[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 3, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21948-21953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10872]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 170

[OPP-250100A; FRL-4928-7]
RIN 2070-AC82


Pesticide Worker Protection Standard; Requirements for Crop 
Advisors

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is amending the 1992 Worker Protection Standard (WPS), by 
exempting qualified crop advisors from some requirements. EPA is also 
exempting persons from certain of the WPS requirements while performing 
crop advising tasks under the direct supervision of a certified or 
licensed crop advisor. This rule also establishes a grace period for 
all persons doing crop advising tasks to allow time to acquire 
certification or licensing.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become effective July 17, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald E. Eckerman, Office of 
Pesticide Programs (7506C), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., 
SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location, telephone number and e-mail 
address: Rm. 1121, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway., 
Arlington, VA 22202. Telephone: 703-305-5062, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#97f2f4fcf2e5faf6f9b9f3f8f9f6fbf3d7f2e7f6faf6fefbb9f2e7f6b9f0f8e1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dbbeb8b0bea9b6bab5f5bfb4b5bab7bf9bbeabbab6bab2b7f5beabbaf5bcb4ad">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Federal Register document discusses the 
background and events leading to this final rule amending the WPS; 
summarizes the public's comments on the provisions of the proposed 
amendments (60 FR 2827, Jan. 11, 1995); provides EPA's response to 
comments and final determination with respect to amendment of the crop 
advisor provisions of the WPS; and provides information on the 
applicable statutory and regulatory review requirements.

I. Statutory Authority

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

II. Background

    In 1992, EPA revised the WPS (40 CFR part 170) (57 FR 38102, August 
21, 1992), which is intended to reduce the risk of pesticide poisonings 
and injuries among agricultural workers who are exposed to pesticide 
residues and to reduce the risk of pesticide poisonings and injuries 
among pesticide handlers who may face more hazardous levels of 
exposure. The 1992 WPS superseded a rule promulgated in 1974 and 
expanded the WPS scope to not only include workers performing hand 
labor operations in fields treated with pesticides, but also to include 
workers in or on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses, as well as 
pesticide handlers who mix, load, apply, or otherwise handle 
pesticides. The WPS contains requirements for pesticide safety 
training, notification of pesticide applications, use of personal 
protective equipment, restricted entry intervals following pesticide 
application, decontamination supplies and emergency medical assistance.
    Under the 1992 WPS, crop advisors are defined by the tasks 
performed. Specifically, a person is a ``crop advisor'' when assessing 
pest numbers or damage, pesticide distribution, or the status or 
requirements of agricultural plants. The term does not include any 
person who is performing hand labor tasks. Crop consultants, pest 
control advisors, foresters, scouts and crop advisors while performing 
crop advising tasks on farms, nurseries, greenhouses and forests are 
included under the definition of crop advisor in the WPS.
    During the 1992 rulemaking, the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) expressed concerns about limiting the access of crop consultants 
and integrated pest management scouts to treated areas during and 
immediately following pesticide applications. In response to this 
concern, EPA included crop advisors in the definition of handlers. 
Thus, persons performing crop advisor tasks during pesticide 
application, and any restricted entry interval (REI), could enter 
treated areas as handlers. Employees of agricultural establishments 
performing crop-advising tasks in a treated area within 30 days of the 
expiration of an REI are considered to be workers under 40 CFR part 
170. Finally, employees of commercial pesticide handling establishments 
performing crop advisor tasks in a treated area after the expiration of 
an REI are not included in the scope of 40 CFR part 170.
    Since the issuance of the 1992 WPS, farmworker groups have 
expressed an interest in enhancing specific protection measures, while 
grower groups, the National Association of State Departments of 
Agriculture and others have expressed an interest in addressing 
practical, operational concerns. The Agency received various requests 
and comments in the form of letters, petitions, and conversations at 
individual and public meetings to address concerns with the WPS, some 
specifically suggesting an exemption for crop advisors.
    In response, EPA proposed five actions to revise elements of the 
WPS. These actions were published on January 11, 1995 (60 FR 2820), and 
proposed to: (1) Exempt those who perform crop advising tasks from 
certain requirements; (2) shorten the time periods before which 
employers must train workers and retrain workers and handlers in 
pesticide safety; (3) allow early entry to pesticide-treated areas to 
perform certain time-sensitive irrigation activities; (4) allow early 
entry to pesticide-treated areas to perform certain time-sensitive 
activities resulting in ``limited contact'' with pesticide-treated 
surfaces; and (5) allow workers to enter areas treated with certain 
lower risk pesticides after 4 hours rather than 12 hours.
    This action addresses the proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to exempt 
those who perform crop advising tasks from certain requirements. The 
rule amendment established by this action will exempt certified or 
licensed crop advisors and persons under their direct supervision while 
performing crop advising tasks from certain handler requirements during 
the REI and certain worker requirements during the 30-day period after 
the expiration of the REI. However, crop advisors and persons under 
their direct supervision will not be able, under this exception, to 
enter the treated area until after pesticide application ends. If a 
person is a certified or licensed crop advisor, they will be exempt 
from the pesticide safety training required for workers and handlers.
    Final determinations on the other four actions mentioned above are 
being [[Page 21949]] published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 
Register.

