21944 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 170

[OPP–250097A; FRL–4949–9]

RIN No. 2070–AC69

Pesticide Worker Protection Standard;

Grace Period for Providing Worker

Safety Training

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; amendment.

SUMMARY: EPA is amending the 1992

Worker Protection Standard (WPS), by

making the 5-day grace period (the

number of days of employment before

workers must be trained) effective

January 1, 1996. Additionally, effective

January 1, 1996, EPA is requiring

agricultural employers to assure that

untrained workers receive basic

pesticide safety information before they

enter a treated area on the

establishment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become

effective July 17, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeanne Heying, Office of Pesticide

Programs (7506C), Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Office location

and telephone number and e-mail

address: Room 1121, Crystal Mall #2,

1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington VA, Telephone: 703–305–

7164, Heying.Jeanne@epamail.epa.gov.

ADDRESSES: The Agency invites any

interested person who has concerns

about the implementation of this action

to submit written comments identified

by docket number ‘‘OPP–250097A’’ to:

By mail: Public Response and Program

Resources Branch, Field Operations

Division (7506C), Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring

comments to: Rm. 1132, Crystal Mall #2,

1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA 22202.

Comments and data may also be

submitted electronically by sending

electronic mail (e-mail) to: oppdocket@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–250097A.’’ No Confidential

Business Information (CBI) should be

submitted through e-mail. Electronic

comments on this document may be

filed online at many Federal Depository

Libraries. Additional information on

electronic submissions can be found in

Unit VI 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

document discusses the background

leading to this final rule amending the

Worker Protection Standard;

summarizes the public’s comments on

the provisions of the proposed

amendments (60 FR 2820, January 11,

1995); provides EPA’s response to

comments and final determination with

respect to modifying the training

provisions of the Worker Protection

Standard, 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 its Worker

Protection Standard (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. The WPS is also

intended to reduce the risk of pesticide

poisonings and injuries among pesticide

handlers who may face more hazardous

levels of exposure. The 1992 WPS

superseded the 1974 WPS and

expanded the WPS scope not only to

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, and

decontamination and emergency

medical assistance in the event of an

accident.

The 1992 WPS requires agricultural

employers to assure that before the 6th

day of employment (referred to as the

grace period) a worker receives basic

pesticides safety training before entering

any areas on the agricultural

establishment where, within the last 30

days, a pesticide has been applied or a

restricted entry interval (REI) has been

in effect. For the first 5 years after the

effective date of the WPS, however, the

WPS allows employers up to the 16th

day of employment to assure that the

worker receives the training.

Additionally, workers are required to be

retrained at 5–year intervals.

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 individual and public

meetings to address concerns with the

WPS, some specifically suggesting

changes to the training requirements.

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) Shorten the time periods before

which employers must train workers

and retrain workers and handlers in

pesticide safety.

(2) Exempt those who perform crop

advising tasks from certain

requirements.

(3) Allow early entry to pesticide

treated areas to perform certain timesensitive irrigation activities.

(4) Allow early entry to pesticide

treated areas to perform certain timesensitive activities resulting in ‘‘limited

contact’’ with pesticide-treated surfaces.

(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 to shorten the time periods

before which employers must train

workers and retrain workers and

handlers in pesticide safety. Final

determinations on the other four actions

mentioned above are being published

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal

Register.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 21945

III. Summary of the Final Rule

Amendment

The Agency is revising 40 CFR

170.130(a)(3) to require that basic

pesticide safety information be provided

to workers before entry. New

§170.130(a)(3)(iii), the exception for the

first 5–year period, allows a 15–day

grace period until January 1, 1996. The

Agency is thereby accelerating the

transition to a 5–day grace period by

approximately 2 years.

The Agency is adding a new

paragraph § 170.130(c) and

redesignating existing paragraphs to

specify the content by including a

reference to new paragraph (c). The

Agency has decided to retain the 5–year

retraining interval in § 170.130(a)(1). No

other sections of the training provisions

are affected by this final action.

IV. Summary of Response to Comments

EPA received 91 comments referring

to the pesticide safety training proposal

from farm worker groups, individuals,

State, commodity groups, and growers.

Many comments from farmworker

groups were supportive of eliminating a

grace period provision and requiring

retraining annually. Comments from

commodity groups, growers and State

Departments of Agriculture expressed

concern regarding eliminating a grace

period and supported maintaining a

grace period and a longer retraining

interval. A more detailed summary of

the issues addressed by comments is

presented below and in the Response to

Comments document contained in the

public docket.

A. Grace Period and Interim Grace

Period

EPA proposed several options:

eliminating the grace period (from the

current 15 days to 0 days) after 1 year;

shortening the grace period from 15

days to between 1 and 5 days; or

establishing a weekly training program

for those requiring training.

