2826 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules

3. In §170.230, by revising the section

heading and paragraphs (a) and (d)(2) to

read as follows:

§170.230 Pesticide safety training for

handlers.

(a) Requirement. Before any handler

performs any handling task, the handler

employer shall assure that the handler

has been trained in accordance with this

section during the last (Agency will

insert 1, 3, or 5 years in the final rule

based on public comment) counting

from the end of the month in which the

training was completed.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(2) If the handler employer is aware

or has reason to know that an EPAapproved Worker Protection Standard

handler training certificate has not been

issued in accordance with this section,

or has not been issued to the handler

bearing the certificate, or the handler

training was completed more than

(Agency will insert 1, 3, or 5 years in the

final rule based on public comment)

before the beginning of the current

month, a handler’s possession of that

certificate does not meet the

requirements of paragraph (a) of this

section.

[FR Doc. 95–583 Filed 1–6–95; 12:17 pm]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 170

[OPP–250100; FRL–4928–7]

RIN 2070–AC82

Pesticide Worker Protection Standard;

Requirements for Crop Advisors

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to amend

the worker protection requirements for

agricultural establishments, by

exempting certified or licensed crop

advisors from the requirements. EPA is

also proposing to exempt crop advising

employees of certified or licensed crop

advisors from the WPS requirements

except pesticide safety training. A

temporary exemption for all persons

doing crop advising tasks to allow time

for acquiring licensing or certification is

also proposed.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before February 10, 1995.

ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written

comments to: Public Response and

Program Resources Branch, Field

Operations Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring

comments to: Room 1132, Crystal Mall

2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA 22202. Information

submitted in any comment concerning

this document may be claimed

confidential by marking any part or all

of that information as ‘‘Confidential

Business Information’’ (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, including non-CBI copies,

will be available for public inspection in

Rm. 1132 at the Virginia address given

above, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, excluding legal

holidays.

Comments and data may also be

submitted electronically by any of three

different mechanisms: by sending

electronic mail (e-mail) to: DocketOPPTS@epamail.epa.gov; by sending a

‘‘Subscribe’’ message to

listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov and

once subscribed, send your comments to

RIN–2070–AC69; or through the EPA

Electronic Bulletin Board by dialing

202–488–3671, enter selection

‘‘DMAIL,’’ user name ‘‘BB—USER’’ or

919–541–4642, enter selection ‘‘MAIL,’’

user name ‘‘BB—USER.’’ Electronic

comments must be submitted as an

ASCII file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Comments and data will also be

accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1

file format or ASCII file format. All

comments and data in electronic form

must be identified by the docket number

OPP–250100 since all five documents in

this separate part provide the same

electronic address. No CBI should be

submitted through e-mail. Electronic

comments on this proposed rule, but not

the record, may be viewed or new

comments filed online at many Federal

Depository Libraries. Additional

information on electronic submissions

can be found in unit VI. of this

document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald E. Eckerman Office of Pesticide

Programs (7506C) Environmental

Protection Agency 401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460 Office location

and telephone number: Room 1101,

Crystal Mall 2 1921 Jefferson Davis

Highway Arlington, VA 22202

Telephone: 703–305–7371.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is

proposing this rule in response to

comments received from crop advisor

groups requesting exemptions from the

Worker Protection Standard (WPS).

Specifically, EPA is proposing to amend

40 CFR Part 170, governing worker

protection requirements on agricultural

establishments, to exempt certified or

licensed crop advisors from the

requirements of the rule. EPA is also

proposing to exempt crop advising

employees of certified or licensed crop

advisors from the WPS requirements

except pesticide safety training. A

temporary exemption for all persons

doing crop advising tasks to allow time

for acquiring licensing or certification is

also proposed.

I. Statutory Authority

This proposed rule is issued under

the authority of section 25(a) of the

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C.

136w(a).

II. Background

This proposed WPS rule amendment

is one of a series of Agency actions in

response to concerns raised since

publication of the final rule in August

1992 by those interested in and affected

by the rule. In addition to this proposed

amendment, EPA is publishing four

other notices soliciting public comment

on concerns raised by various affected

parties. Other actions EPA is

considering include: (1) modification to

the worker training requirements; (2)

exceptions to early entry restrictions for

irrigation activities; (3) reduced

restricted entry intervals (REIs) for low

risk pesticides; and (4) reduced early

entry restrictions for activities involving

limited contact with treated surfaces.