III. Summary of the Final Rule Amendment

    EPA is amending the WPS to exempt qualified crop advisors from some 
requirements. EPA is also exempting persons performing crop advising 
tasks from some of the WPS requirements, only if the tasks are 
performed under the direct supervision of a certified or licensed crop 
advisor. This rule also establishes a grace period for all persons 
while doing crop advising tasks in order to allow time to acquire 
certification or licensing.
    EPA is including in new Secs. 170.104 and 170.204 exemptions for 
knowledgeable and experienced crop advisors from the requirement of 
using personal protection equipment (PPE) (Sec. 170.240), knowledge of 
labeling and site specific information (Sec. 170.232), decontamination 
(Secs. 170.150 and 170.250), and emergency assistance (Secs. 170.160 
and 170.260) requirements of the WPS. The crop advisor exemption 
applies only to individuals performing crop advising tasks in the 
treated area and only after application ends. Certified or licensed 
crop advisors may substitute pesticide safety training received during 
the certification or licensing program if such training is at least 
equivalent to the WPS training required by Sec. 170.230.
    A temporary grace period for all individuals while performing crop 
advisor tasks is established until May 1, 1996 to allow time for 
acquiring certification or licensing.

IV. EPA's Amendment Decision

    Based on information submitted in comments and EPA's knowledge and 
understanding of crop advisor activities, EPA has concluded that an 
amendment exempting qualified crop advisors and persons they directly 
supervise is appropriate. Further, based on comments received, EPA 
believes that crop advisors, through their training and expertise, can 
assess which risk reduction measures are most appropriate depending on 
the situation. Finally, EPA believes that crop advisors can 
successfully communicate these judgments to persons they directly 
supervise, thereby assuring that both advisors and persons they 
directly supervise carry out their responsibilities safely.
    Crop advisor tasks typically do not require extended periods of 
time in recently treated fields, thus lessening potential risk of 
exposure to pesticide residues through direct or incidental contact. 
Crop advisors commented that in practice, it is typically necessary to 
wait a period of time after application to properly assess the 
effectiveness of the recommended treatment. EPA recognizes, however, 
that some situations may result in substantial exposure to pesticide 
residues, such as entering greenhouses shortly after fumigation, or 
entering treated areas during the first 4 hours after an application or 
before the ventilation criteria/inhalation exposure levels have been 
met. However, crop advisors, because of their knowledge, training and 
experience gained in the field, are in a unique position to understand 
pesticide-related hazards and protect themselves and persons they 
directly supervise from potential exposure. EPA expects that they would 
take appropriate protective steps, such as using appropriate PPE, or 
delaying entering into the treated area, especially where fumigants and 
double notification pesticides have been used.
    The provisions set forth in the exemption provide protective 
measures for crop advisors and persons they directly supervise. The 
exemption does not allow entry into the treated area before the 
application ends and applies only to persons performing crop advisor 
tasks in the treated area. The crop advisor must make specific 
determinations regarding the appropriate PPE, appropriate 
decontamination supplies, and how to safely conduct the crop advisor 
tasks. The crop advisor must convey this information to each person 
under their direct supervision in a language that the person 
understands. Before entering a treated area, the crop advisor must 
inform, through an established practice of communication, each person 
under their direct supervision of the pesticide product and active 
ingredient(s) applied, method and time of application, and the 
restricted entry interval. The crop advisor must instruct each person 
whom they directly supervise regarding which tasks to undertake and how 
to contact the crop advisor. EPA believes that these terms will 
significantly limit exposure to pesticide residues, and consequently, 
the risk.
    This exemption has substantial benefits for crop advisors by 
allowing them flexibility to make informed judgements regarding the 
need for protection on a case-by-case basis. The exemption also 
encourages the use of crop advisors, whose activities support 
agricultural productivity by maximizing the use of integrated pest 
management practices while minimizing chemical inputs, creating both 
environmental and economic benefits.
    In summary, in deciding to grant this exemption to crop advisors 
and persons they supervise, EPA has weighed the risk of possible 
increased pesticide exposure and the benefits of crop advisor 
activities during the REI and the 30-day period following the 
expiration of the REI, and finds ample justification for this exemption 
for the reasons summarized in this preamble and discussed in detail in 
the response to comments.

