[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 35 (Thursday, March 24, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                PESTICIDE COMPLIANCE DATES EXTENSION ACT

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate 
a message from the House of Representatives on (S. 1913), a bill to 
extend certain compliance dates for pesticide safety training and 
labeling requirements.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message 
from the House of Representatives:

       Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1913) entitled 
     `'An Act to extend certain compliance dates for pesticide 
     safety training and labeling requirements'', do pass with the 
     following amendment:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert:

     SECTION 1. COMPLIANCE.

       Until January 1, 1995, it shall not be a misuse under 
     section 12(a)(2)(G) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, 
     and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136j(a)(2)(G)) to use any 
     pesticide product in a manner inconsistent with the 
     provisions of 40 CFR part 170 that are (1) subject to the 
     compliance date specified in 40 CFR section 170.5(c) and (2) 
     incorporated by reference on the label or labeling of any 
     pesticide product. This delay in compliance shall not apply 
     to specific worker protection requirements that appear 
     directly on the label or labeling of the pesticide product.

     SEC. 2. REENTRY INTERVAL.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the provisions of 40 CFR 
     part 170, until January 1, 1995, a worker may enter an area 
     treated with a pesticide product during the restricted entry 
     interval specified on the label of the pesticide product to 
     perform tasks related to the production of agricultural 
     plants if the agricultural employer ensures that--
       (1) no hand labor activity is performed;
       (2) no such entry is allowed for the first 4 hours 
     following the end of the application of the pesticide 
     product;
       (3) no such entry is allowed until any inhalation exposure 
     level listed on the product labeling has been reached; and
       (4) the personal protective equipment specified on the 
     product labeling for early entry is provided in clean and 
     operating condition to the worker.
       (b) Protective Equipment for Irrigation Work.--For 
     irrigation work for which the only contact with treated 
     surfaces is to the feet, lower legs, hands, and arms, the 
     agricultural employer may provide coveralls, chemical 
     resistant gloves, and chemical resistant footwear instead of 
     the personal protective equipment specified on the label.

     SEC. 3. CROP ADVISORS.

       Notwithstanding the provisions of 40 CFR part 170, until 
     January 1, 1995, persons performing duties as crop advisors 
     shall not be considered workers or handlers under 40 CFR part 
     170 (or for the purposes of the pesticide label) and shall 
     not be subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 170.

     SEC. 4. SAFETY TRAINING.

       (a) Training Materials.--Not later than September 23, 1994, 
     the Administrator shall develop and distribute pesticide 
     safety training materials that convey, at a minimum, the 
     information referred in 40 CFR section 170.230(c)(4).
       (b) Implementation.--The Administrator shall assist the 
     appropriate Federal, State, and tribal agencies in 
     implementing the pesticide safety training programs required 
     under 40 CFR part 170.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) The term ``hand labor'' means any agricultural activity 
     performed by hand or with hand tools that causes a worker to 
     have substantial contact with surfaces (such as plants, plant 
     parts, or soil) that may contain pesticide residues. These 
     activities include, but are not limited to, harvesting, 
     detasseling, thinning, weeding, topping, planting, sucker 
     removal, pruning, disbudding, roguing, and packing produce 
     into containers in the field. The term ``hand labor'' shall 
     not include operating, moving, or repairing irrigation or 
     watering equipment or performing the tasks of crop advisors.
       (2) The term ``agricultural employer'' means any person who 
     hires or contracts for the services of workers, for any type 
     of compensation, to perform activities related to the 
     production of agricultural plants, or any person who is an 
     owner of or is responsible for management or condition of an 
     agricultural establishment that uses such workers.
       (3) The term ``worker'' means any person, including a self-
     employed person, who is employed for any type of compensation 
     and who is performing activities relating to the production 
     of agricultural plants on an agricultural establishment. The 
     term ``worker'' shall not include any person employed by a 
     commercial pesticide handling establishment to perform tasks 
     as a crop advisor.
       (4) The term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency.

     SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE PERIOD.

