237-9736

Mr. Robert Hays

ID Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 790

Boise, ID 83701

Phone: 208/334-3550

FAX: 208/334-228

Oregon

Mr. Chris Kirby

OR Department of Agriculture

635 Capitol Street, N.E.

Salem, OR 97310-0110

Phone: 503/378-3776

FAX: 503/378-5529

Ms. Marylin Schuster

Oregon OSHA

21 Labor & Industries Bldg.

Salem, OR 97310

Phone: 503/378-3272

FAX: 503/378-5729

Washington

Mr. Don Locke

WA Department of Labor & Industries

P.O. Box 44610

Olympia, WA 98504-4610

Phone: 206/956-5426

FAX: 206-956-5438

Ms. Ann Wick

WA State Dept. of Agriculture

Pesticide Management Division

P.O. Box 42589

Olympia, WA 98504-2589

Phone: 206/902-2050

FAX: 206/902-2093

A. Worker Protection Standard

The revisions to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) promulgated

at 57 FR 38102, August 21, 1992, were intended to reduce the risk of

pesticide poisonings and injuries among agricultural workers, including

pesticide handlers. The WPS includes three types of provisions to:

(1) Eliminate or reduce exposure to pesticides.

(2) Mitigate exposures that occur.

(3) Inform employees about the hazards of pesticides.

Exposure reduction provisions include application restrictions, use of

personal protective equipment (PPE), and entry restrictions.

B. Restricted Entry Intervals (REI)

Agricultural workers, in general, are prohibited from entering a

pesticide-treated area during the restricted entry interval (REI)

specified on the product labeling if they might contact anything

treated with a pesticide.

Regulations at 40 CFR part 156, subpart K specify that WPS labeling

retains all of the pesticide-specific permanent REIs set by EPA on the

basis of adequate data, and retains all established interim REIs longer

than those established in part 156. The WPS preamble notes: ``These

longer REIs have been based, in general, on either delayed [chronic]

effects or other exposure hazards such as persistence, post-application

chemical transformations, or potential for severe skin sensitization.''

In the absence of pesticide-specific REIs, the WPS establishes a range

of REIs, from 12 to 72 hours, depending upon the toxicity of the active

ingredient(s) and other factors.

During an REI, tasks that result in contact with treated surfaces

(including soil, water, air, and plant surfaces in the treated area)

are limited to the following:

(1) Short-term tasks (1 hour per day) that do not require hand

labor.

(2) Tasks, including hand labor tasks, performed in a situation

meeting the definition of an agricultural emergency.

(3) Tasks that may be permitted by EPA through case-by-case

exceptions. Exceptions may be granted pursuant to 40 CFR 170.112(e)(2),

if affected persons or organizations persuade EPA that the benefits of

the exception outweigh the risks associated with the exception and the

workers can perform the early entry tasks without unreasonable adverse

risk.

C. Current WPS Irrigation Provisions During REI

Irrigation activities expressly are excluded from the definition of

``Hand labor'' at 40 CFR 170.3: ``Hand labor does not include

operating, moving, or repairing irrigation or watering equipment....''

EPA realizes that moving, adjusting, or repairing irrigation equipment

may result in contact with treated surfaces, yet these tasks may be

necessary while an area remains under a REI. The Agency thus has

allowed entry during an REI to perform irrigation-related tasks, but

has placed strict limitations on that entry.

These limitations, set out at 40 CFR 170.112(c), include:

(1) There is no entry for the first 4 hours after application and

thereafter until any exposure level listed on the labeling has been

reached or any ventilation criteria established at 40 CFR 170.110(c)(3)

or in the labeling has been met.

(2) No hand labor tasks are performed.

(3) The time for any worker in treated areas under an REI does not

exceed 1 hour in any 24-hour period.

(4) The required PPE is provided, cleaned, and maintained for the

worker.

[[Page 2835]]

(5) Agricultural employers ensure that workers wear required PPE,

and other PPE-related protections are provided.

(6) Measures are taken to avoid heat stress (see, A Guide to Heat

Stress in Agriculture, EPA HW77 March 1994).

(7) Required decontamination supplies and decontamination areas are

provided.

(8) Required PPE-related, heat-stress-related, and labeling-

specific safety information have been furnished.

Pursuant to The Pesticide Compliance Dates Extension Act, Pub. L.

103-231, April 6, 1994, implementation of some WPS provisions,

including some entry restrictions, has been delayed until January 1,

1995. Until then, if irrigation workers contact with pesticide-treated

surfaces is limited only to feet, lower legs, hands, and forearms, then

coveralls plus chemical-resistant gloves and chemical-resistant

footwear may be substituted for the early-entry PPE specified on the

label. Also, until January 1, 1995, workers performing non-hand-labor

tasks may work for an unlimited time in an area remaining under an REI.

Starting January 1, 1995, routine early entry to perform non-hand labor

tasks, including operating irrigation equipment, will be limited to 1

hour per worker each day if the entry would result in contact with

pesticide-treated surfaces. In addition, irrigation workers must wear

PPE specified on the pesticide label for early entry.

D. Irrigation Tasks Allowed by the WPS After January 1, 1995

EPA has issued the following guidance in the publication Worker

Protection Questions & Answers, clarifying circumstances in which

irrigation tasks can take place during a restricted-entry interval

pursuant to the restrictions at 40 CFR 170.112:

WPS was designed to reduce the opportunities for workers to be

exposed to pesticide residues in treated areas during REIs. For

example, with the exceptions noted below, irrigation pipe may not be

moved during REIs when that task would bring workers into contact

with treated surfaces. As a result, agricultural employers should

schedule pesticide applications and irrigation so that the need for

irrigation involving workers during REIs will be minimized. If,

however, irrigation in a treated area under a REI is essential, it

is permitted under WPS under the following conditions:

1. Without entry to treated Area. Some irrigation tasks take

place at the edges of fields, which may not be within the treated

area (area to which the pesticide has been directed.) An example may

be the installation or removal of pipe for furrow irrigation. As

long as such activities do not cause workers to enter the treated

area, they may take place without time limit or use of PPE during

the REI.