V. Summary of Response to Comments

    EPA received 169 comments referring to the crop advisor proposal. 
Comments were received from States, commodity groups, farmworker 
groups, and individuals.
    In the January 11, 1995 document, EPA proposed to exempt certified 
or licensed crop advisors and their employees from several provisions 
of the pesticide WPS while performing crop advisor tasks. A temporary 
exemption until January 1, 1996 was proposed for all persons performing 
crop advisor tasks to allow time for crop advisors to obtain 
certification or licensing.

A. General

    EPA proposed to exempt a qualified subset of crop advisors, those 
who are certified or licensed, from all requirements of the WPS. 
Acceptable certification or licensing would have to include training at 
least equivalent to the WPS handler training.
    While many comments supported the proposal as written, a number of 
comments expressed concerns. Farmworker groups and some State 
Departments of Agriculture stated that crop advisors are not different 
enough from other workers or handlers and that different WPS 
requirements for them would not be justified. Representatives of and 
individual crop advisors stated that they can determine what PPE is 
needed according to the activities they plan to conduct while in a 
treated area and that they carry decontamination supplies, including 
water, with them.
    EPA believes that, because of their training and experience, crop 
advisors typically have considerably greater knowledge about the 
potential health effects of pesticides and ways to mitigate exposure 
than many other agricultural workers. Consequently, they are, as a 
class, capable of judging what actions may safely be conducted within a 
pesticide-treated area subject to WPS requirements. EPA is persuaded 
that the exposure for crop advisor tasks is minimal and crop advisor 
tasks contribute to the maintenance and expansion of integrated pest 
[[Page 21950]] management practices in agriculture. EPA has concluded 
that it is appropriate to allow crop advisors to use their judgment and 
knowledge to determine whether a treated area may be safely entered 
during an REI and is granting an exemption from some of the WPS 
provisions to appropriate persons while they are performing crop-
advising tasks.
    Some comments requested clarification on the applicability of the 
exemption to crop advisors in a range of situations, for example, crop 
advisors employed by a single agricultural establishment, researchers, 
chemical company representatives, or agricultural extension personnel, 
etc. The exemption established by this action applies to crop advisors, 
who have demonstrated training and experience by completion of a crop 
advisor program, regardless of the source of compensation or 
employment. The WPS is not applicable to a person or establishment 
providing services (including crop advising services) on an 
agricultural establishment without compensation from the agricultural 
establishment for those services. For example, the WPS would not apply 
to extension agents, university researchers and chemical company 
representatives providing recommendations to growers where the 
agricultural establishment is not providing compensation for those 
recommendations.

