![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Pesticide Worker Protection Standard; Language and Size Requirement for Warning Signs
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: September 29, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 189)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 50681-50686]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29se95-53]
[[Page 50682]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 170
[OPP-250107; FRL-4969-4]
Pesticide Worker Protection Standard; Language and Size
Requirement for Warning Signs
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to revise the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) to
allow the substitution of an alternate language for the Spanish portion
of the warning sign and to allow the use of smaller warning signs in
greenhouses and nurseries where the use of the standard size sign may
interfere with operations or the clear identification of treated areas.
These changes will allow the flexibility to tailor the sign to
accommodate a workforce whose predominant language is neither English
nor Spanish. In addition, the changes will modify the rule's existing
criterion for allowing smaller signs in nurseries and greenhouses and
will facilitate posting of treated areas.
DATES: Written comments, identified by the docket control number OPP-
250107, must be received on or before November 13,1995.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments to: Public Response
Section, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,
DC 20460. In person, bring comments to: Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson
Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: opp-docket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII file
format. All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by
the docket number OPP-250107. No Confidential Business Information
(CBI) should be submitted through e-mail. Electronic comments on this
proposed rule may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
Additional information on electronic submissions can be found in Unit
V. of this document. Information submitted as a comment concerning this
document may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that
information as CBI.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance
with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the comment that
does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public
record. Information not marked confidential may be disclosed publicly
by EPA without prior notice. All written comments will be available for
public inspection in Rm. 1132 at the Virginia address given above from
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John MacDonald or Linda Strauss,
Certification and Training, and Occupational Safety Branch (7506C),
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: 703-305-7666, e-mail:
strauss.linda@epamail.epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Statutory Authority
This proposed rule is issued under the authority of section 25(a)
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7
U.S.C. sections 136-136y.
II. Background
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 and handlers 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, as well as pesticides
handlers who mix, load, apply, or otherwise handle pesticides for use
at these locations in the production of agricultural commodities. The
WPS contains requirements for training, notification of pesticide
applications, use of personal protective equipment, restricted entry
intervals, decontamination, and emergency medical assistance.
This proposed WPS rule amendment is one of a series of Agency
actions in response to concerns raised by stakeholders affected by the
rule. In addition to this proposed amendment, elsewhere in this issue
of the Federal Register, EPA is issuing another proposal soliciting
public comment regarding modifying the requirements for decontamination
supplies for workers when low toxicity pesticides are used.
III. Current Requirements and Proposal for Bilingual Signs
A. Current Requirements
Section 170.120 of the WPS requires that signs warning of
pesticide-treated areas be in both English and Spanish. The words
``DANGER'' and ``PELIGRO,'' plus ``PESTICIDES'' and ``PESTICIDAS,''
shall be at the top of the sign, and the words ``KEEP OUT'' and ``NO
ENTRE'' shall be at the bottom of the sign. All letters must be clearly
legible and visible from all usual points of worker entry into the
treated area. Also, the regulation allows additional information to be
placed on the warning sign if the information does not detract from the
appearance of the sign or change the meaning of the required
information.
B. Reasons for this Proposal
In the preamble to the final regulation, EPA discussed its
rationale for adoption of Spanish as the second language on the warning
sign. EPA realized that non-English readers were not solely Spanish
readers. However, EPA believed imposition of a requirement to identify
all languages spoken and development of alternative signs would be an
unnecessary burden on agricultural employers.
Since publication of the regulation, EPA has received a number of
comments on the English/Spanish warning signs. These commenters are
concerned about workers who do not read English or Spanish and have
requested that EPA allow a grower to eliminate or replace the Spanish
portion of the warning sign based upon the composition of the
workforce. They stated that, in some parts of the country, Spanish-
reading workers are not common and the requirement to include Spanish
on the sign should be limited to those areas where a significant number
of Spanish-reading workers are employed.
Farmworker representatives have commented that it should be
mandatory to add to the warning sign all languages used by workers at
the establishment.
