[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 3, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21948-21953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10872]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 170
[OPP-250100A; FRL-4928-7]
RIN 2070-AC82
Pesticide Worker Protection Standard; Requirements for Crop
Advisors
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is amending the 1992 Worker Protection Standard (WPS), by
exempting qualified crop advisors from some requirements. EPA is also
exempting persons from certain of the WPS requirements while performing
crop advising tasks under the direct supervision of a certified or
licensed crop advisor. This rule also establishes a grace period for
all persons doing crop advising tasks to allow time to acquire
certification or licensing.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become effective July 17, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald E. Eckerman, Office of
Pesticide Programs (7506C), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St.,
SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location, telephone number and e-mail
address: Rm. 1121, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway.,
Arlington, VA 22202. Telephone: 703-305-5062,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Federal Register document discusses the
background and events leading to this final rule amending the WPS;
summarizes the public's comments on the provisions of the proposed
amendments (60 FR 2827, Jan. 11, 1995); provides EPA's response to
comments and final determination with respect to amendment of the crop
advisor provisions of the WPS; and provides information on the
applicable statutory and regulatory review requirements.
I. Statutory Authority
This rule is issued under the authority of section 25(a) of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C.
136w(a).
II. Background
In 1992, EPA revised the WPS (40 CFR part 170) (57 FR 38102, August
21, 1992), which is intended to reduce the risk of pesticide poisonings
and injuries among agricultural workers who are exposed to pesticide
residues and to reduce the risk of pesticide poisonings and injuries
among pesticide handlers who may face more hazardous levels of
exposure. The 1992 WPS superseded a rule promulgated in 1974 and
expanded the WPS scope to not only include workers performing hand
labor operations in fields treated with pesticides, but also to include
workers in or on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses, as well as
pesticide handlers who mix, load, apply, or otherwise handle
pesticides. The WPS contains requirements for pesticide safety
training, notification of pesticide applications, use of personal
protective equipment, restricted entry intervals following pesticide
application, decontamination supplies and emergency medical assistance.
Under the 1992 WPS, crop advisors are defined by the tasks
performed. Specifically, a person is a ``crop advisor'' when assessing
pest numbers or damage, pesticide distribution, or the status or
requirements of agricultural plants. The term does not include any
person who is performing hand labor tasks. Crop consultants, pest
control advisors, foresters, scouts and crop advisors while performing
crop advising tasks on farms, nurseries, greenhouses and forests are
included under the definition of crop advisor in the WPS.
During the 1992 rulemaking, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) expressed concerns about limiting the access of crop consultants
and integrated pest management scouts to treated areas during and
immediately following pesticide applications. In response to this
concern, EPA included crop advisors in the definition of handlers.
Thus, persons performing crop advisor tasks during pesticide
application, and any restricted entry interval (REI), could enter
treated areas as handlers. Employees of agricultural establishments
performing crop-advising tasks in a treated area within 30 days of the
expiration of an REI are considered to be workers under 40 CFR part
170. Finally, employees of commercial pesticide handling establishments
performing crop advisor tasks in a treated area after the expiration of
an REI are not included in the scope of 40 CFR part 170.
Since the issuance of the 1992 WPS, farmworker groups have
expressed an interest in enhancing specific protection measures, while
grower groups, the National Association of State Departments of
Agriculture and others have expressed an interest in addressing
practical, operational concerns. The Agency received various requests
and comments in the form of letters, petitions, and conversations at
individual and public meetings to address concerns with the WPS, some
specifically suggesting an exemption for crop advisors.
In response, EPA proposed five actions to revise elements of the
WPS. These actions were published on January 11, 1995 (60 FR 2820), and
proposed to: (1) Exempt those who perform crop advising tasks from
certain requirements; (2) shorten the time periods before which
employers must train workers and retrain workers and handlers in
pesticide safety; (3) allow early entry to pesticide-treated areas to
perform certain time-sensitive irrigation activities; (4) allow early
entry to pesticide-treated areas to perform certain time-sensitive
activities resulting in ``limited contact'' with pesticide-treated
surfaces; and (5) allow workers to enter areas treated with certain
lower risk pesticides after 4 hours rather than 12 hours.