B. Scope of the Exemption

    EPA has been persuaded by comments that a complete exemption from 
all the WPS provisions at all times would not be reasonable. The 
potential for exposure, and thus risk, is at its highest during 
pesticide application. Consequently, the exemption will not apply 
during pesticide application. During the REI and the 30 days following 
the REI, qualified persons performing crop advising tasks would not be 
required to comply with PPE (Sec. 170.240), knowledge of labeling and 
site specific information (Sec. 170.232), decontamination 
(Secs. 170.150 and 170.250), and emergency assistance (Secs. 170.160 
and 170.260) requirements of the rule.
    The comments received also persuaded EPA that the exemption should 
be applicable only when performing crop advising tasks as defined in 
the rule. Accordingly, section Secs. 170.104 and 170.204 make it 
explicit that the exemption is available only when crop advising tasks 
are being performed in the treated area, and only after application 
ends.
    Some comments expressed concern that the crop advisor would not 
know what applications had been made on the agricultural establishment 
if this exemption were established. It should be noted that 
Sec. 170.124 requires that agricultural employers notify commercial 
pesticide handling establishments whenever handlers (including crop 
advisors) employed by commercial pesticide handling establishments are 
performing handling tasks (including crop advising tasks) on the 
agricultural establishment. EPA believes that this requirement of 
agricultural establishment owners will result in adequate information 
being provided to crop advisors since the exemption for crop advisors 
does not eliminate the owner's responsibility under the notification 
requirement.

C. Certification or Licensing

    EPA proposed that, to be eligible for the exemption, crop advisors 
should be required to obtain certification or licensing from a program 
administered or approved by a State, Tribal or Federal agency having 
jurisdiction over such licensing or certification. The certification or 
licensing program would have to include pesticide safety training at 
least equivalent to the handler training required by the WPS.
    Many comments agreed that the proposed mechanism for eligibility 
for the exemption was appropriate. Some comments suggested certified 
applicator licensing as being sufficient. Still others suggested that 
EPA recognize certain national programs, such as the American Society 
of Agronomy (ASA) Certified Crop Advisor and the National Alliance of 
Independent Crop Consultants (NAICC) Certified Professional Crop 
Consultant programs. Some comments stated that crop advisor 
certification or licensing is not currently available in all States.
    EPA expects each State will determine its own criteria for 
acceptable programs which will qualify crop advisors for the exemption. 
States are given this flexibility and authority because a wide range of 
certifying programs are available across the country. EPA is requiring 
crop advisor certification programs to contain pesticide safety 
training at least equivalent to WPS handler training. States may 
consider and EPA expects and suggests, using a written test for 
competency, a requirement for experience and continuing education, and 
a specified renewal period. Most State certified applicator programs 
would not meet these criteria because EPA does not require work 
experience for pesticide applicator certification, and a written 
examination is only required for the initial certification of 
commercial applicators. However, some States may go beyond the minimum 
EPA certified applicator requirements and require the testing and 
experience so that they would meet EPA's suggested crop advisor 
certification standards.
    EPA agrees that a wide range of crop advisor programs may be 
appropriate for the exemption and has revised and clarified the text in 
Secs. 170.104, 170.130, 170.204, and 170.230 to allow a number of crop 
advisor programs to be acceptable. EPA expects to approve requests from 
several national crop advisor certification programs, but will permit 
States to approve other programs they deem acceptable. EPA or a State 
may approve (or disapprove) a certification program by issuing to it a 
letter acknowledging that its content and requirements are (or are not) 
sufficient to qualify for the WPS crop advisor exemption.