C. Proposal to Modify the Second Language Requirements on the Sign
In response to the above comments, EPA believes that allowing
growers the option to replace the Spanish portion of the warning sign
with an appropriate language that is more representative of the
language read by the workforce will promote worker understanding of the
information on the sign and enhance
[[Page 50683]]
worker safety. Presently, EPA believes that the number of farmworkers
who read a language other than English or Spanish is approximately 5
percent of the United States farmworker population. EPA believes this
represents a large enough population to warrant this proposal.
EPA considered the farmworker proposal that warning signs contain
all languages spoken by workers on an establishment. While the Agency
agrees that it would be ideal to have a warning sign(s) capable of
being read by all workers, EPA believes that a requirement for multiple
signs using different languages would be difficult to administer and
would place an unnecessary burden on growers. Specifically, such a
proposal could require frequent review of the languages spoken by the
workforce and frequent sign modifications. The sign also could become
cluttered and be less likely to be read and understood by the workers.
Further, under the regulation, the WPS-required training for workers
must be presented in a manner that the workers can understand (such as
through a translator) and must convey the purpose and posting of
warning signs. For these reasons, EPA is not proposing adoption of a
requirement that warning signs contain all languages read by workers on
an establishment.
EPA is proposing the following for consideration and comment:
EPA proposes to allow growers the option of replacing the Spanish
portion of the warning sign with the written language that is most read
by the portion of the workforce that does not read English. If
finalized, this would be an option for growers and would not preclude
the continued use of the English/Spanish sign, which would remain
acceptable. If the grower chooses this approach, the second language
must represent a language read by a majority of workers who do not read
English. The English portion of the sign must not be omitted. Workers
capable of reading both English and other language(s) should be
considered English readers.
Under this proposal, growers who wish to replace the Spanish
portion of the sign may accomplish this in several ways, including: (1)
Covering the Spanish portion with a sticker displaying the appropriate
second language, (2) writing in the substitute language on a sign
produced with a blank portion, or (3) using originally produced warning
signs with a second language other than Spanish. This proposal would
not affect other format and design requirements of the WPS, including
the requirement that signs must be visible, legible and weatherproof,
during the time they are posted.
The proposed text that would give growers the option of replacing
the Spanish portion of the sign with a language other than Spanish is
located in the regulatory text of this document.
D. Solicitation of Comments on Bilingual Signs
EPA is interested in receiving comments and information on the
proposed option. Specifically, comments are requested on:
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of changing the
current warning sign provisions of the WPS to allow for the use of a
non-Spanish second language?
2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of requiring all
languages read by workers to be included on the warning sign?
3. If growers wish to replace the Spanish portion of the sign with
another language, how practical and effective are the proposed options?
Are there methods other than those identified by EPA, which would be
more effective in facilitating the proposed language substitution?
4. If growers choose to use a non-Spanish second language, how
should growers identify the non-Spanish language which is read by a
majority of workers who do not read English?
5. What are the costs, availability, production time, and general
feasibility of producing signs with a second language other than
Spanish under the provisions of the proposed regulation?
IV. Current Sign Requirements and Proposal for Smaller Signs
A. Current Requirements
WPS Sec. 170.120(c)(2) specifies that warning signs must be 14'' X
16'' (standard) in size, and the letters shall be at least 1 inch in
height, unless a smaller sign and smaller letters are necessary
``because the treated area is too small to accommodate a sign of this
size.''
Also, the signs must remain visible and legible during the time
they are posted. On agricultural establishments, the signs must be
visible from all usual points of worker entry to the treated area, or
if there are no usual points of entry, signs must be posted in the
corners of the treated area or in any other location affording maximum
visibility. On farms and in forests and nurseries, usual points of
entry include each access road, each border with any labor camp
adjacent to the treated area, and each footpath and other walking route
that enters the treated area. In greenhouses, usual points of entry
include each aisle or other walking route that enters the treated area.
