Page 1 of 11 Summary of SER comments October 16, 2008 

### Summary of Potential SER Written **and Oral Comments**  **Received in Response to SBREFA**  **Panel Outreach Meeting s** 

**Work er Protection Standard**  **Issue/Potential proposal**  **Comments Time or Cost ($) Related**  **Comment Alternate proposals**  **Response/Recommendations**

A REI /Field Posting  Time consuming, difficult , Too expensive to orally

notify and post all applications (Farm)

 Supports mandatory

posting onl y for RUP products. Posting should be at single, usual point o f entry to field (Farm)

 Only for double notification

– workers read labels so know REIs can refer to WPS, Retain central posting (AFBF)

 Many fields are irregular in shape, no corners, posting is burdensome (Aerial)

 Numerous small fields of different crops also makes posting difficult (Farm)  Up to 1 hour per application to orally notify and post(Farm)

 Costly , time consuming and difficult to enforce. Should only require points of entry , not four corners (Ag custom applicator)

 Posting all fields could increas e cost to about one hour per day effort and a $25 per day cost. Small would have higher costs than large because field size is smaller (thus more fields to post). More signs per acre on small than on large farms (Farm)

 Impractical to post corners of fiel d, Leads to loss of productivity , Time consuming to post

– hammering stake in ground, attaching sign to stake. Aerial: would take an employee out of other productive work (AFBF)

 estimate 30 minutes to post a single reusable sign at point of  Central map with field marked b y flags and requirement for dail y worker check in. Or
exempt small farms, if all workers are certified and notified at time of application (Farm)

 Posting should be for RUPs only , and at each possible entry

point and each corner. (Farm)

 Farms with less than 10
non
- family

employees should not be required to post, just verbal notifications (Farm)

 Fewer emplo ye es could be orall y notified, not posting. Perhaps institute worker sign off for oral notification (Farm)

 Consider an exception to field posting for farms with a few emplo ye es. Oral notification withPage 2 of 11 Summary of SER comments October 16, 2008 

### Work**er Protection Standard Issue/Potential**  **proposal Comments**  **Time or Cost ($) Related Comment**  **Alternate proposals Response/Recommendations** 

REI/Field Posting, continued entry . Take at least one hour to post four corners. Some growers have man y fields resulting in heav y posting burden (Crop advisor)

 15 minutes to post a field is too low (Aerial) central p osting is sufficient. (AFB)

A WPS Training/ Retraining Interval  Everyone retrains every year. Can’t verify /turnover (Farm)

 Retain 5

- ye ar interval(Farm)

 Retain 5

- ye ar interval(Aerial)

 Retraining interval should be same as recertification for applicators , keep at 5 years (Farm)

 Most workers trained annually , Retain 5 years

– effective and not unusual burden, Growers do not check for training history

(AFBF)

 Train annuall y even if previously trained although some may not (Crop advisor)  PS Training burden:

o 3 0 mins worker

o 45 mins handler (AFBF)

 worker training 30

- 60 minutes, handler training 45

- 60 minutes. Material cost is minimal. (Crop advisor)  5 y rs (as is) or when newly hired Rather than reduce interval, require documentation of training (Farm)

A WPS T raining/ Grace period  Do not eliminate, bad idea. Too much in first few day s(Farm)

 Need grace period for flexibility (Farm)

 Retain 5

- day

grace period (Aerial)

 Supports retention of grace periods (Ag custom app licator)

 Need to retain a grace period for flexibility around bus y schedules  Earlier hiring leads to increased input cost by

$100

- 200 per hire. (AFBF)Page 3 of 11 Summary of SER comments October 16, 2008 

### Work**er Protection Standard Issue/Potential**  **proposal Comments**  **Time or Cost ($) Related Comment**  **Alternate proposals Response/Recommendations** 
WPS Training/ Grace period, continued (Farm)

 Loss of GP would lead to earlier hiring and more cost to grower (AFBF) A Decontamination/ Hand ler showers  Major burden and employees would not use(Farm)

 Shower is unreasonably expensive(Farm)

 Shower not justified (Farm)

 Unnecessary (AFBF)

 Crop advisor handlers are mobile and shower facilities would be difficult and costly

to provide (Crop advisor)

 A g custom applicators in the Midwest have showers, but are seldom used (Ag custom applicator)  Shower facility would cost tens of thousands of dollars (Farm)

 Portable showers cost $5000

- $6000. add cost of water. (AFBF)  Train handlers on minimizing take

- ho me exposure (Farm)

 Additional PPE for handlers /mixer/loaders (Farm)

 Protect better b y requiring workers to remove earl y entry clothing and footwear

– do not allow it to be taken home(AFBF) A PPE /Enclosed cabs and respirators  Cabs should meet standards or should use respirator. No manufacturers certify cabs for use without respirator. (Farm)

 Wants to use enclosed cab as substitute for respirator (Farm)

 Label should specify

what is allowed (Farm)

 well maintained cabs with charcoal filters are effective against exposure (Ag custom applicator)

 Questions the need for respirators instead of enclosed cabs (Aerial)