2. With Entry to Treated Area.

a. By Pesticide Handlers. During chemigation or when pesticide

labeling requires the pesticide to be watered-in, this task may be

performed by trained handlers wearing the handler PPE specified on

the product labeling. [See the Question and Answer on watering-in,

found in the Handler Activities section of Worker Protection

Questions & Answers, for additional details.]

b. By Workers With No Contact. WPS provides an exception for

entry to treated areas, after any inhalation exposure level or

ventilation criteria have been met, without PPE or other time

limitation, when there will be no contact with the pesticide or its

residues (40 CFR 170.112(b)]. Note, however, that PPE cannot be used

to prevent the contact under this exception. This exception may

apply to a variety of typical irrigation situations, e.g.:

\ Workers moving irrigation equipment or performing other tasks

in the treated area after the pesticide was correctly soil-

incorporated or injected, provided the workers do not contact the

soil subsurface by digging or other activities.

\ Workers walking or performing other tasks in furrows after the

pesticides are applied to the soil surface in a narrow band on beds

and there is no contact with those treated surfaces.

c. Short Term -- Workers may enter treated areas during REIs to

perform short-term tasks [40 CFR 170.112(c)] provided that:

(1) Such entry does not take place during the first 4 hours

after application and until any inhalation exposure limits or

ventilation criteria are met;

(2) The entry does not involve more than 1 hour per day per

worker;

(3) The worker does not perform tasks defined in WPS to be hand

labor (operating irrigation equipment is not hand labor under WPS);

(4) The worker wears the early-entry PPE specified on the

pesticide labeling;

(5) Is correctly informed as required for early-entry workers in

the WPS; and

(6) all other applicable requirements of 40 CFR 170.112 are met.

(d) Agricultural Emergencies. The WPS permits early entry by

workers to perform tasks including irrigation while wearing early-

entry PPE, and without time limits, in response to an agricultural

emergency, as defined in the regulation at 40 CFR 170.112(d).

e. EPA-Approved Exceptions. Section 170.112(e) of WPS permits

exceptions to the general prohibition on work in treated areas

during REIs when EPA has approved a special exception. Exceptions

may be requested of EPA as described in that section of the

regulation.

The EPA publication Worker Protection Questions & Answers is

available through the docket at EPA Headquarters.

II. Evidence Necessary to Support Exception

The Worker Protection Standard establishes at 40 CFR 170.112(e)(2),

a process to allow the Agency to initiate an exception to WPS entry

restrictions, or to grant exceptions upon request from interested

persons, if the benefits associated with otherwise-prohibited early

entry activities exceed the risks associated with those early entry

activities.

As specified in existing WPS, at 40 CFR 170.112(e)(2), data

supporting an exception request should include:

(1) Crop(s) and specific production task(s) for which the exception

is requested, including an explanation of the necessity to apply

pesticides of types and at frequencies such that the REI would

interfere with necessary and time-sensitive tasks for the requested

exception period.

(2) Geographic area, including unique exposures or economic impacts

resulting from REI prohibitions.

(3) Evaluation, for each crop-task combination, of technical and

financial viability of alternative practices, and projection of

practices most likely to be adopted by growers if no exception is

granted, including rescheduling pesticide application or irrigation

tasks, non-chemical pest control, machine irrigation, or use of

shorter-REI pesticides.

(4) Per-acre changes in yield, market grade or quality, and changes

in revenue and production cost attributable to REI prohibitions for

crop and geographic area, specifying data before and after WPS

implementation. Also, include factors which cause changes in revenue,

market grade or quality; product performance and efficacy studies; and

source of data submitted and the basis for any projections.

(5) The safety and feasibility of the requested exception,

including feasibility of performing irrigation activity wearing early-

entry PPE required for pesticides used; means of mitigating heat-

related illness; time required daily per worker to perform irrigation

activity; and methods of reducing worker exposure. Mitigating factors

discussed should include availability of water for routine and

emergency decontamination, and mechanical devices to reduce worker

contact with treated surfaces. Discussion of the costs of early entry

should include decontamination facilities, worker training, heat stress

avoidance procedures, and provision, inspection, cleaning and

maintenance of PPE.

(6) Why alternative practices would not be technically or

financially feasible.

[[Page 2836]]

III. Requests for Exception and Supporting Evidence

Parties from the States of California and Hawaii each have

requested exceptions to the WPS REI requirements for workers performing

tasks related to irrigation. The full exception requests are available

through the docket at EPA Headquarters, the Regions and the States.

A. California Growers Request for Exception

California growers have requested that workers be permitted entry

into treated areas under an REI for an indefinite time to perform

irrigation tasks when workers are (1) properly trained, (2) use the

label-specified PPE, (3) are provided decontamination facilities, and

(4) are not allowed entry to the treated area for at least 4 hours

following pesticide application.

California cited a broad range of soil types, climates and crops

requiring irrigation tasks such as moving pipe, turning on valves,

checking sprinkler and drip irrigation nozzles, and removing debris or

obstructions impeding water flow. Requesters indicate that these tasks

``do not involve substantial contact with treated plants.'' The

California requesters cite conditions specific to their state to

support an REI exception.

1. Alternate practices. The California requesters assert that

alternative practices are not technically practical because the

availability of irrigation water is often at the discretion of the

irrigation district. They note that often a grower does not know until

the last few hours when water will arrive from the irrigation

contractor.

The California requesters also state that the failure to properly

irrigate plants in a timely manner induces plant stress, disrupts

integrated pest management (IPM) practices, increases plant

susceptibility to pests, and may ultimately increase pesticide use,

resulting in greater exposure to workers.

Finally, the requesters state that the 1-hour limitation on early

entry activity per worker per day unnecessarily restricts agricultural

activities vital to crop production.