This action addresses the proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to exempt
those who perform crop advising tasks from certain requirements. The
rule amendment established by this action will exempt certified or
licensed crop advisors and persons under their direct supervision while
performing crop advising tasks from certain handler requirements during
the REI and certain worker requirements during the 30-day period after
the expiration of the REI. However, crop advisors and persons under
their direct supervision will not be able, under this exception, to
enter the treated area until after pesticide application ends. If a
person is a certified or licensed crop advisor, they will be exempt
from the pesticide safety training required for workers and handlers.
Final determinations on the other four actions mentioned above are
being [[Page 21949]] published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register.
III. Summary of the Final Rule Amendment
EPA is amending the WPS to exempt qualified crop advisors from some
requirements. EPA is also exempting persons performing crop advising
tasks from some of the WPS requirements, only if the tasks are
performed under the direct supervision of a certified or licensed crop
advisor. This rule also establishes a grace period for all persons
while doing crop advising tasks in order to allow time to acquire
certification or licensing.
EPA is including in new Secs. 170.104 and 170.204 exemptions for
knowledgeable and experienced crop advisors from the requirement of
using personal protection equipment (PPE) (Sec. 170.240), knowledge of
labeling and site specific information (Sec. 170.232), decontamination
(Secs. 170.150 and 170.250), and emergency assistance (Secs. 170.160
and 170.260) requirements of the WPS. The crop advisor exemption
applies only to individuals performing crop advising tasks in the
treated area and only after application ends. Certified or licensed
crop advisors may substitute pesticide safety training received during
the certification or licensing program if such training is at least
equivalent to the WPS training required by Sec. 170.230.
A temporary grace period for all individuals while performing crop
advisor tasks is established until May 1, 1996 to allow time for
acquiring certification or licensing.
IV. EPA's Amendment Decision
Based on information submitted in comments and EPA's knowledge and
understanding of crop advisor activities, EPA has concluded that an
amendment exempting qualified crop advisors and persons they directly
supervise is appropriate. Further, based on comments received, EPA
believes that crop advisors, through their training and expertise, can
assess which risk reduction measures are most appropriate depending on
the situation. Finally, EPA believes that crop advisors can
successfully communicate these judgments to persons they directly
supervise, thereby assuring that both advisors and persons they
directly supervise carry out their responsibilities safely.
Crop advisor tasks typically do not require extended periods of
time in recently treated fields, thus lessening potential risk of
exposure to pesticide residues through direct or incidental contact.
Crop advisors commented that in practice, it is typically necessary to
wait a period of time after application to properly assess the
effectiveness of the recommended treatment. EPA recognizes, however,
that some situations may result in substantial exposure to pesticide
residues, such as entering greenhouses shortly after fumigation, or
entering treated areas during the first 4 hours after an application or
before the ventilation criteria/inhalation exposure levels have been
met. However, crop advisors, because of their knowledge, training and
experience gained in the field, are in a unique position to understand
pesticide-related hazards and protect themselves and persons they
directly supervise from potential exposure. EPA expects that they would
take appropriate protective steps, such as using appropriate PPE, or
delaying entering into the treated area, especially where fumigants and
double notification pesticides have been used.
The provisions set forth in the exemption provide protective
measures for crop advisors and persons they directly supervise. The
exemption does not allow entry into the treated area before the
application ends and applies only to persons performing crop advisor
tasks in the treated area. The crop advisor must make specific
determinations regarding the appropriate PPE, appropriate
decontamination supplies, and how to safely conduct the crop advisor
tasks. The crop advisor must convey this information to each person
under their direct supervision in a language that the person
understands. Before entering a treated area, the crop advisor must
inform, through an established practice of communication, each person
under their direct supervision of the pesticide product and active
ingredient(s) applied, method and time of application, and the
restricted entry interval. The crop advisor must instruct each person
whom they directly supervise regarding which tasks to undertake and how
to contact the crop advisor. EPA believes that these terms will
significantly limit exposure to pesticide residues, and consequently,
the risk.
This exemption has substantial benefits for crop advisors by
allowing them flexibility to make informed judgements regarding the
need for protection on a case-by-case basis. The exemption also
encourages the use of crop advisors, whose activities support
agricultural productivity by maximizing the use of integrated pest
management practices while minimizing chemical inputs, creating both
environmental and economic benefits.
In summary, in deciding to grant this exemption to crop advisors
and persons they supervise, EPA has weighed the risk of possible
increased pesticide exposure and the benefits of crop advisor
activities during the REI and the 30-day period following the
expiration of the REI, and finds ample justification for this exemption
for the reasons summarized in this preamble and discussed in detail in
the response to comments.