       The provisions in this Act shall be effective until January 
     1, 1995.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I move that the Senate concur in the 
amendments of the House.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have known for 10 years that current 
regulations are doing virtually nothing to protect the men, women, and 
children who help put food on America's table. There are at least 
20,000 and perhaps as many as 300,000 pesticide poisonings each year. 
The standards we are delaying today provide the most elementary 
protections against such poisonings. Unfortunately, another growing 
season will go by with more illnesses and poisonings that we could have 
prevented.
  My own State of Vermont has worked hard to be ready to implement the 
new standards this spring. I understand there are other States that say 
they are not ready. Therefore, I will accept the compromise that the 
House is offering on S. 1913, with the clarifications from my colleague 
from Mississippi.
  This compromise is a significant improvement over the bill that the 
Senate passed last week, which was unclear and ambiguous in some 
respects.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter from the EPA 
and an explanation of this bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              Environmental Protection Agency,

                                   Washington, DC, March 22, 1994.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We understand that some questions have 
     been raised concerning the definition of ``crop advisors'' 
     under S. 1913, as amended by the House of Representatives on 
     March 18, 1994. The definition of crop advisors is clear. The 
     Worker Protection Standard, 40 CFR Part 170, defines crop 
     advisors at Section 170.3 as follows:
       Crop advisor means any person who is 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.
       Title 40 CFR Part 170 became effective on October 20, 1992. 
     S. 1913, as amended, delays the compliance date of certain 
     provisions of the Worker Protection Standard, but does not 
     affect the effective date of the Worker Protection Standard. 
     Thus, the definitions are effective. To the extent that terms 
     are used in S. 1913, as amended, which are not defined in the 
     bill, the definitions set out in the Worker Protection 
     Standard at section 170.3 would be applicable.
       This issue has apparently been raised out of concern about 
     agricultural employers sending workers into the treated area 
     during a restricted entry interval without personal 
     protective equipment on the basis of a claim that the worker 
     is performing work as a crop advisor. The distinctions 
     between crop advisors and workers are set out in the 
     definitions in the Worker Protection Standard.
       We believe it is clear which tasks are associated with 
     workers and which the crop advisers, so that, from an 
     enforcement perspective, it will be straightforward to 
     ascertain whether an agricultural employer is trying to 
     circumvent the protections required by the label for workers.
       I hope this information assists in resolving any questions 
     concerning the definition of crop advisors. If I can be of 
     further assistance, please let me know.

     Sincerely yours,

                                            Lynn R. Goldman, M.D.,
                                          Assistant Administrator.
                                  ____