The Agency is interested in receiving

comments on all options and questions

presented.

FIFRA authorizes EPA to regulate the

sale, distribution, and use of pesticides

in the United States. The Act generally

requires that EPA license by registration

each pesticide product sold or

distributed in the United States, if use

of that the pesticide product will not

cause ‘‘unreasonable adverse effects on

the environment,’’ a determination that

takes into account the economic, social,

and environmental costs and benefits of

the use of the product.

In 1992 EPA revised the WPS (40 CFR

Part 170) (57 FR 38102, August 21,

1992) which is intended to protect

agricultural workers and handlers from

risks associated with agricultural

pesticides. The 1992 WPS superseded

the original WPS promulgated in 1974

and expanded the WPS scope to include

not only workers performing hand labor

operations in fields treated with
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules 2827

pesticides, but also workers in or on

farms, forests, nurseries, and

greenhouses, as well as pesticide

handlers who mix, load, apply, or

otherwise handle pesticides for use at

these locations in the production of

agricultural commodities. The revisions

to the WPS were intended to reduce the

risk of pesticide poisonings and injuries

among agricultural workers who are

exposed to pesticide residues and

pesticide handlers who may face more

hazardous levels of exposure.

Under the 1992 WPS, crop advisors

are defined by the tasks performed,

specifically, as persons who assess 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,

silviculturalists, scouts and crop

advisors commonly perform crop

advising tasks on farms, nurseries,

greenhouses and forests. As such, these

individuals when performing crop

advisor tasks are included under the

definition of crop advisor in the WPS.

Persons performing crop advisor tasks

during the pesticide application, before

the inhalation exposure level listed in

the labeling has been reached or one of

the ventilation criteria has been met, or

during a restricted entry interval (REI),

are included in the WPS’s definition of

handlers. As handlers, crop advisors

may enter treated areas during the REI

without time limitations, if provided

with the personal protective equipment

(PPE) required on the product labeling

and other protections as handlers.

Employees of agricultural

establishments who are performing

crop-advising tasks in a treated area

within 30 days of the expiration of an

REI are provided the same protections

as workers under Part 170. Employees of

commercial pesticide handling

establishments who are performing crop

advisor tasks in a treated area after the

expiration of an REI are excluded from

the definition of ‘‘worker’’ under Part

170 and, therefore, their presence in the

treated area does not trigger any WPS

requirements.

During the 1992 rulemaking, USDA

expressed concerns about limiting the

access of crop consultants and

integrated pest management (IPM)

scouts to treated areas immediately

following pesticide applications. In

response to this concern, EPA included

crop advisors in the definition of

handlers rather than workers so as to

allow crop advisors unlimited access to

treated areas during application and the

REIs.

Since promulgation of the WPS, EPA

has received a number of comments on

the requirements for crop advisors. Crop

advisor groups and the National

Association of State Departments of

Agriculture (NASDA) have commented

that crop advisors are capable, by virtue

of their knowledge, training and

experience, of determining the

appropriate precautions to be followed

when working in pesticide treated areas,

and therefore should be excluded from

the WPS. The National Alliance of

Independent Crop Consultants (NAICC)

commented that crop consultants, and

their field survey and scouting

employees, should be exempted from

many of the provisions of the WPS.

In April 1994, Congress passed the

Pesticide Compliance Dates Extension

Act which, among other things,

exempted crop advisors from the

requirements of the WPS until January

1, 1995. This delay was to allow time for

EPA to resolve concerns that had been

raised relative to the WPS, including the

crop advisor requirements. Since the

delay legislation, EPA has received

additional comments, which are

discussed under the appropriate

sections in this preamble.

III. Exemption of a Qualified Subset of

Crop Advisors from WPS Requirements

EPA is proposing to exempt a

qualified subset of crop advisors, those

who are certified or licensed, and their

crop advisor employees from all

requirements of the WPS except for

pesticide safety training. Crop advisors

who are certified or licensed could

substitute the training received during

licensing or certification, if equivalent

to the WPS training.

EPA is also proposing 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 their direct employees will

be exempt. All others performing crop

advising tasks will be subject to the full

WPS requirements. Based on the

comments received since the 1992

rulemaking, EPA reconsidered the

requirements applicable to crop

advisors and has determined that there

may be a subset of crop advisors, those

who are licensed or certified and trained

in pesticide safety, that could be

exempted from providing the

protections of the WPS for themselves

and their employees.

