[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:
[email protected]; 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
[[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:
listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov that says ``Subscribe RIN-2070-AC69
.'' 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 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:
[email protected]
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: 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:
[[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