2. California regulations. The requesters cite California

Regulations (Article 3, Field Worker Safety, section 6770), which

permit workers to perform irrigation activities in treated areas during

a restricted-entry interval, provided:

(1) Sprays have dried and dusts have settled.

(2) The workers are informed of the identity of the pesticide

applied, the existence of the REI, and the protective work procedures

they are required to follow.

(3) Workers are wearing the personal protective equipment required

by the pesticide label for early entry.

(4) The workers are instructed to thoroughly shower with warm water

and soap as soon as possible after the end of the work shift.

For certain pesticides, including all pesticides with the signal word

DANGER and certain other pesticides with a history of illness or injury

incidents involving workers exposed to post-application residues, the

California regulations prohibit entry during a restricted-entry

interval to perform hand labor tasks, such as picking, other hand

harvesting, tying, pruning, tree-limb propping, disbudding, and other

nonharvest cultural practices that may involve worker contact with

plants. Irrigation tasks specifically are not included in this list of

prohibited tasks. For all other pesticides, entry during a restricted-

entry interval to perform tasks, including hand labor tasks, is

permitted after sprays have dried and dusts have settled, provided the

protections listed above are provided to the worker.

The California requesters state that heat-related illness will be

mitigated by training workers and field-crew supervisors on heat stress

symptoms and first-aid procedures. They note that drinking and handwash

water and toilet facilities currently are required for all field

workers under California regulations; and that the location of the

nearest emergency medical care facility is listed on crop sheets that

must be at each work site. They state also that WPS PPE maintenance

provisions and early-entry restrictions will be required under

California regulations as soon as they are revised to incorporate

Federal standards.

3. Economic impact. The California requesters estimate a sizeable

economic impact if the requested exception is denied, based upon an

estimated crew of two to four workers who require 6 to 8 hours to set

up a sprinkler irrigation system on a 20-acre block of a vegetable

crop. They state that the WPS requirement for worker rotation after 1

hour is problematic because it would reduce efficiency and increase

costs to recruit, hire, train and schedule workers; irrigators are

unwilling to work for only 1 hour; and crop loss or nonuniform crop

maturation would result from potential untimely irrigation of sensitive

crops and seedlings.

4. Pesticide injuries. Requesters address the protective nature of

the requested exception by citing California Department of Pesticide

Regulation (CDPR) records of reported pesticide injuries through the

California Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program. The requesters'

evaluation of this information alleges that allowing protected workers

into treated areas to conduct irrigation activities for an unlimited

time after an initial period of prohibited entry does not result in

significant risk of illness or injury. Requesters support their

exception request with data from DPR's pesticide illness surveillance

program, which tracks potential pesticide injuries. They state, ``In

1990, there were approximately 2,500 alleged pesticide illnesses/

injuries reported. These included occupational and non-occupational

situations. Of these, only 20 cases involved irrigators that were in

fields when exposure occurred. Only 1 of the 20 irrigation-related

injury cases was classified as 'definitely' related to pesticides. In

that case, the worker was determined to be involved in an activity that

involved contact with containers contaminated with pesticide residues.

In 1990, there were over 2.2 million agricultural pesticide application

reports submitted in the state. The rate of irrigator injuries to

possible pesticide exposure was 1 in over 110,000 applications.''

B. Hawaii Request for Exception

The State of Hawaii provided EPA with an exception request

submitted by an agricultural establishment, the Hawaiian Commercial

Sugar Company (HC&S). The request related specifically to irrigation

activities related to planting new crops, and appeared to comprise full

exemption from WPS REI requirements for all agricultural activities

described in their request. Requesters specifically cite their desire

to return to the pre-WPS standard allowing agricultural workers to

enter a field after pesticide application, once dusts have settled and

sprays have dried. It is noteworthy that this was not allowed in the

legislation delaying implementation of some portions of the WPS, which

provided: ``Under the exception in section 2, no entry is allowed for

the first 4 hours after application of the pesticide. This restriction

parallels the requirements in the other exceptions to early entry

promulgated in the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) at 40 CFR

170.112.''

Requesters state that during seed planting there is a ``buffer

space'' between the cover machine and the herbicide tractor to ensure

that agricultural workers are not exposed to pesticide drift. The size

of the buffer space is dependent upon the wind

[[Page 2837]]

direction. Requesters state that herbicide sprays dry within a few

minutes, and that on a typical sunny day drying occurs on contact. The

irrigation hook-up crew follows behind the weed control operations, and

connect the irrigation tubing injected by the mechanical planter, to

the irrigation mainlines existing in the field. Requesters state that

the majority of irrigation work is done on the field edge, which has

the least amount of pesticide.

Requesters state that timing of the irrigation operation is

critical, since seed pieces are prone to desiccation and disease, and

the seed needs water to germinate. Soil into which the seed pieces are

placed is dry; thus if the fields are not irrigated immediately after

planting, seed pieces will not germinate.

Requesters also note that irrigation system repair is conducted at

the time of planting. The drip irrigation system is largely underground

and the main line at the field perimeter is reused for every crop.

Since it is underground, system damages from harvesting of the previous

crop are not evident until planting of the section is started. Drip

hookup is performed as soon as possible so system damages can be

repaired and the system returned to function before the seed

dehydrates. Underground pipes are composed of PVC (polyvinylchloride);

thus there is a delay of at least 1 day to dry repair glues.

Requesters utilize furrow irrigation for approximately 2,000 acres

of the 36,000 acre plantation, utilizing cane wash water from its

factories. Installation of feeder ditches follow herbicide application

in furrow irrigated fields. Some fields also are ``ratooned,'' where

cane stalks are severed at the base of the plant during harvest, and

the cane plant regrows from the stubble. The mechanical planter follows

the emerged cane line in ratooned fields and places seed in the gaps

where there are no plants. Vegetation is present to heights less than 1

foot. Requesters state that it is readily evident when ``sprays have

dried and dusts have settled'' in ratooned fields.