V. Summary of Response to Comments
EPA received 169 comments referring to the crop advisor proposal.
Comments were received from States, commodity groups, farmworker
groups, and individuals.
In the January 11, 1995 document, EPA proposed to exempt certified
or licensed crop advisors and their employees from several provisions
of the pesticide WPS while performing crop advisor tasks. A temporary
exemption until January 1, 1996 was proposed for all persons performing
crop advisor tasks to allow time for crop advisors to obtain
certification or licensing.
A. General
EPA proposed to exempt a qualified subset of crop advisors, those
who are certified or licensed, from all requirements of the WPS.
Acceptable certification or licensing would have to include training at
least equivalent to the WPS handler training.
While many comments supported the proposal as written, a number of
comments expressed concerns. Farmworker groups and some State
Departments of Agriculture stated that crop advisors are not different
enough from other workers or handlers and that different WPS
requirements for them would not be justified. Representatives of and
individual crop advisors stated that they can determine what PPE is
needed according to the activities they plan to conduct while in a
treated area and that they carry decontamination supplies, including
water, with them.
EPA believes that, because of their training and experience, crop
advisors typically have considerably greater knowledge about the
potential health effects of pesticides and ways to mitigate exposure
than many other agricultural workers. Consequently, they are, as a
class, capable of judging what actions may safely be conducted within a
pesticide-treated area subject to WPS requirements. EPA is persuaded
that the exposure for crop advisor tasks is minimal and crop advisor
tasks contribute to the maintenance and expansion of integrated pest
[[Page 21950]] management practices in agriculture. EPA has concluded
that it is appropriate to allow crop advisors to use their judgment and
knowledge to determine whether a treated area may be safely entered
during an REI and is granting an exemption from some of the WPS
provisions to appropriate persons while they are performing crop-
advising tasks.
Some comments requested clarification on the applicability of the
exemption to crop advisors in a range of situations, for example, crop
advisors employed by a single agricultural establishment, researchers,
chemical company representatives, or agricultural extension personnel,
etc. The exemption established by this action applies to crop advisors,
who have demonstrated training and experience by completion of a crop
advisor program, regardless of the source of compensation or
employment. The WPS is not applicable to a person or establishment
providing services (including crop advising services) on an
agricultural establishment without compensation from the agricultural
establishment for those services. For example, the WPS would not apply
to extension agents, university researchers and chemical company
representatives providing recommendations to growers where the
agricultural establishment is not providing compensation for those
recommendations.
B. Scope of the Exemption
EPA has been persuaded by comments that a complete exemption from
all the WPS provisions at all times would not be reasonable. The
potential for exposure, and thus risk, is at its highest during
pesticide application. Consequently, the exemption will not apply
during pesticide application. During the REI and the 30 days following
the REI, qualified persons performing crop advising tasks would not be
required to comply with PPE (Sec. 170.240), knowledge of labeling and
site specific information (Sec. 170.232), decontamination
(Secs. 170.150 and 170.250), and emergency assistance (Secs. 170.160
and 170.260) requirements of the rule.
The comments received also persuaded EPA that the exemption should
be applicable only when performing crop advising tasks as defined in
the rule. Accordingly, section Secs. 170.104 and 170.204 make it
explicit that the exemption is available only when crop advising tasks
are being performed in the treated area, and only after application
ends.
Some comments expressed concern that the crop advisor would not
know what applications had been made on the agricultural establishment
if this exemption were established. It should be noted that
Sec. 170.124 requires that agricultural employers notify commercial
pesticide handling establishments whenever handlers (including crop
advisors) employed by commercial pesticide handling establishments are
performing handling tasks (including crop advising tasks) on the
agricultural establishment. EPA believes that this requirement of
agricultural establishment owners will result in adequate information
being provided to crop advisors since the exemption for crop advisors
does not eliminate the owner's responsibility under the notification
requirement.
C. Certification or Licensing
EPA proposed that, to be eligible for the exemption, crop advisors
should be required to obtain certification or licensing from a program
administered or approved by a State, Tribal or Federal agency having
jurisdiction over such licensing or certification. The certification or
licensing program would have to include pesticide safety training at
least equivalent to the handler training required by the WPS.