In general, the purpose of the WPS is

to protect agricultural employees from

the risks of exposure to pesticides.

Trained crop advisors who are licensed

or certified are generally more informed

about the hazards associated with

pesticides and good pesticide safety

practices and should be capable of

making informed judgement about risks

and what protections should be

provided for individuals performing

crop advising tasks.

EPA discussed the WPS with the

Agronomy Society of America in order

to obtain more information that would

help EPA define the subset of crop

advisors that could potentially be

exempted. The Agronomy Society of

America informed EPA that it has a

Certified Crop Advisor program

administered in each participating State

by a board made up of representatives

of various State agencies, universities,

commodity associations, and other atlarge members. In order to be certified

as a crop advisor under this program,

the individual must pass an

examination on specified subject areas,

have a combination of education and

experience as a crop advisor, and to

maintain certification, complete

continuing education credits. The

subject areas in the examination include

pesticide safety, WPS requirements, and

various subjects related to agricultural

plant production.

In addition, a variety of licensing and

certification programs for crop advisors

are administered by States across the

country. For example, California

licenses crop advisors and requires that

licensees meet certain minimum

qualifications including a minimum

number of college level semester units

in areas related to agriculture, and two

years of technical experience.

The National Alliance of Independent

Crop Consultants (NAICC) commented

that most of their members have degrees

in agriculture and train their employees

in pesticide safety. NAICC further

suggested that nationally recognized

registries of crop consultants, or State

level licenses or certifications, could be

used to define the crop advisors who

would be exempt from WPS. Those

individuals not meeting the

requirements of a licensing or

certification program could continue to

work as crop advisors under the same

protections as currently required in the

WPS. NASDA recommended in a July

1994 petition for rulemaking that the

WPS ‘‘exclude paid crop advisors that

work on a full-time basis for a group of

agricultural employers but only parttime for any single farmer.’’ NASDA did

not provide its rationale for excluding

this category of crop advisors from the

WPS. NASDA also recommended that

the WPS exclude persons such as

government agency employees,

pesticide company representatives, and
2828 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules

university researchers who perform crop

advisor tasks.

EPA is proposing, in §170.202(c)(2),

§170.130(b)(2) and §170.230(b)(2) to

exempt from the WPS protections, crop

advisors who are licensed or certified by

a program administered or approved by

a State, Tribal, or Federal agency having

jurisdiction over such licensing or

certification, provided that the licensing

or certification requires pesticide safety

training that includes all the

information set forth in §170.230(c)(4).

EPA is also proposing in §170.202(c)(2)

to exempt employees of licensed or

certified crop advisors from the WPS

protections except the pesticide safety

training requirements.

Under EPA’s proposal, certified or

licensed crop advisors, (including

government agency personnel, pesticide

company representatives, or university

researchers) would be exempt from the

WPS requirements. Currently under the

WPS, if employers of government

agency personnel, pesticide company

representatives, or university

researchers do not have a contractual

relationship or exchange compensation

of any type with an agricultural

establishment or commercial pesticide

handling establishment for crop

advising activities, then neither the

agricultural employer nor the

commercial pesticide handling

establishment is required to provide the

WPS protections to the government

agency personnel, pesticide company

representatives, or university

researchers.

Also under EPA’s proposal, those

crop advisors who do not become

certified or licensed will remain subject

to the full requirements of the WPS if

they are not employed by a licensed or

certified crop advisor. After January 1,

1996 only crop advisors who are

certified or licensed and their direct

employees will be exempt. All others

performing crop advising tasks will be

subject to the full WPS requirements.

EPA solicits comments on other

possible ways for crop advisors to

obtain training and experience

equivalent to being certified or licensed

by a program administered or approved

by a State, Tribal, or Federal agency.

Commenters suggesting other types of

programs should include information on

the requirements for such programs and

how completion of the program could

be verified for enforcement purposes.

While EPA is willing to propose

exempting the employees of certified or

licensed crop advisors from WPS

requirements, it remains concerned that

employees may not have necessary

protections readily available. EPA is

interested in receiving comments on

industry practices that would assure

that proper protections are available to

employees. These include but are not

limited to routine use of PPE and/or

provision of PPE and decontamination

supplies to employees.