1. Alternate practices. The request was limited to the time until

new preemergence herbicides are approved for use in sugarcane fields.

Requesters note that application of water to the field before the

herbicide operation would result in tractors stuck in the mud and

compaction of the moist soil. They state that application of herbicides

immediately after planting is critical because it allows for minimal

use of pesticides -- less material is needed to kill weeds as they try

to emerge than to kill weeds after they emerge. Requesters state that

capillary action of water is relied upon to wet the seed, this

occurring within 24 to 72 hours depending upon soil type. Requesters

state that if herbicide applications were delayed until after seed

pieces were wetted, weed seeds would have germinated and herbicide

usage rates would need to be increased.

Requesters also note that the HC&S is located on the island of

Maui, in a valley with average wind speeds of approximately 30 miles

per hour. Pesticide applications must be done carefully to reduce drift

to non-target areas; timing of application is used as the variable to

control pesticide volume applied, and tractors are used to minimize

herbicide usage by more accurately directing material to the target

area. Rains from 10 to 40 inches per year are very seasonal; therefore

requesters state that the plantation is totally reliant upon drip

irrigation for growing crops.

2. Current regulations. Requesters noted no pesticide regulations

beyond current pesticide label requirements governing their operations.

Requesters cited Hawaii's Workers Compensation Plan in discussing the

safety and feasibility of their requested exception.

3. Economic impact. Requesters state that immature sugarcane stalks

are high in moisture content and vulnerable to desiccation resulting in

failure to germinate. The cut ends of the stalk (as well as damaged

portions of the 40 percent of seed pieces which are damaged

physically), are avenues of entry for disease organisms, specifically

the fungus Ceratocystis paradoxa or pineapple disease. Requesters note

that timely treatment, planting and irrigation of seed pieces thus is

important.

Requesters note that tractor application of herbicides replaced

aerial applications 7 years ago, in order to reduce herbicide usage,

improve herbicide placement, reduce off-target drift, and to protect

workers and the environment. Requesters also state that aerial

applications are estimated to cost 20% more than current tractor costs,

or $137,880 per year. Respraying by hand or tractor application is

estimated to cost another $250,000 per year, to address areas missed

along roads and pole lines, and increased weeds when application is

delayed due to unfavorable wind conditions. Thus requesters estimate

that total increased operating costs for aerial herbicide applications

in place of timely tractor applications is $387,880 per year, an

increase of 55 percent over current practice, as well as unquantifiable

effects of potential off-target drift and potential for greater worker

exposure. Nighttime aerial application is precluded by undulating

terrain, poles and lines transecting fields, difficulty in determining

flight path, and variable wind.

Requesters also estimate that water application before herbicide

application would impair field trafficability, decrease plant growth,

increase weeds, require more pesticide use and additional worker

exposure, and cost approximately $30l,600 or 42 percent more than

current costs. Requesters estimate that using more tractors to cover

the treated seed would require significant capital expenditure, with

very poor return on investment since there will be significant amounts

of unproductive time between tractor operations. They estimate an

increase of $232,000 in operating costs per year to increase tractors

and associated additional manpower, an increase of 33 percent over

current operating costs, with no return on investment. Requesters also

considered utilizing night operations to minimize the impact of a 12-

hour REI. They estimate an increase of $188,873 in annual operating

costs, or 27 percent over current costs for this alternative, primarily

due to missed areas, repair to damaged risers, and installation of

lights.

Finally, requesters estimate a cost of $702,000 for adhering to a

stated 12-hour REI, due to delayed or reduced germination of seed

pieces, a loss of at least 2 months in crop age, and the added cost of

hand replanting. They estimate a loss of $2,332,800 in plantation

profitability due to yield impacts.

4. Pesticide injuries. Requesters cite the unique nature of

sugarcane cultivation in discussing the safety and feasibility of their

requested exception. They note that, unlike fields with crop canopies

taller than workers, such as cornfields or grape vineyards, newly

planted or ratooned sugarcane fields are bare or have vegetation less

than 1 foot in height. They cite company policy requiring all workers

to wear long-sleeved shirts, long pants, and eye protection. They note

that irrigation hookup crews wear company-provided rubber gloves and

rubber boots, due to constant contact with water. They state that

irrigation crews work on the field edge, which has a minimum amount of

herbicide, and that agricultural workers' frequent contact with water

will wash off any residue that may be contacted. They note that workers

have readily available potable water supplies, ready access to medical

facilities, and ready access to Workers Compensation claims if they

have a work related incident.

[[Page 2838]]

Requesters state that company records indicate 11 pesticide related

incidents between 1985 and 1993. They estimate their records cover 80

handlers and 700 workers with field oriented tasks, working 40 to 48

hours per week, 12 months per year, for 15,795,000 exposure hours. They

report 10 unforeseen incidents involving handlers, including exposure

due to a broken hose or fittings. Requesters note that all but one

incident occurred before 1990, when operational sequences were changed

to address the exposure episodes. The one incident which required

absence from work did not involve pre-emergence herbicide application,

but rather hand application later in the crop cycle.

IV. The Agency's Exception Proposal

A. Background

Since the Worker Protection Standard was promulgated in August

1992, the Agency has received information from growers and

representatives from the Departments of Agriculture in several states

regarding the 1-hour-per-worker-per-day limit during a restricted-entry

interval to perform irrigation-related tasks. Most commenters,

including the National Association of the State Departments of

Agriculture (NASDA), asserted that the restriction would cause

substantial disruption in the production of a wide variety of

agricultural crops across a broad geographic area. NASDA and others

urged the Agency to consider allowing entry during a restricted-entry

interval for an unlimited time per day per worker, if the worker would

not have substantial contact with treated surfaces, including crop

foliage.

They asked the Agency also to consider establishing a single suite

of personal protective equipment that could be worn by irrigation

workers rather than requiring them to wear the early-entry PPE

specified on the labeling of the pesticide applied to the treated area.