D. Employees

    EPA also proposed exempting employees of certified or licensed crop 
advisors from WPS requirements, except for WPS pesticide safety 
training.
    While most comments supported inclusion of employees, some raised 
concerns about removing protections for employees. They expressed 
concern that certified or licensed crop advisors could not adequately 
transfer their knowledge and experience to employees, especially if the 
employees were working independently from the crop advisor (e.g., in 
remote locations). Concern also was raised that crop advising employees 
are likely to be less educated and experienced than professional crop 
advisors. Finally, some comments found the proposal unclear regarding 
who is considered an employee and assumed that the exemption would 
apply to individuals when performing other than crop advising tasks and 
therefore could be abused by employers to avoid compliance with the WPS 
protections.
    EPA agrees that it must be clear that any crop advisor exemption 
applies only to individuals when they are performing crop advising 
tasks and has revised Secs. 170.104 and 170.204 accordingly.
    EPA believes that, for this exemption, the employment relationship 
between crop advisors and assistants is not as critical as the 
supervisory relationship between them that allows the imparting of 
knowledge and guidance. Therefore, EPA has decided to refer to 
employees as ``persons under the direct supervision'' of a crop 
advisor. Since EPA believes that the important relationship between 
crop advisors and assistants is one that allows the imparting of 
knowledge and guidance, [[Page 21951]] the Agency is concerned that 
crop advisors must be able to transfer their knowledge and guidance 
effectively to assistants, particularly if they are not in the same 
location. Therefore, EPA has established in Secs. 170.104 and 170.204 
specific conditions in this amendment to assure that crop advisors 
provide persons they supervise with adequate direction.

E. Grace Period

    EPA also proposed to exempt all individuals performing crop advisor 
activities from all the WPS requirements until January 1, 1996, to 
allow time for individuals to obtain certification or licensing. After 
January 1, 1996, only crop advisors who are certified or licensed and 
employees under their direct supervision would be exempt.
    A number of comments pointed out that examinations for 
certification programs are scheduled infrequently, often only twice a 
year, and that the January 1, 1996, date would be difficult to meet 
since one of 1995's exams may have already taken place. One comment 
suggested a 3-month temporary exemption to minimize the time that all 
crop advisors would be working without benefit of the WPS protections.
    EPA believes that a grace period until May 1, 1996, is a reasonable 
period to allow crop advisors to obtain certification or licensing. 
Sections 170.104(c) and 170.204(c) provide that this grace period will 
apply to all individuals while performing crop advising tasks until May 
1, 1996.

VI. Reevaluation of Crop Advisor Exemption

    The Agency is adopting this amendment in order to provide the 
flexibility to crop advisors under the WPS. As discussed more fully 
above, the Agency believes that any added risks associated with 
pesticide exposure of those performing crop advisor activities will be 
outweighed by the benefits of this action. The Agency intends over the 
next growing seasons to collect information to evaluate the 
effectiveness of this action. In particular, EPA is interested in 
determining whether the conditions imposed by this action successfully 
protect crop advisors and persons under their direct supervision 
against pesticide poisonings. EPA is also interested in better 
characterizing the circumstances in which this exclusion is being used 
and in understanding whether the exclusion addresses the practical 
problems of performing crop advising tasks adequately. Finally, EPA 
would like to obtain information on the extent of compliance with the 
conditions in the exclusion and any practical problems with 
enforcement.
    To obtain a better understanding of the implementation and impacts 
of this exclusion, EPA will work with USDA and states to gather 
relevant information. The Agency will hold public meetings in 
agricultural areas to provide those directly affected by the WPS, 
growers, enforcement staff, and agricultural workers, an opportunity to 
comment on these actions and the WPS rule in general. As appropriate, 
EPA may conduct surveys and review incident data to assess the impact 
of the exemption. The Agency invites any interested person who has 
concerns about the implementation of this action to send comments to 
the Agency at the address listed under the ADDRESSES section of this 
document.

VII. Technical Amendments

    EPA is revising Secs. 170.202 and 170.102, which exempt owners of 
agricultural establishments from subparts B and C requirements for 
workers and handlers, by reorganizing the paragraphs into three 
sections: for applicability (Secs. 170.102 and 170.202), exceptions 
(Secs. 170.103 and 170.203), and exemptions (Secs. 170.104 and 
170.204). The existing exemptions for agricultural owners are included 
in the new Secs. 170.104 and 170.204. No substantive change has been 
made to the exemptions for agricultural establishment owners.