IV. Temporary Exemption for Crop

Advisor Activities

EPA is proposing in §170.202(c)(2) to

exempt all individuals performing crop

advisor activities until January 1, 1996.

This will effectively extend the

exemption for crop advisors in the delay

legislation referenced earlier in this

document and will allow those crop

advisors who are not now licensed or

certified to obtain such credentials prior

to the end of the temporary exemption.

EPA would like comment on the

proposed temporary exemption

expiration date and its feasibility in

terms of sufficient time for crop advisors

to complete licensing or certification

requirements. Also, is a total temporary

exemption necessary? Should a subset

of crop advisors be exempt? Or should

the exemption apply to only a few of the

WPS requirements?

V. Technical Amendments

EPA is revising §170.202 (c) which

exempts owners of agricultural

establishments from Subpart C

requirements for handlers, by

reorganizing the paragraph into two

parts: one for owners of agricultural

establishments and one for crop

advisors. The existing exemption for

agricultural owners is being

redesignated as paragraph (1) and it has

been reformatted. No substantive change

has been made to the exemption for

agricultural establishment owners.

VI. Public Docket and Electronic

Comments

A record has been established for this

rulemaking under docket number

‘‘OPP–250100’’ (including comments

and data submitted electronically as

described below). A public version of

this record, including printed, paper

versions of electronic comments, which

does not include any information

claimed as confidential business

information (CBI), is available for

inspection from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays. The public record is located in

Room 1132 of the Public Response and

Program Resources Branch, Field

Operations Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, CM #2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.

Written comments should be mailed to:

Public Response and Program Resources

Branch, Field Operations Division

(7506C) Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

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

As part of an interagency

‘‘streamlining’’ initiative, EPA is

experimenting with submission of

public comments on selected Federal

Register actions electronically through

the Internet in addition to accepting

comments in traditional written form.

This proposed rule amendment is one of

the actions selected by EPA for this

experiment. From the experiment, EPA

will learn how electronic commenting

works, and any problems that arise can

be addressed before EPA adopts

electronic commenting more broadly in

its rulemaking activities. Electronic

commenting through posting to the EPA

Bulletin Board or through the Internet

using the ListServe function raises some

novel issues that are discussed below in

this Unit.

To submit electronic comments,

persons can either ‘‘subscribe’’ to the

Internet ListServe application or ‘‘post’’

comments to the EPA Bulletin Board. To

‘‘Subscribe’’ to the Internet ListServe

application for this proposed exception,

send an e-mail message to:

listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov that

says ‘‘Subscribe RIN–2070–AC69 <first

name> <last name>.’’ Once you are

subscribed to the ListServe, comments

should be sent to: RIN–2070–

AC69@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov. All

comments and data in electronic form

should be identified by the docket

number OPP–250100 since all five

documents in this separate part provide

the same electronic address.

For online viewing of submissions

and posting of comments, the public

access EPA Bulletin Board is also

available by dialing 202–488–3671,

enter selection ‘‘DMAIL,’’ user name

‘‘BB—USER’’ or 919–541–4642, enter

selection ‘‘MAIL,’’ user name ‘‘BB—

USER.’’ When dialing the EPA Bulletin

Board type <Return> at the opening

message. When the ‘‘Notes’’ prompt

appears, type ‘‘open RIN– 2070–AC69’’

to access the posted messages for this

document. To get a listing of all files,

type ‘‘dir/all’’ at the prompt line.

Electronic comments can also be sent

directly to EPA at:

Docket-OPPTS@epamail.epa.gov.

Electronic comments must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption. To obtain further

information on the electronic comment

process, or on submitting comments on

this proposed exception electronically

through the EPA Bulletin Board or the

Internet ListServe, please contact John

A. Richards (Telephone: 202–260–2253;
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules 2829

FAX: 202–260–3884; Internet:

richards.john@epamail.epa.gov).

Persons who comment on this

proposed rule, and those who view

comments electronically, should be

aware that this experimental electronic

commenting is administered on a

completely public system. Therefore,

any personal information included in

comments and the electronic mail

addresses of those who make comments

electronically are automatically

available to anyone else who views the

comments. Similarly, since all

electronic comments are available to all

users, commenters should not submit

electronically any information which

they believe to be CBI. Such information

should be submitted only directly to

EPA in writing as described earlier in

this Unit.