They argued that often irrigation workers need to work in several

different treated areas in a single workday and that it would be

burdensome to require workers to consult the pesticide label and to

change their PPE before entering each different area. Although not

directly addressed in the exception requests from California and

Hawaii, these concerns are reflected in EPA's following proposed

exception for irrigation tasks, and in the comments and information EPA

solicits through this notice.

The proposed exception specifically excludes pesticides whose

labeling requires ``double notification'' -- both the posting of

treated areas and oral notification to workers. The following Table

lists the active ingredients subject to this requirement, which were

identified in PR Notice 93-7.

B. Worker Protection Standard ``Double Notification'' Active Ingredient

List

The following Table 1 does not contain the active ingredients in

products already bearing mandatory posting requirements prior to

adoption of the WPS and which must be retained under WPS. It may also

contain a few active ingredients which upon further Agency review, such

as during reregistration, will be found not to require double

notification (posting of treated areas and oral notification to

workers). EPA expects the list to be amended prior to any final

determination by the Agency. Nonetheless, EPA believes that this list

contains the bulk of the active ingredients subject to double

notification, and the list is included in this notice for the

convenience of commenters. These pesticides contain an active

ingredient categorized as highly toxic when absorbed through the skin

(acute dermal toxicity), or as highly irritating (corrosive) when it

contacts the skin, or otherwise are pesticides considered by EPA as

posing high risk to workers for reasons such as suspected delayed

effects, epidemiological data, or unusually long restricted-entry

intervals. The Agency requires ``double notification'' for a pesticide

when an incidental exposure -- for example, contact from brushing

against the treated surfaces -- has the potential to cause an acute

illness or injury or a delayed effect, such as developmental toxicity.

For pesticides that contain ``double notification'' requirements on

their labeling, the short-term (1 hour per worker per day) exception at

40 CFR 170.112(c) would continue to apply.

Table 1.--Double Notification Active Ingredient List

From PR Notice 93-7, Appendix 3-A

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

Common name Chemical code CAS Number

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

aldicarb........................... 098301 116-06-3

aldoxycarb......................... 110801 1646-88-4

arsenic acid....................... 006801 7778-39-4

arsenic trioxide................... 007001 1327-53-3

carbofuran......................... 090601 1563-66-2

chlorflurenol...................... 098801 2536-31-4

chloropicrin....................... 081501 76-06-2

cuprous oxide...................... 025601 1317-39-1

disulfoton......................... 032501 298-04-4

dodine............................. 044301 2439-10-3

endothall, dimethylcocoamine....... 038905

endothall, disodium salt........... 038903 129-67-9

ethephon........................... 099801 16672-87-0

ethoprop........................... 041101 13194-48-4

fonofos............................ 041701 944-22-9

(s)-(+)-lactic acid................ 128929 79-33-4

metam-sodium....................... 039003 137-42-8

methamidophos...................... 101201 10265-92-6

methyl bromide..................... 053201 74-83-9

methyl parathion................... 053501 298-00-0

mevinphos.......................... 015801 7786-34-7

nicotine........................... 056702 54-11-5

paraquat........................... 061601 1910-42-5

parathion.......................... 057501 56-38-2

phorate............................ 057201 298-02-2

profenofos......................... 111401 41198-08-7

propargite......................... 097601 2312-35-8

sabadilla alkaloids................ 002201 8051-02-3

sulfotepp.......................... 079501 3689-24-5

sulfuric acid...................... 078001 7664-93-9

sulprofos.......................... 111501 35400-43-2

tefluthrin......................... 128912 79538-32-2

terbufos........................... 105001 13071-79-9

TPTH............................... 083601 76-87-9

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

The Agency has identified a range of national irrigation options

with varying time and duration of entry, required PPE, and levels of

exposure. The Pesticide Compliance Dates Extension Act, Pub. L. No.

103-231, included these irrigation provisions:

[A] worker may enter an area treated with a pesticide product

during the restricted entry interval specified on the label of the

pesticide product to perform tasks related to the production of

agricultural plants if the agricultural employer ensures that -- (1)

no hand labor activity is performed; (2) no such entry is allowed

for the first 4 hours following the end of the application of the

pesticide product; (3) no such entry is allowed until any inhalation

exposure level listed on the product labeling has been reached; and

(4) the personal protective equipment specified on the product

labeling for early entry is provided in clean and operating

condition to the worker.

(b) Protective Equipment for Irrigation Work. -- For irrigation

work for which the only contact with treated surfaces is to the

feet, lower legs, hands, and arms, the agricultural employer may

provide coveralls,

[[Page 2839]]

chemical resistant gloves, and chemical resistant footwear instead

of the personal protective equipment specified on the label.

The Congressional Record of March 24, 1994 provides further

information concerning the legislative intent of the nature of the

irrigation exception:

Section 2(b) provides, until January 1, 1995, optional PPE for

early entry workers operating, moving, or repairing irrigation or

watering equipment where contact with the treated surfaces is

limited to hands, arms, lower legs, and feet. Instead of providing

the PPE on the label specified for early entry, in this situation,

the agricultural employer can provide to the irrigation workers the

following PPE: chemical resistant boots, chemical resistant gloves,

and coveralls. This exception is only for workers performing

irrigation work.

In considering the terms of a proposed national exception, one

concern is the need to learn from experience how the exception is being

implemented, and whether workers truly are protected under the terms of

the exception. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to limit the

exception to 2 years, and to review and revise the terms of the

exception as appropriate based upon experience during that 2 years.

C. Proposed Terms of Exception

The Agency is considering the following proposed exception to early

entry restrictions for irrigation tasks:

A worker may enter a treated area during a restricted-entry

interval to perform tasks related to operating, moving, or repairing

irrigation or watering equipment, if the agricultural employer ensures

that the following requirements are met:

(1) The worker's only contact with treated surfaces (including, but

not limited to, soil, water, air, surfaces of plants, crops, and

irrigation equipment if exposed to pesticides during application) is to

the feet, lower legs, hands and forearms.