VIII. Public Docket

    A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket 
number OPP-250100A. This record is available for public inspection from 
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The public record is 
located in Rm. 1132, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway., 
Arlington, VA. Written requests should be mailed to: Public Response 
and Program Resources Branch (7506C), Environmental Protection Agency, 
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

IX. Statutory Review

    As required by FIFRA Section 25(a), this rule was provided to the 
USDA, and to Congress for review. EPA consulted informally with USDA 
during the development of the final rule and, through this exchange, 
addressed all of the Department's comments. The final rule was provided 
formally to USDA, as required by FIFRA. The Department of Agriculture 
had no comment on the final rule. The FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel 
waived its review.

X. 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 a ``significant regulatory action'' 
because it raises potentially novel legal or policy issues. This action 
was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review 
under the Executive Order. Any comments or changes made during OMB 
review, have been documented in the public record.
    In addition, the Agency estimates that the total potential cost 
savings associated with the amendment ranges from $20 to $23 million 
over a 10-year period, with a single crop advisor saving approximately 
$1,150 over a 10-year period.

B. Executive Order 12898

    Executive Order 12898 (environmental justice) was taken into 
account in developing the WPS amendments.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 
which the President signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA has assessed 
the effects of this regulatory action on State, local, and tribal 
governments, and the private sector. This action does not result in the 
expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local or tribal 
governments, or by anyone in the private sector. The cost savings 
associated with this action are described Unit X.A. above.
    In addition to the consultations prior to proposal, EPA has had 
several informal consultations regarding the proposed rule with some 
States through the EPA regional offices and at regularly scheduled 
State meetings. No significant issues or information were identified as 
a result of EPA's discussion with the States.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule was reviewed under the provisions of section 3(a) of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, and it was determined that this rule would 
not have an adverse impact on any small entities. The rule will provide 
cost savings to an estimated 2,500 to 5,000 crop advisors and an 
additional 15,000 employees of crop advisors who will be affected. I 
therefore certify that this regulatory action does not require a 
separate Regulatory Impact Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act. [[Page 21952]] 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    EPA has determined that there are no information collection burdens 
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq., associated with the requirements contained in this rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 170

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Occupational safety and health, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: April 26, 1995.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 170 is amended as follows:

PART 170--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 170 continues to read as 
follows:

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

Sec. 170.103   [Redesignated from Sec. 170.102]

    2. Section 170.102 is partially designated as Sec. 170.103 and 
entitled Exceptions. Paragraph (b) introductory text and paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (10) are redesignated as Sec. 170.103 introductory text 
and paragraphs (a) through (j), respectively. The remainder of 
Sec. 170.102 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 170.102   Applicability of this subpart.

    Except as provided by Secs. 170.103 and 170.104, this subpart 
applies when any pesticide product is used on an agricultural 
establishment in the production of agricultural plants.
    3. New Sec. 170.104 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 170.104   Exemptions.