Many comments agreed that the proposed mechanism for eligibility
for the exemption was appropriate. Some comments suggested certified
applicator licensing as being sufficient. Still others suggested that
EPA recognize certain national programs, such as the American Society
of Agronomy (ASA) Certified Crop Advisor and the National Alliance of
Independent Crop Consultants (NAICC) Certified Professional Crop
Consultant programs. Some comments stated that crop advisor
certification or licensing is not currently available in all States.
EPA expects each State will determine its own criteria for
acceptable programs which will qualify crop advisors for the exemption.
States are given this flexibility and authority because a wide range of
certifying programs are available across the country. EPA is requiring
crop advisor certification programs to contain pesticide safety
training at least equivalent to WPS handler training. States may
consider and EPA expects and suggests, using a written test for
competency, a requirement for experience and continuing education, and
a specified renewal period. Most State certified applicator programs
would not meet these criteria because EPA does not require work
experience for pesticide applicator certification, and a written
examination is only required for the initial certification of
commercial applicators. However, some States may go beyond the minimum
EPA certified applicator requirements and require the testing and
experience so that they would meet EPA's suggested crop advisor
certification standards.
EPA agrees that a wide range of crop advisor programs may be
appropriate for the exemption and has revised and clarified the text in
Secs. 170.104, 170.130, 170.204, and 170.230 to allow a number of crop
advisor programs to be acceptable. EPA expects to approve requests from
several national crop advisor certification programs, but will permit
States to approve other programs they deem acceptable. EPA or a State
may approve (or disapprove) a certification program by issuing to it a
letter acknowledging that its content and requirements are (or are not)
sufficient to qualify for the WPS crop advisor exemption.
D. Employees
EPA also proposed exempting employees of certified or licensed crop
advisors from WPS requirements, except for WPS pesticide safety
training.
While most comments supported inclusion of employees, some raised
concerns about removing protections for employees. They expressed
concern that certified or licensed crop advisors could not adequately
transfer their knowledge and experience to employees, especially if the
employees were working independently from the crop advisor (e.g., in
remote locations). Concern also was raised that crop advising employees
are likely to be less educated and experienced than professional crop
advisors. Finally, some comments found the proposal unclear regarding
who is considered an employee and assumed that the exemption would
apply to individuals when performing other than crop advising tasks and
therefore could be abused by employers to avoid compliance with the WPS
protections.
EPA agrees that it must be clear that any crop advisor exemption
applies only to individuals when they are performing crop advising
tasks and has revised Secs. 170.104 and 170.204 accordingly.
EPA believes that, for this exemption, the employment relationship
between crop advisors and assistants is not as critical as the
supervisory relationship between them that allows the imparting of
knowledge and guidance. Therefore, EPA has decided to refer to
employees as ``persons under the direct supervision'' of a crop
advisor. Since EPA believes that the important relationship between
crop advisors and assistants is one that allows the imparting of
knowledge and guidance, [[Page 21951]] the Agency is concerned that
crop advisors must be able to transfer their knowledge and guidance
effectively to assistants, particularly if they are not in the same
location. Therefore, EPA has established in Secs. 170.104 and 170.204
specific conditions in this amendment to assure that crop advisors
provide persons they supervise with adequate direction.
E. Grace Period
EPA also proposed to exempt all individuals performing crop advisor
activities from all the WPS requirements until January 1, 1996, to
allow time for individuals to obtain certification or licensing. After
January 1, 1996, only crop advisors who are certified or licensed and
employees under their direct supervision would be exempt.
A number of comments pointed out that examinations for
certification programs are scheduled infrequently, often only twice a
year, and that the January 1, 1996, date would be difficult to meet
since one of 1995's exams may have already taken place. One comment
suggested a 3-month temporary exemption to minimize the time that all
crop advisors would be working without benefit of the WPS protections.
EPA believes that a grace period until May 1, 1996, is a reasonable
period to allow crop advisors to obtain certification or licensing.
Sections 170.104(c) and 170.204(c) provide that this grace period will
apply to all individuals while performing crop advising tasks until May
1, 1996.