(2) The tasks could not be delayed until after expiration of the

restricted-entry interval or the pesticide application could not be

delayed until after the task is completed.

(3) 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'').

(4) The personal protective equipment for early entry is provided

to the worker. Such personal protective equipment shall either: (a)

conform with the label requirements for early entry; or (b) coveralls,

chemical resistant gloves, socks, and chemical resistant footwear.

(5) No hand labor activity is performed.

(6) The time in treated areas under a restricted-entry interval for

any worker does not exceed 8 hours in any 24 hour period.

(7) The requirements of 40 CFR 170.112(c)(3) through (9) are met.

These are WPS requirements for all early-entry situations that involve

contact with treated surfaces. They include (a) a prohibition against

entry during the first 4 hours, and until applicable ventilation

criteria have been met, and until any label-specified inhalation

exposure level has been reached; (b) PPE definitions and requirements;

(c) label-specific instructions; (d) heat-related illness avoidance

measures; (e) decontamination requirements; and (f) a prohibition

against wearing home or taking home PPE.

(8) Notice about the exception for irrigation workers. The

agricultural employer shall:

(a) Notify early-entry irrigation workers orally, before such

workers enter a treated area, that the establishment is relying on this

exception to allow workers to enter treated areas to complete

irrigation tasks.

(b) post information about the terms and conditions of this

exception. The posted information shall convey the following

information:

(i) The establishment is operating under the conditions of the

exception for irrigation workers.

(ii) No entry is allowed for the first 4 hours following an

application, and until any exposure level has been reached or any

ventilation criteria have been met.

(iii) Time in treated areas under a restricted-entry interval for

any worker does not exceed 8 hours in any 24 hour period.

(iv) Decontamination and change areas are provided.

(v) Basic safety training and label-specific information must be

provided to early-entry irrigation workers.

(vi) The personal protective equipment specified on the product

labeling for early-entry, or a set of coveralls, chemical resistant

gloves, socks, and chemical resistant footwear must be provided,

cleaned, and maintained for early-entry irrigation workers.

(vii) Early-entry irrigation workers must be instructed in how to

put on, use, and remove the personal protective equipment.

(viii) Measures to prevent heat stress must be implemented when

appropriate.

(ix) A pesticide safety poster and information about pesticide

applications must be displayed in a central location.

(x) The exception expires on January 11, 1997.

(9) This exception shall expire 24 months after the effective date.

V. Comments Solicited

The Agency is interested in a full range of comments and

information on these exception requests, and is providing 45 days for

submission of comments. Comments should be submitted in triplicate and

addressed to the Document Control Officer (H7506C), Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,

DC 20460.

A. Possible Exceptions for Irrigation Tasks

The Agency requests comments on whether an exception (if granted)

should be limited to a geographic region that would be comprised of two

or more States in one area. Comments are requested on whether an

exception should be limited to California, should be limited to Hawaii,

should include other states with irrigation issues similar to

California and Hawaii, or should include the whole country.

In determining whether to grant an exception, and, if so, whether

the exception should or should not be limited to any particular

geographic areas, the Agency will assess whether the risks and benefits

associated with early-entry irrigation tasks differ across the country.

In that regard, it should be noted that the California and Hawaii

requests contained much information that may not apply to other parts

of the country. This is particularly true with regard to the issue of

the need to perform early-entry tasks. On this issue, the requestors

identified a number of factors which may be unique to the two States

involved. Commenters are encouraged to provide information about

conditions in other States, and are particularly encouraged to include

in their comments whether (and to what extent) the comments apply to

particular geographic areas or to the whole country.

The Agency particularly welcomes comments and risk/benefit

information (including scientific data, where available) on the

California, Hawaii, and Agency proposed exceptions, addressing the

following issues:

(1) The risks to workers under the various proposed exceptions, and

whether risks differ among irrigation tasks or crop sites.

[[Page 2840]]

(2) Whether use of personal protective equipment while performing

irrigation work is feasible; and to what extent PPE is necessary to

reduce risk to workers performing irrigation tasks.

(3) Whether it is reasonable to expect early entry irrigation

workers to wear the early entry PPE required on the pesticide label.

(4) Whether feasible alternative practices would make routine early

entry unnecessary to perform irrigation work.

(5) Whether an exception is necessary to perform all irrigation

tasks on all crop sites, or whether the Agency decision should

differentiate among irrigation tasks or crops.

(6) Whether an exception is necessary in all States, or whether the

Agency decision should differentiate among States or regions (two or

more States in one area) because of climate, water availability, or for

other reasons.

(7) The economic impact on the agricultural industry (or portions

of the agricultural industry) of continued limitation of irrigation

tasks during WPS restricted-entry intervals if the requested exception

(or part of the exception) is not granted.

(8) Other States' regulation of irrigation workers' exposure to

pesticides.

B. Exposure Data to Evaluate Irrigation Exception Proposals

To fully evaluate the exception proposals, the Agency solicits

specific information concerning the following:

(1) Potential worker exposure to pesticide residues related to

early-entry irrigation activities, including setting-up, running,

maintaining, checking, repairing, and moving irrigation equipment for

different irrigation systems and equipment.

(2) The amount of potential worker exposure/contact with surface

residues or pesticides, including residues on soil, foliage, and

irrigation pipes and equipment, including the expected timing,

frequency, and duration of exposure.

(3) The potential for field/site variables to affect potential

exposure such as type of crop, crop height and density, crop row

spacing, or whether surface residues are wet or dry.

(4) Minimal exposure irrigation practices including incidental or

intermittent exposure to surface residues on soil, foliage, irrigation

pipes and equipment; versus potentially high exposure practices

involving prolonged or continuous hand and upper body exposure from

contact with residues on medium to tall crops, or moving irrigation

pipes that may have high surface pesticide residues from being exposed

in the field during pesticide spray operations.