 Roadside applicators should not have  Encourage improvement of enclosed cab filtration (Farm)Page 4 of 11 Summary of SER comments October 16, 2008 

### Work**er Protection Standard Issue/Potential**  **proposal Comments**  **Time or Cost ($) Related Comment**  **Alternate proposals Response/Recommendations** 
respirator requirements (Landscape maintenance) B G eneral  Flexibility is key , Define small by

# employees, Oppose curtailment of use of ag chemicals w/o research/scientific data showing injury (AFBF)  Small farms could be defined b y having 75% of labor and management by family . Short term workers (e.g., harvest) should not have to be trained, unless an RUP has been used recently

. (Farm) B Crop Advisor Employees  Opposes an y change to the current exemption for protections during the REI . Do not believe will reduce risk and will be extra burden. (Crop advis or)  Estimate that a consultant would have additional cost of $2000 to $6000 per year. (Crop advisor)  If emplo yee exemption is revised, allow for incidental entry , such as time limited entry without PPE (Crop advisor) B REI/ Notifications for early entry  Does not use exceptions to REI

(Farm)

 Rarel y needs to use earl y entry, but no need for written notification (Farm) B REI/ Records  Careful records of worker entry should be kept b y grower (Farm) B Posting content  Signs do not need to have specifi cs. Specifics may

be misinterpreted by workers. Skull and crossbones would be less effective than current sy mbol (Farm).  Signs become consumable rather than reusable (Farm)

 Posting pesticide name and REIexpiration would add 30 minutes per field (Crop advi sor)Page 5 of 11 Summary of SER comments October 16, 2008 

### Work**er Protection Standard Issue/Potential**  **proposal Comments**  **Time or Cost ($) Related Comment**  **Alternate proposals Response/Recommendations** 

B Application entry restricted area  This restriction would not work, due to conflicts with neighboring producers on different schedules (Farm)

 No impact to aerial applicator (Aerial)

 Not possible because of nearb y residences (Farm)

 Opposed

– arbitr ary and not based on science, Loss of productivity in adjacent fields. (AFBF)  Result in significant economic loss(AFBF)

B Hazard Comm /MSDS  This is a burden and no one ever asks for MSDS(Farm)

 MSDS’s are not alway s available, so not a good idea(Farm)

 PP E is on label. No other document needed. (AFBF)

 Filing and making available MSDS is burdensome (Crop advisor)

 Posting MSDS would be possible, but would never be used b y workers (Aerial)  Will add hours of time for finding and printing, as well as additiona l file space(Farm)

 No burden to maintain MSDS file, since already required (Aerial)  Allow some time period for supplying MSDS Database online for retrieval (Farm)

B WPS Training/ Trainers  Owner or employee does training (Aerial) B WPS Training /Records  Do not supply training verification cards to emplo ye es. Not aware of federally funded training resources (Crop advisor)  Estimate that records would take 30 minutes per training session (Crop advisor)

B Safety

Poster /Content and location  Poster at d econ site should not cost much (Crop advisor)Page 6 of 11 Summary of SER comments October 16, 2008 

### Work**er Protection Standard Issue/Potential**  **proposal Comments**  **Time or Cost ($) Related Comment**  **Alternate proposals Response/Recommendations** 

B Decontamination/ Eyeflush water  Excessive amounts of water not justified (Farm) B Decontamination/ Mix/load site water  Excessive amounts of water not justified (Farm) B Application Restrictions/ Ap plication entry restricted area  Little impact as long as reasonable distance (Farm).

B Application Restrictions/ Cholinesterase monitoring  Unnecessary , label PPE should be sufficient (Farm)

 Use of cholinesterase inhibiting chemicals has declined to les s than 2% of treatments in corn and soy beans, so testing is not useful (Ag custom applicator)  Time consuming and expensive (Ag custom applicator)  Require baseline for those who appl y on regular basis for more than 30 day s (Ag custom applicator)

B PPE /Ca

b maintenance and records  Supports requirement for keeping maintenance records (Farm)

B PPE /Respirators/ Medical monitoring  Medical monitoring and fit testing are a major burden (Farm).  My applicators complete questionnaire that is reviewed, some hav e follow

- up medical visit, with little cost difference (Structural pest control) C Hazard Comm/ Records C WPS Training/ Contents C Emergency

Info C PPE /Closed Sy s.Page 7 of 11 Summary of SER comments October 16, 2008 

### Certification Rule **Issue/Potential proposal**  **Comments Time or Co**  **st ($) Related Comment**  **Alternate proposals Response/ Recommendations** 

A Commercial applicator competency /Minimum Age  Not over 14 for commercial

applicators, if can pass test (Landscape maintenance)

 Commercial applicator 18, children of farmers age 16(Farm )

 Supports 16

– 18 (Farm)

 Minimum age for pilot’s license is 18, so no impact of 18 for aerial applicator (Aerial)

 Supports 18 as minimum age (Structural pest control)

 One cannot understand the concept of safe and accurate application until age 18 (Ag cust om applicator).