    The workers listed in this section are exempt from the specified 
provisions of this subpart.
    (a) Owners of agricultural establishments. (1) The owner of an 
agricultural establishment is not required to provide to himself or 
members of his immediate family who are performing tasks related to the 
production of agricultural plants on their own agricultural 
establishment the protections of:
    (i) Section 170.112(c)(5) through (9).
    (ii) Section 170.112(c)(5) through (9) as referenced in 
Secs. 170.112(d)(2)(iii) and 170.112(e).
    (iii) Section 170.120.
    (iv) Section 170.122.
    (v) Section 170.130.
    (vi) Section 170.135.
    (vii) Section 170.150.
    (viii) Section 170.160.
    (2) The owner of the agricultural establishment must provide the 
protections listed in paragraph (a)(1)(i) through (viii) of this 
section to other workers and other persons who are not members of his 
immediate family.
    (b) Crop advisors. (1) Provided that the conditions of paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section are met, a person who is certified or licensed 
as a crop advisor by a program acknowledged as appropriate in writing 
by EPA or a State or Tribal lead agency for pesticide enforcement, and 
persons performing crop advising tasks under such qualified crop 
advisor's direct supervision, are exempt from the provisions of:
    (i) Section 170.150.
    (ii) Section 170.160.
A person is under the direct supervision of a crop advisor when the 
crop advisor exerts the supervisory controls set out in paragraphs 
(b)(2)(iii) and (iv) of this section. Direct supervision does not 
require that the crop advisor be physically present at all times, but 
the crop advisor must be readily accessible to the employees at all 
times.
    (2) Conditions of exemption. (i) The certification or licensing 
program requires pesticide safety training that includes, at least, all 
the information in Sec. 170.230(c)(4).
    (ii) Applies only when performing crop advising tasks in the 
treated area.
    (iii) The crop advisor must make specific determinations regarding 
the appropriate PPE, appropriate decontamination supplies, and how to 
conduct the tasks safely. The crop advisor must convey this information 
to each person under his direct supervision in a language that the 
person understands.
    (iv) Before entering a treated area, the certified or licensed crop 
advisor must inform, through an established practice of communication, 
each person under his direct supervision of the pesticide product and 
active ingredient(s) applied, method of application, time of 
application, the restricted entry interval, which tasks to undertake, 
and how to contact the crop advisor.
    (c) Grace period for persons performing crop advisor tasks who are 
not certified or licensed. (1) Provided that the conditions of 
paragraph (c)(2) of this section are met, a person who is neither 
certified nor licensed as a crop advisor and any person performing crop 
advising tasks under his direct supervision is exempt until May 1, 
1996, from the requirements of:
    (i) Section 170.130.
    (ii) Section 170.150.
    (iii) Section 170.160.
    (2) Conditions of exemption. (i) Applies only when the persons are 
performing crop advising tasks in the treated area.
    (ii) The crop advisor must make specific determinations regarding 
the appropriate PPE, appropriate decontamination supplies, and how to 
conduct the tasks safely. The crop advisor must convey this information 
to each person under his direct supervision in a language that the 
person understands.
    (iii) Before entering a treated area, the crop advisor must inform, 
through an established practice of communication, each person under his 
direct supervision of the active ingredient, method of application, 
time of application, the restricted entry interval, which tasks to 
undertake, and how to contact the crop advisor.
    4. Section 170.130 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 170.130   Pesticide safety training for workers.

* * * * *
    (b) Exceptions. The following persons need not be trained under 
this section:
    (1) A worker who is currently certified as an applicator of 
restricted-use pesticides under part 171 of this chapter.
    (2) A worker who satisfies the training requirements of part 171 of 
this chapter.
    (3) A worker who satisfies the handler training requirements of 
Sec. 170.230(c).
    (4) A worker who is certified or licensed as a crop advisor by a 
program acknowledged as appropriate in writing by EPA or a State or 
Tribal lead agency for pesticide enforcement, provided that a 
requirement for such certification or licensing is pesticide safety 
training that includes all the information set out in 
Sec. 170.230(c)(4).
* * * * *


Sec. 170.203   [Redesignated from Sec. 170.202]

    5. Section 170.202 is partially redesignated as Sec. 170.203 
entitled Exceptions. Paragraph (b) introductory text and paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (9) are redesignated as Sec. 170.203 introductory text 
and paragraphs (a) through (i), respectively. The remainder of 
Sec. 170.102 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 170.202   Applicability of this subpart.

    Except as provided by Secs. 170.203 and 170.204, this subpart 
applies when any pesticide is handled for use on an agricultural 
establishment.
    6. New Sec. 170.204 is added to read as follows: [[Page 21953]] 


Sec. 170.204   Exemptions.