B. Reasons for this Proposal
In the proposal of the 1992 regulation, the Agency did not propose
a size requirement for warning signs, however signs were to be
``clearly legible.'' However, in the response to comments on the
proposal, the Agency explained that the final rule would specify a sign
size because that would promote the use of generic signs and eliminate
any ambiguity as to what is ``clearly legible.'' The document also
states that EPA would require 14'' X 16'' size signs, except where that
size would be impractical, such as for posting individual potted plants
and where numerous crops are grown in relatively small areas. In the
final rule, however, use of the smaller sign was restricted only to
areas where the size of the treated area would not accommodate a 14'' X
16'' size sign.
Since publication of the 1992 rule, the American Association of
Nurserymen (AAN) has commented that use of smaller signs should not be
limited to situations where the treated area is too small to
accommodate a standard size sign, as the current rule requires. The AAN
asserts that use of smaller signs should be an option in a wide variety
of greenhouse and nursery production settings. The AAN reports that, as
growers have tried to implement the current WPS sign requirements, the
14'' X 16'' (standard) size signs have been impractical and burdensome
in greenhouses and nurseries, given the intensity and frequency of
labor activity in these smaller-scale operations and their reliance on
and requirement by WPS for posting. In greenhouses, all pesticide
applications must be posted and oral notification to workers is
required as well for some products. Although oral notification is an
option in nurseries in most circumstances, posting is generally
preferred by the industry because it would be difficult for workers to
remember the locations of all the treated areas.
The AAN provides several reasons why the 14'' X 16'' signs
interfere with operations and the clear identification of treated areas
in greenhouse and nursery settings. First, they state that, as compared
to farms and forests, the use of the standard size signs can result in
crowding and confusion about the exact boundary of each of the treated
areas because many signs can be required in a small area where there
are different treatment regimes which are in close proximity. Second,
installing, removing, and storing the standard size signs and
[[Page 50684]]
the physical supports, such as metal or wooden poles, presents added
costs and difficulties for the industry. Third, the physical supports
needed for the 14'' X 16'' inch signs can prevent operation of the
standard machinery and equipment used in these operations and can
obstruct overhead irrigation spray equipment, including the irrigation
water itself.
The industry believes that the use of smaller signs in greenhouses
and nurseries will facilitate posting and worker awareness of areas
under the restricted entry interval (REI). In the AAN's view, allowing
the use of smaller signs will eliminate the ambiguity and resulting
inconsistencies in interpretation between growers and states as to when
small signs can be used. The AAN also believes that smaller signs can
be equally visible and legible in the small-scale of greenhouses and
nurseries, as compared to larger signs on farms and forests.
Some state agencies have requested EPA's review of posting plans to
determine whether they are consistent with current rule requirements.
For example, the Oregon Association of Nurserymen (OAN) organized a
task force with Oregon OSHA and EPA Region 10 to develop a system of
posting beds and fields in greenhouses and nurseries. The Oregon plan
contained the following conditions: For greenhouse and nursery beds,
5'' X 5'' signs would be placed at the beds' corners and every 25 feet
along the beds bordering walkways that serve as usual worker entry
points. For nursery fields, each field would be posted with a 7'' X 8''
sign at its corners and every 50 feet along usual worker access routes
bordering the field, such as walkways and access roads.
C. Proposal to Allow Smaller Signs in Greenhouses and Nurseries
The Agency believes that use of the 14'' X 16'' signs may interfere
with operations or the clear identification of treated areas in
greenhouses and nurseries, particularly in cases where there may be
different treatment regimes in close proximity that require separate
posting. EPA does not envision that using the standard-size signs would
interfere with operations or the identification of treated areas on sod
farms, tree nurseries, and nurseries where large fields of nursery
stock receive uniform pesticide treatments.
EPA also believes that a minimum-size for smaller signs should be
set because such a limitation may be necessary to meet the rule
requirement that signs be both visible and legible from usual points of
entry to the treated area. EPA considered proposing that signs be
posted at specific distances, such as the Oregon plan discussed in Unit
IV.B. of this preamble. However, although spacing signs at specific
distances could be useful in clearly identifying the treated areas, the
Agency is not proposing this requirement. The Agency is concerned that
a single specific distance between signs may not be appropriate for all
nursery and greenhouse situations.