VI. Reevaluation of Crop Advisor Exemption
The Agency is adopting this amendment in order to provide the
flexibility to crop advisors under the WPS. As discussed more fully
above, the Agency believes that any added risks associated with
pesticide exposure of those performing crop advisor activities will be
outweighed by the benefits of this action. The Agency intends over the
next growing seasons to collect information to evaluate the
effectiveness of this action. In particular, EPA is interested in
determining whether the conditions imposed by this action successfully
protect crop advisors and persons under their direct supervision
against pesticide poisonings. EPA is also interested in better
characterizing the circumstances in which this exclusion is being used
and in understanding whether the exclusion addresses the practical
problems of performing crop advising tasks adequately. Finally, EPA
would like to obtain information on the extent of compliance with the
conditions in the exclusion and any practical problems with
enforcement.
To obtain a better understanding of the implementation and impacts
of this exclusion, EPA will work with USDA and states to gather
relevant information. The Agency will hold public meetings in
agricultural areas to provide those directly affected by the WPS,
growers, enforcement staff, and agricultural workers, an opportunity to
comment on these actions and the WPS rule in general. As appropriate,
EPA may conduct surveys and review incident data to assess the impact
of the exemption. The Agency invites any interested person who has
concerns about the implementation of this action to send comments to
the Agency at the address listed under the ADDRESSES section of this
document.
VII. Technical Amendments
EPA is revising Secs. 170.202 and 170.102, which exempt owners of
agricultural establishments from subparts B and C requirements for
workers and handlers, by reorganizing the paragraphs into three
sections: for applicability (Secs. 170.102 and 170.202), exceptions
(Secs. 170.103 and 170.203), and exemptions (Secs. 170.104 and
170.204). The existing exemptions for agricultural owners are included
in the new Secs. 170.104 and 170.204. No substantive change has been
made to the exemptions for agricultural establishment owners.
VIII. Public Docket
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number OPP-250100A. This record is available for public inspection from
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The public record is
located in Rm. 1132, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway.,
Arlington, VA. Written requests should be mailed to: Public Response
and Program Resources Branch (7506C), Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
IX. Statutory Review
As required by FIFRA Section 25(a), this rule was provided to the
USDA, and to Congress for review. EPA consulted informally with USDA
during the development of the final rule and, through this exchange,
addressed all of the Department's comments. The final rule was provided
formally to USDA, as required by FIFRA. The Department of Agriculture
had no comment on the final rule. The FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel
waived its review.
X. Regulatory Assessment Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
it has been determined that this is a ``significant regulatory action''
because it raises potentially novel legal or policy issues. This action
was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
under the Executive Order. Any comments or changes made during OMB
review, have been documented in the public record.
In addition, the Agency estimates that the total potential cost
savings associated with the amendment ranges from $20 to $23 million
over a 10-year period, with a single crop advisor saving approximately
$1,150 over a 10-year period.
B. Executive Order 12898
Executive Order 12898 (environmental justice) was taken into
account in developing the WPS amendments.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,
which the President signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA has assessed
the effects of this regulatory action on State, local, and tribal
governments, and the private sector. This action does not result in the
expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local or tribal
governments, or by anyone in the private sector. The cost savings
associated with this action are described Unit X.A. above.
In addition to the consultations prior to proposal, EPA has had
several informal consultations regarding the proposed rule with some
States through the EPA regional offices and at regularly scheduled
State meetings. No significant issues or information were identified as
a result of EPA's discussion with the States.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule was reviewed under the provisions of section 3(a) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, and it was determined that this rule would
not have an adverse impact on any small entities. The rule will provide
cost savings to an estimated 2,500 to 5,000 crop advisors and an
additional 15,000 employees of crop advisors who will be affected. I
therefore certify that this regulatory action does not require a
separate Regulatory Impact Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act. [[Page 21952]]
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has determined that there are no information collection burdens
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., associated with the requirements contained in this rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 170
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Occupational safety and health, Pesticides and pests.
Dated: April 26, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 170 is amended as follows:
PART 170--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 170 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136w.
Sec. 170.103 [Redesignated from Sec. 170.102]
2. Section 170.102 is partially designated as Sec. 170.103 and
entitled Exceptions. Paragraph (b) introductory text and paragraphs
(b)(1) through (10) are redesignated as Sec. 170.103 introductory text
and paragraphs (a) through (j), respectively. The remainder of
Sec. 170.102 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 170.102 Applicability of this subpart.
Except as provided by Secs. 170.103 and 170.104, this subpart
applies when any pesticide product is used on an agricultural
establishment in the production of agricultural plants.