Comments, received primarily from

farmworker groups, opposed a grace

period of any length stating that training

prior to potential exposure would

provide greater protection for workers.

Other industries which require worker

training before potential exposure were

cited as examples of how a 0–day grace

period could be feasible in agriculture.

Comments also stated that a grace

period can create greater administrative

cost and difficulty with enforcement

given diverse crop production practices

and high worker turnover.

Growers and many States noted that

a training grace period is necessary to

cope with unanticipated circumstances

that might require hiring large numbers

of workers to harvest a crop quickly, for

example, and with no time or capacity

to train them. Additionally, the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) and

others pointed out that the training

provisions are supplemental to other

WPS provisions, such as central posting,

that are intended to prevent or mitigate

worker exposure to pesticides and that

WPS training is not the primary means

to avoid such exposure. USDA

comments noted that WPS training is

valuable reinforcement for the other

WPS protections; however the existence

of other methods of risk prevention and

mitigation reduces the urgency for

workers to have had training prior to the

commencement of work at each new

job.

Some comments also supported

making training available on a weekly

basis for similar reasons discussed

above, emphasizing the benefit of

flexibility, the ability to absorb training

costs, and the ability to plan training

sessions based on hiring needs and

practices. In addition to the options

proposed, several comments supported

alternative grace period options or

providing an orientation session

covering basic pesticide safety

information before a new employee

begins work. The more complete WPS

pesticide safety training program would

follow.

EPA believes the WPS is comparable,

in large measure, to requirements in

other industries for training prior to

exposure to hazardous chemicals.

Pesticide handlers and early-entry

workers must be trained prior to

applying pesticides or entering treated

areas during the restricted-entry interval

(REI). The current training grace period

applies only to agricultural workers who

do not handle pesticides but may be

exposed to pesticide residues after the

REI. Prior to or in the absence of the

worker training, the REI serves its

intended purpose of limiting

agricultural workers’ exposure to

pesticides by prohibiting routine early

entry to pesticide-treated areas.

EPA agrees that providing training

before potential exposure would be

more protective than after potential

exposure, and that such a requirement

would be easier to enforce. EPA strongly

recommends that all agricultural

employers provide the full WPS

pesticide safety training to workers

before they are allowed to enter

pesticide treated areas on the

establishment. However, EPA

acknowledges that, given the diversity

of agricultural operations across the

United States, a training grace period

may be needed to provide flexibility to

agricultural establishment owners and

will likely reduce administrative and

compliance costs. EPA believes, that

under some circumstances, without a

grace period, agricultural employers

may be in the position of needing to

provide daily training during busy

harvest periods. Daily training

(estimated to take 30 to 40 minutes at

a minimum), along with the need to hire

a translator in some cases, could mean

a significant loss in time, increase in

cost and loss of agricultural

productivity. Notwithstanding, EPA

believes that it is feasible to provide

basic safety information before

untrained workers enter treated areas

without compromising the flexibility

afforded by a 5–day grace period.

Effective January 1, 1996, EPA is

requiring that all agricultural employers

assure that untrained workers receive

basic pesticide safety information before

they enter a pesticide treated area on the

establishment. The agricultural

employer must assure the basic

pesticide safety information is

communicated to agricultural workers

in a manner they can understand (e.g.,

by providing written materials,

handouts, posters, or oral

communication or by other means).

Employers must be able to verify that

they have complied with this

requirement. EPA recommends a system

which involves employee signature

acknowledging receipt of the required

information. Other verifiable means of

showing compliance would be

acceptable. EPA will develop and

distribute, in cooperation with USDA

and States, a model handout that will

contain the basic pesticide safety

information to satisfy this requirement.

Agricultural employers can use this

particular handout, develop their own,

or use other materials that contain the

basic pesticide safety information

required by this rule. No more than five

days after initial employment has

commenced, all agricultural workers

must receive complete WPS pesticide

safety training before they enter

pesticide treated areas.

A few comments specifically

addressed the issue of when the 15–day

grace period should expire. Some

comments supported keeping the 15–

day grace period until October 20, 1997,

while others preferred ending the 15–

day grace period after 1 year. EPA

believes that a year (from

implementation) is sufficient time to

enhance training programs, acquire

training materials and identify

translators in the necessary languages. A

lengthy (about 2 years) lead time was

provided before the training provisions

of the 1992 rule were enforceable. The
21946 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

lead time, until January 1, 1996, allows

for a substantial number of workers to

be trained before the 5–day grace period

is effective. The majority of workers are

expected to be trained the first year

under a 15–day grace period. Training

after the first year is expected to be

limited to new entrants to the workforce

and those whose training is not

recognized by a new employer.

