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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 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 §§ 170.104

and 170.204 exemptions for

knowledgeable and experienced crop

advisors from the requirement of using

personal protection equipment (PPE)

(§ 170.240), knowledge of labeling and

site specific information (§ 170.232),

decontamination (§§ 170.150 and

170.250), and emergency assistance

(§§ 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 § 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
21950 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

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

(§ 170.240), knowledge of labeling and

site specific information (§ 170.232),

decontamination (§§ 170.150 and

170.250), and emergency assistance

(§§ 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

§§ 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 § 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 §§ 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 §§ 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,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 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 §§ 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 §§ 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 (§§ 170.102 and 170.202),

exceptions (§§ 170.103 and 170.203),

and exemptions (§§ 170.104 and

170.204). The existing exemptions for

agricultural owners are included in the

new §§ 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.
21952 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

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.

§ 170.103 [Redesignated from § 170.102]

2. Section 170.102 is partially

designated as § 170.103 and entitled

Exceptions. Paragraph (b) introductory

text and paragraphs (b)(1) through (10)

are redesignated as § 170.103

introductory text and paragraphs (a)

through (j), respectively. The remainder

of § 170.102 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 170.102 Applicability of this subpart.

Except as provided by §§ 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 § 170.104 is added to read as

follows:

§ 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 §§ 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

§ 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:

§ 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 restricteduse 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 § 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

§ 170.230(c)(4).

* * * * *

§ 170.203 [Redesignated from § 170.202]

5. Section 170.202 is partially

redesignated as § 170.203 entitled

Exceptions. Paragraph (b) introductory

text and paragraphs (b)(1) through (9)

are redesignated as § 170.203

introductory text and paragraphs (a)

through (i), respectively. The remainder

of § 170.102 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 170.202 Applicability of this subpart.

Except as provided by §§ 170.203 and

170.204, this subpart applies when any

pesticide is handled for use on an

agricultural establishment.

6. New § 170.204 is added to read as

follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 21953

§ 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

§ 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 § 170.230, by revising the section

title and paragraph (b) to read as

follows:

§ 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 restricteduse 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

§ 170.230(c)(4).

[FR Doc. 95–10872 Filed 5–2–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

40 CFR Part 170

[OPP–250104; FRL–4950–9]

Technical Amendment, Addition of

Table of Exception Decisions to EarlyEntry Prohibition, Worker Protection

Standard; Final Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In the Notices section of this

Federal Register, EPA is providing

notice for two additional administrative

exceptions to the general prohibition on

early entry into pesticide treated areas

contained in the Worker Protection

Standard (WPS) issued under the

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The

exceptions allow, under specific

conditions, early entry for workers to

perform irrigation and limited contact

tasks. Both exceptions are in response to

requests the Agency received from the

agricultural community. To ensure that

the regulated community is aware of

these and future administrative

exceptions to the early-entry

prohibition, EPA is amending the WPS

to add a new § 170.112(e)(7) that

informs the regulated community where

to locate Federal Register notices that

set forth the terms and conditions of the

administrative exceptions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara

Ager or Linda Strauss, Office of

Pesticide Progrms (7506C),

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

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

Office location, telephone number and

e-mail address: 1921 Jefferson Davis

Highway, Rm. 1121, Crystal Mall 2,

Arlington, VA 22202, Telephone: 703–

305–7666, ager.sara@epamail.epa.gov or

strauss.linda@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

EPA issued the WPS on August 21,

1992 (57 FR 38102) (40 CFR part 170).

The WPS includes a prohibition

(§ 170.112) against routine early entry

into pesticide treated areas during

restricted-entry interval (referred to as

‘‘early entry’’). Section 170.112(e) of the