    The handlers listed in this section are exempt from the specified 
provisions of this subpart.
    (a) Owners of agricultural establishments. (1) The owner of an 
agricultural establishment is not required to provide to himself or 
members of his immediate family who are performing handling tasks on 
their own agricultural establishment the protections of:
    (i) Section 170.210(b) and (c).
    (ii) Section 170.222.
    (iii) Section 170.230.
    (iv) Section 170.232.
    (v) Section 170.234.
    (vi) Section 170.235.
    (vii) Section 170 240(e) through (g).
    (viii) Section 170.250.
    (ix) Section 170.260.
    (2) The owner of the agricultural establishment must provide the 
protections listed in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (ix) of this section 
to other handlers and other persons who are not members of his 
immediate family.
    (b) Crop advisors. (1) Provided that the conditions of paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section are met, a person who is certified or licensed 
as a crop advisor by a program acknowledged as appropriate in writing 
by EPA or a State or Tribal lead agency for pesticide enforcement, and 
persons performing crop advising tasks under such qualified crop 
advisor's direct supervision, are exempt from the provisions of:
    (i) Section 170.232.
    (ii) Section 170.240.
    (iii) Section 170.250.
    (iv) Section 170.260.
A person is under the direct supervision of a crop advisor when the 
crop advisor exerts the supervisory controls set out in paragraphs 
(b)(2)(iv) and (v) of this section. Direct supervision does not require 
that the crop advisor be physically present at all times, but the crop 
advisor must be readily accessible to the employees at all times.
    (2) Conditions of exemption. (i) The certification or licensing 
program requires pesticide safety training that includes, at least, all 
the information in Sec. 170.230(c)(4).
    (ii) No entry into the treated area occurs until after application 
ends.
    (iii) Applies only when performing crop advising tasks in the 
treated area.
    (iv) The crop advisor must make specific determinations regarding 
the appropriate PPE, appropriate decontamination supplies, and how to 
conduct the tasks safely. The crop advisor must convey this information 
to each person under his direct supervision in a language that the 
person understands.
    (v) Before entering a treated area, the certified or licensed crop 
advisor must inform, through an established practice of communication, 
each person under his direct supervision of the pesticide products and 
active ingredient(s) applied, method of application, time of 
application, the restricted entry interval, which tasks to undertake, 
and how to contact the crop advisor.
    (c) Grace period for persons performing crop advisor tasks who are 
not certified or licensed. (1) Provided that the conditions of 
paragraph (c)(2) of this section are met, a person who is neither 
certified nor licensed as a crop advisor and any person performing crop 
advising tasks under his direct supervision is exempt until May 1, 
1996, from the requirements of:
    (i) Section 170.230.
    (ii) Section 170.232.
    (iii) Section 170.240.
    (iv) Section 170.250.
    (v) Section 170.260.
    (2) Conditions of exemption. (i) No entry into the treated area 
occurs until after application ends.
    (ii) Applies only when the persons are performing crop advising 
tasks in the treated area.
    (iii) The crop advisor must make specific determinations regarding 
the appropriate PPE, appropriate decontamination supplies, and how to 
conduct the tasks safely. The crop advisor must convey this information 
to each person under his direct supervision in a language that the 
person understands.
    (iv) Before entering a treated area, the crop advisor must inform, 
through an established practice of communication, each person under his 
direct supervision of the pesticide products and active ingredient(s) 
applied, method of application, time of application, the restricted 
entry interval, which tasks to undertake, and how to contact the crop 
advisor.
    7. In Sec. 170.230, by revising the section title and paragraph (b) 
to read as follows:


Sec. 170.230   Pesticide safety training for handlers.

*    *    *    *    *
    (b) Exceptions. The following persons need not be trained under 
this section:
    (1) A handler who is currently certified as an applicator of 
restricted-use pesticides under part 171 of this chapter.
    (2) A handler who satisfies the training requirements of part 171 
of this chapter.
    (3) A handler who is certified or licensed as a crop advisor by a 
program acknowledged as appropriate in writing by EPA or a State or 
Tribal lead agency for pesticide enforcement, provided that a 
requirement for such certification or licensing is pesticide safety 
training that includes all the information set out in 
Sec. 170.230(c)(4).

[FR Doc. 95-10872 Filed 5-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>