[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2826-2830]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-584]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
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: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b2f6ddd1d9d7c69ffde2e2e6e1f2d7c2d3dfd3dbde9cd7c2d39cd5ddc4">[email protected]</a>; by sending a ``Subscribe'' message to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ddb1b4aea9aeb8afabb8af9da8b3b4a5b0bcb4b1f3afa9adb3bef3b8adbcf3bab2ab"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1874716b6c6b7d6a6e7d6a586d76716075797174366a6c68767b367d6879367f776e">[email protected]</span></a> 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

[[Page 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 at-large 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 part-time 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

[[Page 2828]]

university researchers who perform crop advisor tasks.
    EPA is proposing, in Sec. 170.202(c)(2), Sec. 170.130(b)(2) and 
Sec. 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 Sec. 170.230(c)(4). EPA is also proposing in 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#87ebeef4f3f4e2f5f1e2f5c7f2e9eeffeae6eeeba9f5f3f7e9e4a9e2f7e6a9e0e8f1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d0bcb9a3a4a3b5a2a6b5a290a5beb9a8bdb1b9bcfea2a4a0beb3feb5a0b1feb7bfa6">[email protected]</span></a> that says ``Subscribe RIN-2070-AC69 
<first name> <last name>.'' Once you are subscribed to the ListServe, 
comments should be sent to: RIN-2070-AC<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9ea8a7deebf0f7e6f3fff7f2b0eceaeef0fdb0fbeeffb0f9f1e8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2b1d126b5e454253464a424705595f5b4548054e5b4a054c445d">[email protected]</span></a>. 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:
    <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3d79525e56584910726d6d696e7d584d5c505c545113584d5c135a524b13">[email protected]</a>


    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;

[[Page 2829]]

FAX: 202-260-3884; Internet: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#27554e444f46554354094d484f49674257464a464e4b0942574609404851"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fe8c979d969f8c9a8dd094919690be9b8e9f939f9792d09b8e9fd0999188">[email protected]</span></a>).
    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:

[[Page 2830]]

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:


Sec. 170.130   Pesticide safety training for workers.

*      *      *      *      *
    (b) Exceptions. The following persons need not be trained under 
this section:
    (1) A worker who is currently certified as an applicator of 
restricted-use pesticides under part 171 of this chapter.
    (2) A worker who satisfies the training requirements of part 171 of 
this chapter.
    (3) A worker who satisfies the handler training requirements of 
Sec. 170.230(c).
    (4) A 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 
Sec. 170.230(c)(4)
*      *      *      *      *
    3. In Section 170.202 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 170.230 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec. 170.230  Pesticide safety training for handlers.

*      *      *      *      *
    (b) Exceptions. The following persons need not be trained under 
this section:
    (1) A handler who is currently certified as an applicator of 
restricted-use pesticides under part 171 of this chapter.
    (2) A handler who satisfies the training requirements of part 171 
of this chapter.
    (3) A 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


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