Therefore the Agency has decided to

retain a 15–day grace period until

January 1, 1996; thereafter a grace

period of 5 days will become effective.

EPA is revising § 170.130(a)(3) by

adding a new paragraph (i) to require

that basic pesticide safety information

be provided to workers before entry.

The remaining paragraphs in this

section are renumbered accordingly.

Also EPA is revising § 170.130(a)(3)(iii)

to eliminate the 15-day grace period on

December 31, 1995 and replace it with

a 5-day grace period.

EPA is adding a new paragraph

§ 170.130(c) to specify the content of the

pesticide safety information. The

remaining paragraphs in this section are

renumbered accordingly and EPA is

revising new § 170.130(e) by including a

reference to new paragraph (c).

B. Retraining Interval for Workers and

Handlers

EPA proposed the following options

for the retraining interval: keep the 5

year retraining interval; establish a 3

year retraining interval; or require

annual retraining.

The following types of comments

were supportive of a 5–year retraining

interval: the level of safety information

was fairly basic; the training would be

easily retained, especially as workers

incorporate the training into their work

habits; that WPS signs, posters, and

supervisor instructions would reinforce

worker safety protections. Some

comments noted that a 5–year interval

would allow States the flexibility to

establish a more frequent retraining

interval that might better adapt to

existing agricultural practices,

workforce characteristics and

educational and administrative

programs in each State. Some comments

supported shorter retraining interval for

handlers and a 5–year retraining

interval for workers.

Some comments supported a 3–year

retraining interval for both handlers and

workers. A few comments supported a

3–year retraining period for handlers,

noting increased risk of exposure for

handlers compared to workers.

Numerous comments supported an

annual retraining requirement noting

the need for repetitive training to

improve retention. Some comments

supported annual retraining for

handlers only. A few comments

indicated that training programs and

materials were now available to reduce

the costs of frequent training. However,

many comments specifically noted that

annual retraining would increase

employer costs, especially for small

growers, who may have to secure the

services of trainers and interpreters.

EPA has decided to maintain the 5

year retraining interval for workers and

handlers. The Agency believes that the

5–year interval is adequate to cover

basic safety principles without undue

burden. The 5–year retraining interval

will continue to allow States and

growers the flexibility to tailor their

individual retraining intervals to best fit

their needs and capabilities.

Therefore, no change is made to the

retraining provision in § 170.130(a).

V. Reevaluation of Training Rule

The Agency is adopting this

amendment in order to ensure that

agricultural workers receive needed

training while still providing the

agricultural sector flexibility to address

practical concerns with regard to the

timing and cost of training. As

discussed more fully above, the Agency

believes that any added risks associated

with pesticide exposure of workers from

activities conducted during the 5–day

grace period will be limited by other

requirements in the WPS. EPA intends

to reevaluate this decision after it has

been implemented, because the WPS

program is relatively new and there is

relatively little experience either with

the practical consequences of

compliance or the extent of worker risks

under the WPS.

The Agency intends to collect

information over the next several

growing seasons to evaluate the

effectiveness of this amendment. In

particular, EPA is interested in

determining whether, collectively, the

requirements imposed by the WPS

successfully protect workers against

pesticide poisonings. EPA is also

interested in better characterizing the

extent and timing of training and in

understanding whether the 5–day grace

period addresses the needs of growers

and workers adequately. Finally, EPA

would like to obtain information on the

extent of compliance with the

conditions in the training requirement

and any practical problems with

enforcement.

To obtain a better understanding of

the implementation and impacts of this

amendment, EPA will work with USDA

and States to gather relevant

information. The Agency will hold

public meetings in agricultural areas to

provide those directly affected by the

WPS—growers, enforcement staff, and

agricultural workers—an opportunity to

comment on these actions and the WPS

rule in general. As appropriate, EPA

may conduct surveys and review

incident data to assess how the rules are

affecting agriculture. The Agency invites

any interested person who has concerns

about the implementation of this action

to send comments to the Agency at the

address listed at the beginning of this

rule under the ADDRESSES section.

VI. Public Docket

A record has been established for the

rulemaking and this administrative

decision under docket number ‘‘OPP–

250097A’’ (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

and this administrative decision, as well

as the public version, as described

above will be kept in paper form.

Accordingly, EPA will transfer all

comments received electronically into

printed, paper form as they are received

and will place the paper copies in the

official rulemaking record which will

also include all comments submitted

directly in writing. The official

rulemaking record is the paper record

maintained at the address in ADDRESSES

at the beginning of this document.

VII. 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. USDA had no
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 21947

comment on the final rule. The FIFRA

Scientific Advisory Panel waived its

review.