 No minimum, just written test (Farm)

 Supports 18 as minimum age (Structural pest control)

 Commercial

– 16 or 18 OK(AFBF)

 minimum for pilots makes this moot for aerial applicators (Aerial) A Private applicator competency /Minimum Age  Law sets minimum at age 18 for non

farm. Farm children should be certified when pass test (Farm).

 Supports 16 (Farm)

 One cannot understand the concept of safe and accurate application until age 18 (A g custom applicator).

 No minimum, need to use family (Landscape maintenance)  Would be forced to hire certified applicators or older workers. Could delay applications, affecting yi eld (Farm)

 Cost to replace lost family worker: salary , unemploy ment and workman’s comp taxes, loss of reliability

(AFBF)Page 8 of 11 Summary of SER comments October 16, 2008 

### Certification Rule **Issue/Potential proposal**  **Comments Time or Co**  **st ($) Related Comment**  **Alternate proposals Response/ Recommendations** 
Private applicator competency /Minimum Age continued  Privates should be 15 or 16, not 12

 Private

– 16 OK(AFBF)

A Application of RUP’s under the supervision of a certified applicator /Minimum Age  Support for training or requirement for

presence of certified appl icator (Landscape maintenance)

 Minimum age of 16 for an apprentice program, but not working alone (Structural pest control)

 One cannot understand the concept of safe and accurate application until age 18 (Ag custom applicator).

 No minimum, need to use fami ly (Farm)  Would be forced to hire certified applicators or older workers. Could delay applications, affecting yi eld (Farm).

A Application of RUP’s under the supervision of a certified applicator /Communication method  Radios and cell phones are problem i n

some remote areas. Generall y supports good communication. Insurance companies also support (Farm)

 Supports communication method rather than on

- site presence(Farm)

 Supports requirement for instant communication (Ag custom applicator)

 While desirable, no t alway s possible (Structural pest control)  Most, if not all, have two

- way radios or cell phones, so no additional cost, For full coverage, could add several hundred if not thousands of dollars in equipment and future subscriptions. (Farm)  Issues that may come up and need communication should be covered in training.(Farm)

 Should consider distance rather than communication requirement (Farm)

B General  Commercial applicators are extensively

trained and face tougher enforcement than private applicators,  Do not see an y additi onal burden, as requirements already exist in statePage 9 of 11 Summary of SER comments October 16, 2008 

### Certification Rule **Issue/Potential proposal**  **Comments Time or Co**  **st ($) Related Comment**  **Alternate proposals Response/ Recommendations** 

thou gh may

appl y to comparable acreage. Since both commercial and private applicators are applying the same products, training should be similar. Ability

to read and understand label in English should be required. (Ag custom applicator) (Structural pest control)

B Commercial Categories  Supports sub categories (Farm)

 Supports categories except 1080 & M

44, as these do not pose human risk (Farm)

 WA does not have aerial applicator catego ry and they should add it. There should also be reciprocity between states (Aerial)

 Already have similar state requirements, supports national standardization (Farm)

 Do not require states to adopt categories if they

have no use(AFBF)  Applicators in new
c ategories should be tested (Aerial)

B Commercial applicator competency /Exam Administration  Support proposal for improved exams,

and in English. Supports testing as way to facilitate movement of applicators between states (Landscape maintenance)

 Need provisions for continued review of tests (Structural pest control)

 More difficult tests lead to more cost for grower and state, States should retain flexibility

for exam ty

pe(AFBF)  No cost for exam in IL and

tests are closed book and proctored (Aerial)Page 10 of 11 Summary of SER comments October 16, 2008 

### Certification Rule **Issue/Potential proposal**  **Comments Time or Co**  **st ($) Related Comment**  **Alternate proposals Response/ Recommendations** 

B Commercial applicator competency /Recertification Req’s  Already have 3 yr. interval in effect

(Landscape maintenance)

 Requirements for recertification should be tailored to categories (Wood treatment) B Private applicator competency /Exam requirement s (if state chooses)  Tests should have open and closed

book parts (Farm)  In MN, 3 hours to travel and take test (Farm)

B Application of RUP’s under the supervision of a certified applicator /General  All aerial applicators are certified, so

no under

- the supervision applicators (Aerial)

 In Iowa, commercial applicators do not have emplo yees under the supervision (Ag custom applicator) B Application of RUP’s under the supervision of a certified applicator /Training content  Supports training requirement, if

certified applicator can do training (Farm).  Off

- farm trainers would add unnecessary

expense (Farm).  Certified applicator should determine if individual is competent. Would rather just have individual certified (Farm). B Application of RUP’s under the supervision of a certified applicator /Label with applicator  Should not have to carry labels, too many labels (Landscape maintenance)

 Label should not have to be carried b y applicator, but available at the site (Farm)Page 11 of 11 Summary of SER comments October 16, 2008 

### Certification Rule **Issue/Potential proposal**  **Comments Time or Co**  **st ($) Related Comment**  **Alternate proposals Response/ Recommendations** 

C Application of RUP’s under the supervision of a certified applicator /Training Records C Recertification