Commenters and others outside EPA

may choose to comment on the

comments submitted by others using the

RIN–2070–AC69 ListServe or the EPA

Bulletin Board. If they do so, those

comments as well will become part of

EPA’s record for this rulemaking.

Persons outside EPA wishing to discuss

comments with commenters or

otherwise communicate with

commenters but not have those

discussions or communications sent to

EPA and included in the EPA

rulemaking record should conduct those

discussions and communications

outside the RIN–2070–AC69 ListServe

or the EPA Bulletin Board.

The official record for this

rulemaking, as well as the public

version, as described above will be kept

in paper form. Accordingly, EPA will

transfer all comments received

electronically in the RIN–2070–AC69

ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board, in

accordance with the instructions for

electronic submission, into printed,

paper form as they are received and will

place the paper copies in the official

rulemaking record which will also

include all comments submitted directly

in writing. All the electronic comments

will be available to everyone who

obtains access to the RIN–2070–AC69

ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board;

however, the official rulemaking record

is the paper record maintained at the

address in ‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at the

beginning of this document. (Comments

submitted only in written form will not

be transferred into electronic form and

thus may be accessed only by reviewing

them in the Public Response and

Program Resources Branch as described

above.)

Because the electronic comment

process is still experimental, EPA

cannot guarantee that all electronic

comments will be accurately converted

to printed, paper form. If EPA becomes

aware, in transferring an electronic

comment to printed, paper form, of a

problem or error that results in an

obviously garbled comment, EPA will

attempt to contact the comment

submitter and advise the submitter to

resubmit the comment either in

electronic or written form. Some

commenters may choose to submit

identical comments in both electronic

and written form to ensure accuracy. In

that case, EPA requests that commenters

clearly note in both the electronic and

written submissions that the comments

are duplicated in the other medium.

This will assist EPA in processing and

filing the comments in the rulemaking

record.

As with ordinary written comments,

at the time of receipt, EPA will not

attempt to verify the identities of

electronic commenters nor to review the

accuracy of electronic comments.

Electronic and written comments will

be placed in the rulemaking record

without any editing or change by EPA

except to the extent changes occur in

the process of converting electronic

comments to printed, paper form.

If it chooses to respond officially to

electronic comments on this proposed

rule, EPA will do so either in a notice

in the Federal Register or in a response

to comments document placed in the

rulemaking record for this proposed

rule. EPA will not respond to

commenters electronically other than to

seek clarification of electronic

comments that may be garbled in

transmission or conversion to printed,

paper form as discussed above. Any

communications from EPA employees

to electronic commenters, other than

those described in this paragraph, either

through Internet or otherwise are not

official responses from EPA.

VII. Statutory Requirements

As required by FIFRA sec. 25(a), this

proposed rule was provided to the U.S.

Department of Agriculture and to

Congress for review. The FIFRA

Scientific Advisory Panel waived its

review.

VIII. Consultations

EPA has had informal consultations

with some States through the EPA

regional offices and at regularly

scheduled meetings of SFIREG where

State representatives were present. No

significant issues were identified as a

result of EPA’s discussion with the

States. Additionally, as a result of

consultation with USDA, EPA has

revised its proposal to include the

employees of crop advisors in the

proposed exemption and has proposed

the temporary exemption to allow time

for crop advisors to become certified or

licensed. EPA has also revised this

document to clarify the proposal and to

more directly request specific comment

on the options.

IX. 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 raised potentially novel legal or policy

issues arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order. In

addition, the Agency estimates that the

total potential cost savings associated

with the proposed amendment would

range from $1.7 million to $3.5 million

over a ten year period, with a single

crop advisor potentially saving as much

as $1200 over a ten year period. This

action was submitted to OMB for

review, and any comments or changes

made have been documented in the

public record.

B. 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 proposed rule would not have

an adverse impact on any small entities.

The proposed 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 by the proposed amendments. I

therefore certify that this proposal does

not require a separate Regulatory Impact

Analysis under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

C. 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 proposal.

List of Subjects In Part 170

Administrative practice and

procedure, Occupational safety and

health, Pesticides and pests.

Dated: January 3, 1995.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR

part 170 be amended as follows:
2830 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules

PART 170—WORKER PROTECTION

STANDARD

1. The authority citation for Part 170

would continue to read as follows:

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

2. In Section 170.130 by 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 person who is licensed or

certified as a crop advisor by a program

administered or approved by a State,

Tribal or Federal agency having

jurisdiction over such licensing or

certification, provided that a

requirement for such licensing or

certification is pesticide safety training

that includes all the information set out

in §170.230(c)(4)

* * * * *

3. In Section 170.202 by revising

paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§170.202 Applicability of this subpart.