EPA is proposing the following for consideration and comment:
In addition to allowing the use of smaller signs when the treated
area is too small to accommodate the 14'' X 16'' sign, EPA proposes to
allow smaller signs in greenhouses and nurseries when use of a larger
sign may interfere with operations or the clear identification of
treated areas. This additional option would not preclude the continued
use of a small sign based on spatial limitations, as presently allowed.
Also, a minimum size would be set for smaller signs. This minimum size
requirement would apply to all uses of small signs, including uses
already allowed by the WPS. Further, signs would have to meet all other
posting requirements of the rule, including that they be visible and
legible during the time they are posted.
The proposed text that would incorporate a performance standard
that considers interference with operations or the clear identification
of treated areas and a minimum sign size for greenhouses and nurseries
is located in the regulatory text of this document.
D. Solicitation of Comments
EPA is interested in receiving comments and information on the
proposed option. Specifically, comments are requested on:
[[Page 50685]]
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of amending the WPS in
the manner described by this proposal?
2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of proposing a
minimum-size sign?
3. What is an appropriate minimum-size requirement for smaller
signs? Please provide any available data on the relationship between
sign size and worker recognition that entry to the treated area is
prohibited.
4. Should EPA require a maximum distance requirement between signs
when smaller signs are used (e.g., the Oregon Proposal discussed in
Unit IV.B. of this preamble)? If so, what should the distance be?
5. Would commenters prefer a more precise and objective standard,
such as permitting the use of a smaller size sign on a smaller plot,
e.g., \1/2\ acre or less?
6. Should the grower be permitted to handwrite in a substitute
language or should a manufacturered sign or sticker be required?
V. Public Docket
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number ``OPP-250107 '' (including comments and data submitted
electronically as described below). A public version of this record,
including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does
not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection
from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The public record is located in Rm. 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
opp-docket@epamail.epa.gov
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for the 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.
VI. Statutory Requirements
As required by FIFRA section 25(a), this proposed rule was provided
to the Secretary of Agriculture; the Committee on Agriculture of the
House Representatives; and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry of the Senate for review. The FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel
waived its review.
VII. 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.
Both the proposals to modify the second language requirements on
the sign and to allow smaller signs in greenhouses and nurseries are
only optional changes to the requirements of the current WPS. This
proposed rule, if finalized, would provide non-mandatory options and,
therefore, does not increase costs. In the event that either option is
chosen, the second language change would be a negligible cost, and the
smaller signs change would constitute regulatory relief.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, the Agency must
conduct a small business analysis to determine whether a substantial
number of small entities would be significantly affected by the rule.
However, this proposed rule potentially reduces burden and would not
require actions which would increase costs. I therefore certify that
this proposal does not require a separate analysis under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act as it would not have an adverse impact on any small
entity.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not have any information collection
requirements subject to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
[[Page 50686]]
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,
EPA has assessed the effects of this regulatory action on State, local,
or tribal governments, and the private sector. This action does not
result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments in
the aggregate or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any
one year.
List of Subjects in Part 170
Environmental protection, Intergovernmental relations, Occupational
safety and health, Pesticides and pests.
Dated: September 25, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 170 is proposed to be amended as follows:
Part 170--[Amended]
1. The authority citation for part 170 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136w.
2. In Sec. 170.120, by revising paragraph (c)(2), redesignating
existing paragraphs (c)(3) through (c)(7) as (c)(4) through (c)(8)
respectively, and adding a new paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 170.120 Notice of applications.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) On all use sites, the sign shall be at least 14 inches by 16
inches in size, and the letters shall be at least 1 inch in height
unless a smaller sign and smaller letters are necessary, because the
treated area is too small to accommodate a sign of this size. In
nurseries and greenhouses only, a smaller sign may be used when a 14
inches by 16 inches sign may interfere with operations or the clear
identification of the treated area. If a smaller sign is used, under
any of the conditions above, it must be at least X inches x Y inches
and meet the requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(3) The grower may replace the Spanish portion of the warning sign
with another non-English language which is read by a majority of
workers who do not read English. The replacement sign must be in the
same format as the original sign and be visible, legible, and
weatherproof.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-24212 Filed 9-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F