3. New Sec. 170.104 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 170.104 Exemptions.
The workers listed in this section are exempt from the specified
provisions of this subpart.
(a) Owners of agricultural establishments. (1) The owner of an
agricultural establishment is not required to provide to himself or
members of his immediate family who are performing tasks related to the
production of agricultural plants on their own agricultural
establishment the protections of:
(i) Section 170.112(c)(5) through (9).
(ii) Section 170.112(c)(5) through (9) as referenced in
Secs. 170.112(d)(2)(iii) and 170.112(e).
(iii) Section 170.120.
(iv) Section 170.122.
(v) Section 170.130.
(vi) Section 170.135.
(vii) Section 170.150.
(viii) Section 170.160.
(2) The owner of the agricultural establishment must provide the
protections listed in paragraph (a)(1)(i) through (viii) of this
section to other workers and other persons who are not members of his
immediate family.
(b) Crop advisors. (1) Provided that the conditions of paragraph
(b)(2) of this section are met, a person who is certified or licensed
as a crop advisor by a program acknowledged as appropriate in writing
by EPA or a State or Tribal lead agency for pesticide enforcement, and
persons performing crop advising tasks under such qualified crop
advisor's direct supervision, are exempt from the provisions of:
(i) Section 170.150.
(ii) Section 170.160.
A person is under the direct supervision of a crop advisor when the
crop advisor exerts the supervisory controls set out in paragraphs
(b)(2)(iii) and (iv) of this section. Direct supervision does not
require that the crop advisor be physically present at all times, but
the crop advisor must be readily accessible to the employees at all
times.
(2) Conditions of exemption. (i) The certification or licensing
program requires pesticide safety training that includes, at least, all
the information in Sec. 170.230(c)(4).
(ii) Applies only when performing crop advising tasks in the
treated area.
(iii) The crop advisor must make specific determinations regarding
the appropriate PPE, appropriate decontamination supplies, and how to
conduct the tasks safely. The crop advisor must convey this information
to each person under his direct supervision in a language that the
person understands.
(iv) Before entering a treated area, the certified or licensed crop
advisor must inform, through an established practice of communication,
each person under his direct supervision of the pesticide product and
active ingredient(s) applied, method of application, time of
application, the restricted entry interval, which tasks to undertake,
and how to contact the crop advisor.
(c) Grace period for persons performing crop advisor tasks who are
not certified or licensed. (1) Provided that the conditions of
paragraph (c)(2) of this section are met, a person who is neither
certified nor licensed as a crop advisor and any person performing crop
advising tasks under his direct supervision is exempt until May 1,
1996, from the requirements of:
(i) Section 170.130.
(ii) Section 170.150.
(iii) Section 170.160.
(2) Conditions of exemption. (i) Applies only when the persons are
performing crop advising tasks in the treated area.
(ii) The crop advisor must make specific determinations regarding
the appropriate PPE, appropriate decontamination supplies, and how to
conduct the tasks safely. The crop advisor must convey this information
to each person under his direct supervision in a language that the
person understands.
(iii) Before entering a treated area, the crop advisor must inform,
through an established practice of communication, each person under his
direct supervision of the active ingredient, method of application,
time of application, the restricted entry interval, which tasks to
undertake, and how to contact the crop advisor.
4. Section 170.130 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 170.130 Pesticide safety training for workers.
* * * * *
(b) Exceptions. The following persons need not be trained under
this section:
(1) A worker who is currently certified as an applicator of
restricted-use pesticides under part 171 of this chapter.
(2) A worker who satisfies the training requirements of part 171 of
this chapter.
(3) A worker who satisfies the handler training requirements of
Sec. 170.230(c).
(4) A worker who is certified or licensed as a crop advisor by a
program acknowledged as appropriate in writing by EPA or a State or
Tribal lead agency for pesticide enforcement, provided that a
requirement for such certification or licensing is pesticide safety
training that includes all the information set out in
Sec. 170.230(c)(4).
* * * * *
Sec. 170.203 [Redesignated from Sec. 170.202]
5. Section 170.202 is partially redesignated as Sec. 170.203
entitled Exceptions. Paragraph (b) introductory text and paragraphs
(b)(1) through (9) are redesignated as Sec. 170.203 introductory text
and paragraphs (a) through (i), respectively. The remainder of
Sec. 170.102 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 170.202 Applicability of this subpart.