VIII. 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.

The total cost of this regulatory action

will depend upon the additional

training costs that may be incurred as a

result of a shorter training grace period

for the period from January 1, 1996 to

October 20, 1997, as well as the cost of

providing basic safety information to all

workers before they enter areas subject

to WPS pesticide safety training. The

cost of reducing the training grace

period from 15 days to 5 days has been

estimated by EPA and is presented in

the Impact Assessment for the Worker

Protection Standard, Training

Provisions Rule. EPA has reviewed its

Impact Assessment and has determined

(with the concurrence of USDA) that

whatever the incremental cost of this

revision may be, it should be modest

and that these additional costs are

warranted.

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

costs associated with this action are

described in Unit VIII.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 was identified as

a result of EPA’s discussion with the

States.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

This rule was reviewed under the

provisions of sec. 3(a) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, and it was determined

that the rule would not have an adverse

impact on small entities. The smallest

entities regulated under the Worker

Protection Standard are family-operated

agricultural establishments with no

hired labor. These operations are not

subject to the WPS training

requirements, and therefore have no

training cost associated with this rule.

These small entities (with no hired

labor) represent about 45 percent of the

agricultural establishments within the

scope of the WPS. The smallest of those

entities which do hire labor are those

with only one hired employee.

Estimated costs per worker or handler

are similar for an establishment with

one employee as for larger

establishments, causing no significant

disproportionate burden on small

entities.

I therefore certify that this proposal

does not require a separate analysis

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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 final amendment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 170

Environmental protection, Pesticides

and pests, Intergovernmental relations,

Occupational safety and health,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: April 26, 1995.

Lynn M. Browner,

Administrator.

Therefore, 40 CFR part 170 is

amended as follows:

PART 170—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation continues to

read as follows:

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

2. Section 170.130 is amended by

revising the section heading and

paragraph (a)(3), redesignating

paragraphs (c) and (d) as paragraphs (d)

and (e), respectively, adding paragraph

(c), and revising newly designated

paragraph (e)(1) to read as follows:

§ 170.130 Pesticide safety training for

workers.

(a) * * *

(3) Requirements for other

agricultural workers—(i) Information

before entry. As of January 1, 1996, and

except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of

this section, before a worker enters any

areas on the agricultural establishment

where, within the last 30 days a

pesticide to which this subpart applies

has been applied or the restricted-entry

interval for such pesticide has been in

effect, the agricultural employer shall

assure that the worker has been

provided the pesticide safety

information specified in paragraph (c),

in a manner that agricultural workers

can understand, such as by providing

written materials or oral communication

or by other means. The agricultural

employer must be able to verify

compliance with this requirement.

(ii) Training before the 6th day of

entry. Except as provided in paragraph

(a)(2) of this section, before the 6th day

that a worker enters any areas on the

agricultural establishment where,

within the last 30 days a pesticide to

which this subpart applies has been

applied or a restricted-entry interval for

such pesticide has been in effect, the

agricultural employer shall assure that

the worker has been trained.

(iii) Exceptions during interim period.

Until December 31, 1995, and except as

provided by paragraph (a)(2) of this

section, before the 16th day that a

worker enters any areas on the

agricultural establishment where,

within the last 30 days a pesticide to

which this subpart applies has been

applied or a restricted-entry interval has

been in effect, the agricultural employer

shall assure that the worker has been

trained. After December 31, 1995 this

exception no longer applies.

* * * * *

(c) Pesticide safety information. The

pesticide safety information required by

paragraph (a)(3)(i) shall be presented to

workers in a manner that the workers

can understand. At a minimum, the

following information shall be provided:

(1) Pesticides may be on or in plants,

soil, irrigation water, or drifting from

nearby applications.

(2) Prevent pesticides from entering

your body by:

(i) Following directions and/or signs

about keeping out of treated or restricted

areas.

(ii) Washing before eating, drinking,

using chewing gum or tobacco, or using

the toilet.

(iii) Wearing work clothing that

protects the body from pesticide

residues.

(iv) Washing/showering with soap

and water, shampoo hair, and put on

clean clothes after work.

(v) Washing work clothes separately

from other clothes before wearing them

again.
21948 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

(vi) Washing immediately in the

nearest clean water if pesticides are

spilled or sprayed on the body. As soon

as possible, shower, shampoo, and

change into clean clothes.

(3) Further training will be provided

within 5 days.

* * * * *

(e) Verification of training. (1) Except

as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this

section, if the agricultural employer

assures that a worker possesses an EPAapproved Worker Protection Standard

worker training certificate, then the

requirements of paragraph (a) and (c) of

this section will have been met.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–10871 Filed 5–2–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

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,

eckerman.donald@epamail.epa.gov.

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 cropadvising 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 pesticidetreated 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