C. Benefits Data to Support Exception

EPA is specifically interested in benefits data that include, but

are not limited to, the following:

(1) Identification of the crops, specific production tasks and/or

unique geographic areas for which this exception would apply. A well

supported explanation of the use practices (e.g. typical rates, number

and methods of application) that would be adversely impacted by denying

the exception.

(2) Evaluation of technically and financially viable alternatives

for each crop/task combination and projection of the most likely

alternative(s) that would be adopted by the growers in each unique

geographic area if no exception is granted (e.g., rescheduling

pesticide application or irrigation tasks, using non-chemical pest

controls or shorter REI pesticides, utilizing different irrigation

systems or agronomic practices, producing different crops, or any other

adjustments that may be relevant). The submitted evaluations of impacts

should be supported with documented empirical data as fully as

possible; if experimental data are lacking, the basis for projected

impacts must be adequately explained and documented.

(3) Unique geographic estimates of grower impacts per acre for crop

yield, market grade or quality, revenues, and production costs. These

estimates should be based on the assumption that the growers will adopt

the most likely alternative(s). Any new investment costs associated

with the REI should be appropriately annualized. All estimates should

be sufficiently documented for items such as current crop production

budgets and comparative efficacy/performance studies for alternative

pest control practices. Background information such as five previous

years of data associated with total acres grown or harvested, total

production/yield, farm level prices, market grades and other relevant

information for each unique geographic area should be provided in order

to establish a baseline.

(4) Aggregate grower level impacts on an annual basis for all

estimated impacted acres in each unique geographic area. Estimation of

expected crop price changes, if any, without the exception and the

basis for these estimates.

(5) Estimation of any other significant economic impacts that are

expected if the exception is not granted. Examples include impacts on

consumers and foreign trade, regional shifts in commodity production,

or social/community effects associated with local employment and

income.

D. Other Valuable Data Solicited

The Agency also solicits comment and information (including

scientific data, where available) on the Agency's proposed exception

and on several possible modifications to the proposed exception that

the Agency is considering. These modifications include:

(1) Establishing specific criteria for determining whether the

early-entry is a necessity rather than a convenience.

(2) Excluding from the exception all pesticides with the signal

word DANGER in addition to (or rather than) those with ``double

notification.''

E. Applicability of Exceptions

EPA remains convinced that routine entry for unlimited time periods

into areas remaining under a restricted-entry interval should not be

allowed except under rare circumstances. Therefore, if the Agency

grants a special exception for irrigation tasks, it intends, to the

extent feasible, to limit the exception to situations where entry

during the restricted-entry interval is a technical and economic

necessity. The Agency seeks comments and information about:

(1) Criteria limiting the exception to situations where the

availability of irrigation water is unpredictable or the length of the

REI exceeds the acceptable watering interval for the crop.

(2) Situations where entry during a restricted-entry interval is an

economic necessity.

(3) Situations where entry during a restricted-entry interval is a

technical necessity.

(4) Other possible criteria for limiting an exception to those

circumstances where early entry is unavoidable.

(5) Excluding double-notification pesticides from any exception it

may grant.

(6) Whether to exclude all products with the signal word DANGER

from any exception it may grant. EPA notes, however, that signal words

are based on the acute toxicity of the end-use (formulated) product by

any route of entry. The signal word would not reflect any concerns

about delayed effects or sensitization. Furthermore, a DANGER signal

word may be a result of an irritating ``inert'' ingredient in the

formulated product that is volatile and thus is no longer present

beyond 4 hours after the application is complete. Also, the DANGER

signal word may be based on oral or inhalation toxicity,

[[Page 2841]]

which are not usually a concern for exposures to residues on treated

surfaces.

(7) Physical activities involved in irrigation. The Agency's

proposed exception would allow only those irrigation tasks for which

contact with the treated surfaces would be limited to the feet, lower

legs, hands, and forearms. These tasks would include tasks such as

operating irrigation gates, adjusting irrigation valves, and checking

for or unclogging obstructions in areas with low crops or widely spaced

rows. Carrying irrigation equipment that was in the treated area during

application on one's shoulder or against one's chest would NOT meet

these criteria.

Therefore, the Agency solicits specific information about potential

worker exposure to pesticide residues during various irrigation

activities, including moving, installing, operating, maintaining,

checking, repairing, and unclogging irrigation equipment. The Agency

also seeks comment and information about whether the irrigation-related

tasks that would be performed if the exception is granted would result

in exposures just to the feet, lower legs, hands, and forearms, or

whether many such tasks would result in more widespread exposures due

to contact with residues on medium to tall crops or on residue-laden

irrigation equipment.

(8) Finally, EPA requests comment on whether to allow employers of

early-entry irrigation workers to choose whether to provide the PPE

specified on the pesticide label for early entry or the exception-based

PPE (coveralls plus chemical-resistant gloves and footwear). For any

toxicity category pesticide, the label-specified PPE might be more

protective, because it might include coveralls over other work attire

and/or protective eyewear. However, since the exposures are limited to

the feet, lower legs, hands, and forearms, this extra PPE may not be

necessary. Conversely, the coveralls plus chemical-resistant gloves and

chemical-resistant footwear PPE in the proposed exception are more

protective than the early-entry PPE required for toxicity III and IV

(signal word CAUTION) pesticides, where chemical-resistant footwear is

not required (labels will require coveralls, chemical-resistant gloves,

shoes, and socks). EPA requests comment on whether to require chemical-

resistant footwear for all irrigation workers under this exception,

because of the long period of potential exposure. The Agency did not

include protective eyewear in the proposed exception, since exposure is

limited to feet, lower legs, hands, and forearms. Also many pesticides

that are highly irritating to skin (and are excluded from this

exception) are also highly irritating to the eyes. Therefore, many of

the products most irritating to the eyes also will be excluded from the

exception. However, EPA solicits comment on whether protective eyewear

should be included in the minimum PPE requirement for early-entry

irrigation workers under any exception due to concern about workers

rubbing or wiping residues into their eyes from hands, gloves, or

sleeves.