* * * * *

(c) Exemptions. The handlers listed in

this paragraph are exempt from the

specified provisions of this subpart.

(1) Owners of agricultural

establishments. (i) 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:

(A) Section 170.210(b) and (c).

(B) Section 170.222.

(C) Section 170.230

(D) Section 170.232.

(E) Section 170.234.

(F) Section 170.235.

(G) Section 170 240(e) through (g).

(H) Section 170.250.

(I) Section 170.260.

(ii) The owner of the agricultural

establishment must provide the

protections required by paragraph

(c)(1)(i) of this section to other handlers

and other persons who are not members

of his immediate family.

(2) Licensed or certified crop advisors

and their employees. (i) A person who

is licensed or certified as a crop advisor

by a program administered or approved

by a State, Tribal or Federal agency

having jurisdiction for such licensing or

certification, provided that a

requirement for such licensing or

certification is pesticide safety training

that includes all the information set out

in §170.230(c)(4), is not required to

provide to himself or his crop advisor

employees the protections of:

(A) Section 170.210(b) and (c).

(B) Section 170.232.

(C) Section 170.240.

(D) Section 170.250.

(E) Section 170.260.

(ii) Any individual when performing

tasks as a crop advisor is exempt until

January 1, 1996 from the requirements

of:

(A) Section 170.210(b) and (c).

(B) Section 170.230.

(C) Section 170.232.

(D) Section 170.240.

(E) Section 170.250.

(F) Section 170.260.

5. In §170.230 by revising 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 person who is licensed or

certified as a crop advisor by a program

administered or approved by a State,

Tribal or Federal agency having

jurisdiction over such licensing or

certification, provided that a

requirement for such licensing or

certification is pesticide safety training

that includes all the information set out

in paragraph (c)(4) of this section.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–584 Filed 1–6–95; 12:16 pm]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

40 CFR Part 170

[OPP–250098; FRL–4917–7]

Exceptions to Worker Protection

Standard Early Entry Restrictions;

Irrigation Activities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed exceptions to rule;

request for comment.

SUMMARY: EPA is considering exceptions

to the Worker Protection Standard for

Agricultural Pesticides (WPS),

published at 57 FR 38102 (August 21,

1992), that would allow, under specified

conditions, workers to perform early

entry irrigation tasks for more than 1

hour per day during a restricted entry

interval (REI). Early entry is entry to a

pesticide-treated area before expiration

of the REI.

DATES: Comments, data, or evidence

should be submitted on or before

February 27, 1995. EPA does not intend

to extend this comment period.

ADDRESSES: Comments identified by the

document control OPP–250098 should

be submitted in triplicate by mail to:

Public Response and Program Resources

Branch, Field Operations Division

(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environment Protection Agency, 401 M

St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. All

written comments filed pursuant to this

notice will be available for public

inspection in Room 1132, Crystal Mall

#2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA, (703) 305–5805, from

8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday thru

Friday except legal holidays.

Comments and data may also be

submitted electronically by any of three

different mechanisms: by sending

electronic mail (e-mail) to: DocketOPPTS@epamail.epa.gov; by sending a

‘‘Subscribe’’ message to

listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov and

once subscribed, send your comments to

RIN–2070–AC69; or through the EPA

Electronic Bulletin Board by dialing

202–488–3671, enter selection

‘‘DMAIL,’’ user name ‘‘BB—USER’’ or

919–541–4642, enter selection ‘‘MAIL,’’

user name ‘‘BB—USER.’’ Electronic

comments must be submitted as an

ASCII file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Comments and data will also be

accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1

file format or ASCII file format. All

comments and data in electronic form

must be identified by the docket number

OPP–250098 since all five documents in

this separate part provide the same

electronic address. No CBI should be

submitted through e-mail. Electronic

comments on this proposed rule, but not

the record, may be viewed or new

comments filed online at many Federal

Depository Libraries. Additional

information on electronic submissions

can be found in unit VI. of this

document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeanne Heying, Certification, Training

and Occupational Safety Branch

(7506C), Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,

DC 20460, (703) 305–7666, or your

regional or State official as noted in the

List of Worker Protection Contact below.