Except as provided by Secs. 170.203 and 170.204, this subpart
applies when any pesticide is handled for use on an agricultural
establishment.
6. New Sec. 170.204 is added to read as follows: [[Page 21953]]
Sec. 170.204 Exemptions.
The handlers listed in this section are exempt from the specified
provisions of this subpart.
(a) Owners of agricultural establishments. (1) The owner of an
agricultural establishment is not required to provide to himself or
members of his immediate family who are performing handling tasks on
their own agricultural establishment the protections of:
(i) Section 170.210(b) and (c).
(ii) Section 170.222.
(iii) Section 170.230.
(iv) Section 170.232.
(v) Section 170.234.
(vi) Section 170.235.
(vii) Section 170 240(e) through (g).
(viii) Section 170.250.
(ix) Section 170.260.
(2) The owner of the agricultural establishment must provide the
protections listed in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (ix) of this section
to other handlers and other persons who are not members of his
immediate family.
(b) Crop advisors. (1) Provided that the conditions of paragraph
(b)(2) of this section are met, a person who is certified or licensed
as a crop advisor by a program acknowledged as appropriate in writing
by EPA or a State or Tribal lead agency for pesticide enforcement, and
persons performing crop advising tasks under such qualified crop
advisor's direct supervision, are exempt from the provisions of:
(i) Section 170.232.
(ii) Section 170.240.
(iii) Section 170.250.
(iv) Section 170.260.
A person is under the direct supervision of a crop advisor when the
crop advisor exerts the supervisory controls set out in paragraphs
(b)(2)(iv) and (v) of this section. Direct supervision does not require
that the crop advisor be physically present at all times, but the crop
advisor must be readily accessible to the employees at all times.
(2) Conditions of exemption. (i) The certification or licensing
program requires pesticide safety training that includes, at least, all
the information in Sec. 170.230(c)(4).
(ii) No entry into the treated area occurs until after application
ends.
(iii) Applies only when performing crop advising tasks in the
treated area.
(iv) The crop advisor must make specific determinations regarding
the appropriate PPE, appropriate decontamination supplies, and how to
conduct the tasks safely. The crop advisor must convey this information
to each person under his direct supervision in a language that the
person understands.
(v) Before entering a treated area, the certified or licensed crop
advisor must inform, through an established practice of communication,
each person under his direct supervision of the pesticide products and
active ingredient(s) applied, method of application, time of
application, the restricted entry interval, which tasks to undertake,
and how to contact the crop advisor.
(c) Grace period for persons performing crop advisor tasks who are
not certified or licensed. (1) Provided that the conditions of
paragraph (c)(2) of this section are met, a person who is neither
certified nor licensed as a crop advisor and any person performing crop
advising tasks under his direct supervision is exempt until May 1,
1996, from the requirements of:
(i) Section 170.230.
(ii) Section 170.232.
(iii) Section 170.240.
(iv) Section 170.250.
(v) Section 170.260.
(2) Conditions of exemption. (i) No entry into the treated area
occurs until after application ends.
(ii) Applies only when the persons are performing crop advising
tasks in the treated area.
(iii) The crop advisor must make specific determinations regarding
the appropriate PPE, appropriate decontamination supplies, and how to
conduct the tasks safely. The crop advisor must convey this information
to each person under his direct supervision in a language that the
person understands.
(iv) Before entering a treated area, the crop advisor must inform,
through an established practice of communication, each person under his
direct supervision of the pesticide products and active ingredient(s)
applied, method of application, time of application, the restricted
entry interval, which tasks to undertake, and how to contact the crop
advisor.
7. In Sec. 170.230, by revising the section title and paragraph (b)
to read as follows:
Sec. 170.230 Pesticide safety training for handlers.
* * * * *
(b) Exceptions. The following persons need not be trained under
this section:
(1) A handler who is currently certified as an applicator of
restricted-use pesticides under part 171 of this chapter.
(2) A handler who satisfies the training requirements of part 171
of this chapter.
(3) A handler who is certified or licensed as a crop advisor by a
program acknowledged as appropriate in writing by EPA or a State or
Tribal lead agency for pesticide enforcement, provided that a
requirement for such certification or licensing is pesticide safety
training that includes all the information set out in
Sec. 170.230(c)(4).
[FR Doc. 95-10872 Filed 5-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F