VI. Public Docket and Electronic Comments

A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket

number ``OPP-250098'' (including comments and data submitted

electronically as described below). A public version of this record,

including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does

not include any information claimed as confidential business

information (CBI), is available for inspection from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The public record is

located in Room1132 of the Public Response and Program Resources

Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Highway, Arlington, VA. Written comments should be mailed to: Public

Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division

(7506C) Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

As part of an interagency ``streamlining'' initiative, EPA is

experimenting with submission of public comments on selected Federal

Register actions electronically through the Internet in addition to

accepting comments in traditional written form. This proposed exception

is one of the actions selected by EPA for this experiment. From the

experiment, EPA will learn how electronic commenting works, and any

problems that arise can be addressed before EPA adopts electronic

commenting more broadly in its rulemaking activities. Electronic

commenting through posting to the EPA Bulletin Board or through the

Internet using the ListServe function raise some novel issues that are

discussed below in this Unit.

To submit electronic comments, persons can either ``subscribe'' to

the Internet ListServe application or ``post'' comments to the EPA

Bulletin Board. To ``Subscribe'' to the Internet ListServe application

for this proposed exception, send an e-mail message to:

[email protected] that says ``Subscribe RIN-2070-AC69

.'' Once you are subscribed to the ListServe,

comments should be sent to: RIN-2070-AC[email protected]. All

comments and data in electronic form should be identified by the docket

number OPP-250098 since all five documents in this separate part

provide the same electronic address.

For online viewing of submissions and posting of comments, the

public access EPA Bulletin Board is also available by dialing 202-488-

3671, enter selection ``DMAIL,'' user name ``BB--USER'' or 919-541-

4642, enter selection ``MAIL,'' user name ``BB--USER.'' When dialing

the EPA Bulletin Board type at the opening message. When the

``Notes'' prompt appears, type ``open RIN- 2070-AC69'' to access the

posted messages for this document. To get a listing of all files, type

``dir/all'' at the prompt line. Electronic comments can also be sent

directly to EPA at:

[email protected]

Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form of encryption. To obtain further

information on the electronic comment process, or on submitting

comments on this proposed exception electronically through the EPA

Bulletin Board or the Internet ListServe, please contact John A.

Richards (Telephone: 202-260-2253; FAX: 202-260-3884; Internet:

[email protected]).

Persons who comment on this proposed rule, and those who view

comments electronically, should be aware that this experimental

electronic commenting is administered on a completely public system.

Therefore, any personal information included in comments and the

electronic mail addresses of those who make comments electronically are

automatically available to anyone else who views the comments.

Similarly, since all electronic comments are available to all users,

commenters should not submit electronically any information which they

believe to be CBI. Such information should be submitted only directly

to EPA in writing as described earlier in this Unit.

Commenters and others outside EPA may choose to comment on the

comments submitted by others using the RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe or the

EPA Bulletin Board. If they do so, those comments as well will become

part of EPA's record for this rulemaking. Persons outside EPA wishing

to discuss comments with commenters or

[[Page 2842]]

otherwise communicate with commenters but not have those discussions or

communications sent to EPA and included in the EPA rulemaking record

should conduct those discussions and communications outside the RIN-

2070-AC69 ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board.

The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public

version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,

EPA will transfer all comments received electronically in the RIN-2070-

AC69 ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board, in accordance with the

instructions for electronic submission, into printed, paper form as

they are received and will place the paper copies in the official

rulemaking record which will also include all comments submitted

directly in writing. All the electronic comments will be available to

everyone who obtains access to the RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe or the EPA

Bulletin Board; however, the official rulemaking record is the paper

record maintained at the address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the beginning of

this document. (Comments submitted only in written form will not be

transferred into electronic form and thus may be accessed only by

reviewing them in the Public Response and Program Resources Branch as

described above.)

Because the electronic comment process is still experimental, EPA

cannot guarantee that all electronic comments will be accurately

converted to printed, paper form. If EPA becomes aware, in transferring

an electronic comment to printed, paper form, of a problem or error

that results in an obviously garbled comment, EPA will attempt to

contact the comment submitter and advise the submitter to resubmit the

comment either in electronic or written form. Some commenters may

choose to submit identical comments in both electronic and written form

to ensure accuracy. In that case, EPA requests that commenters clearly

note in both the electronic and written submissions that the comments

are duplicated in the other medium. This will assist EPA in processing

and filing the comments in the rulemaking record.

As with ordinary written comments, at the time of receipt, EPA will

not attempt to verify the identities of electronic commenters nor to

review the accuracy of electronic comments. Electronic and written

comments will be placed in the rulemaking record without any editing or

change by EPA except to the extent changes occur in the process of

converting electronic comments to printed, paper form.

If it chooses to respond officially to electronic comments on this

proposed rule, EPA will do so either in a notice in the Federal

Register or in a response to comments document placed in the rulemaking

record for this proposed rule. EPA will not respond to commenters

electronically other than to seek clarification of electronic comments

that may be garbled in transmission or conversion to printed, paper

form as discussed above. Any communications from EPA employees to

electronic commenters, other than those described in this paragraph,

either through Internet or otherwise are not official responses from

EPA.

VII. Agency Decision on Proposed Exception

EPA will publish in the Federal Register its decision whether to

grant the requests for exception, as well as its final decision on a

national exception. EPA will base its decision on whether the benefits

of the exceptions outweigh the costs, including the value of the health

risks attributable to the exception. An exception may be withdrawn by

the Agency at any time if the Agency receives poisoning information or

other data that indicate that the health risks imposed by the early-

entry exception are unacceptable or if the Agency receives other

information that indicates that the exception is no longer necessary or

prudent.

List of Subjects

Administrative practice and procedure, Labeling, Occupational

safety and health, Pesticides and pests.

Dated: January 3, 1995.

Lynn R. Goldman,

Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic

Substances.

[FR Doc. 95-585 Filed 1-6-95; 12:16 pm]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-F