                         Explanation of S. 1913

       Section 1 of this Act will delay until January 1, 1995 the 
     April 15, 1994 compliance date for the Part 170 worker 
     protection provisions referenced in 40 CFR section 170.5(c) 
     which are incorporated by reference on the label. These 
     worker protection requirements include the requirements for 
     pesticide safety training, notification, monitoring of 
     handlers, providing specific information about pesticide 
     applications, posting pesticide safety information, providing 
     a decontamination site, and emergency assistance. This delay 
     in the enforcement of Part 170 requirements is to provide 
     additional time for the education of pesticide users and 
     training of agricultural workers.
       The Part 170 worker protection provisions for which 
     compliance was required by April 21, 1993 are not affected by 
     this Act. More specifically, the accelerated provisions set 
     forth in section 170.5(b)--the entry restrictions related to 
     restricted entry intervals, the exceptions to the 
     prohibitions against early entry set forth in section 
     170.112, and the provisions in section 170.120 providing 
     relief from notification requirements--are not affected by 
     this Act.
       This Act does not delay compliance for specific worker 
     protection requirements which are on the label; that is, the 
     restricted entry intervals (REIs), personal protective 
     equipment, drift statement, and requirements on some 
     pesticide labels for the posting of treated areas. (Note, 
     however, Section 2(b), discussed below, does provide an 
     optional exception for PPE requirements for irrigation 
     workers which may differ from PPE specified on the label.) 
     Thus, the pesticide user, during the delayed compliance 
     period, must comply with the worker protection requirements 
     that appear directly on the label.
       This Act also does not affect the requirements in 40 CFR 
     Part 156 that registrants, after April 21, 1994, cannot sell 
     or distribute pesticide product without labeling that has 
     been amended to include the statements required by Part 156.
       Section 2 provides an exception from the prohibition 
     against early entry until January 1, 1995. This exception 
     applies to early entry workers that need to enter the treated 
     area during the REI to perform tasks related to the 
     production of agricultural plants. However, no early entry is 
     allowed under this paragraph for hand labor. For example, a 
     farmer would be permitted to drive a tractor in the treated 
     area to plant during an REI. If such farmer must come into 
     contact with treated surfaces in performing this task, then 
     the farmer must wear early entry worker personal protective 
     equipment specified on the label. (Farmers that apply 
     pesticide and plant at the same time are considered pesticide 
     handlers.)
       Under the exception in Section 2, no entry is allowed for 
     the first four hours after application of the pesticide. 
     This restriction parallels the requirements in the other 
     exceptions to early entry promulgated in the Worker 
     Protection Standard (WPS) at 40 CFR section 170.112.
       Section 2(b) provides, until January 1, 1995, optional PPE 
     for early entry workers operating, moving, or repairing 
     irrigation or watering equipment where contact with the 
     treated surfaces is limited to hands, arms, lower legs, and 
     feet. Instead of providing the PPE on the label specified for 
     early entry, in this situation, the agricultural employer can 
     provide to the irrigation workers the following PPE: chemical 
     resistant boots, chemical resistant gloves, and coveralls. 
     This exception is only for workers performing irrigation 
     work. The Environmental Protection Agency is considering 
     whether there should be a special category of PPE for 
     irrigation workers and may address this through appropriate 
     administrative action. This Act in no way affects or 
     prejudges EPA's determination on what should be appropriate 
     PPE for irrigation workers after January 1, 1995.
       Section 2 only applies to early entry workers, not to 
     handlers. The new labels will specify the PPE for applicators 
     and other handlers. Note that the requirement for PPE for 
     applicators will not be new in many cases, although the 
     specific items and terminology of PPE may be. Many pesticide 
     labels specified PPE for applicators well before promulgation 
     of the WPS. The applicator is responsible for complying with 
     label requirements and therefore is responsible for their 
     employees wearing PPE.
       Section 3 provides that, until January 1, 1995, persons 
     performing duties as crop advisors shall not be considered 
     workers or handlers under 40 CFR Part 170 (or for purposes of 
     requirements on the pesticide label) and thus, when acting as 
     crop advisors, they will not be subject to the requirements 
     of 40 CFR Part 170. If a farmer is a pesticide applicator as 
     well as a crop advisor, then when performing as an 
     applicator, the farmer is subject to applicable worker 
     protection requirements.
       The definitions set forth in this Act at Section 5 are the 
     same as the definitions in the WPS at 40 CFR section 170.3. 
     Title 40 CFR Part 170 became effective on October 20, 1992. 
     This Act addresses enforcement of certain provisions of Part 
     170, it does not change the effective date of the WPS. Thus, 
     the definitions are effective. To the extent that this Act 
     uses terms which are not defined in the Act, such as ``crop 
     advisor'' and ``agricultural plant,'' the definitions set out 
     in the WPS at section 170.3 are applicable.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, S. 1913 represents a major compromise 
between the Environmental Protection Agency, farm worker interests, 
production agriculture, and State regulators in the implementation of 
EPA's farm worker protection standard. The bill will delay the 
implementation of those requirements not specifically incorporated on 
the product label until January 1, 1995. This bill will not change or 
weaken any existing worker protection or other regulations currently in 
effect. However, the delay will allow the EPA to provide the necessary 
training, education, and compliance assistance that farmers and 
regulators need.
  I urge other Senators to support this bipartisan effort to provide 
much needed relief to the agricultural producers of our country.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, some terms in this bill are not defined. Is 
it the Senator's understanding that definitions in 40 CFR 170 will 
apply in those instances?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Yes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Second, would the Senator say that it is accurate that 
further delay of these regulations would not be necessary, as long as 
the Environmental Protection Agency meets its obligations under the 
bill?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I would agree. However, the delay in the implementation 
of these regulations is to allow the numerous concerns that have been 
raised with these regulations to be resolved, and to provide additional 
time for the EPA to distribute the educational materials required under 
the regulations.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator for these clarifications.

                          ____________________