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 Meetings

Worker 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 only for 

RUP products. Posting should be at 

single, usual point of 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 

increase 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 

field, 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 by flags and 

requirement for daily 

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 employees could 

be orally notified, not 

posting. Perhaps institute 

worker sign off for oral 

notification (Farm)

 Consider an exception to 

field posting for farms 

with a few employees. 

Oral notification with 
Page 2 of 11

Summary of SER comments

October 16, 2008

Worker 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 many fields 

resulting in heavy posting 

burden (Crop advisor)

 15 minutes to post a field is too 

low (Aerial)

central posting is 

sufficient. (AFB) 

A WPS Training/ 

Retraining Interval

 Everyone retrains every year. Can’t 

verify/turnover (Farm)

 Retain 5-year interval(Farm)

 Retain 5-year 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 annually even if previously 

trained although some may not (Crop 

advisor)

 PS Training burden:

o 30 mins worker

o 45 mins handler 

(AFBF)

 worker training 30-60 minutes, 

handler training 45- 60 

minutes. Material cost is 

minimal. (Crop advisor)

 5 yrs (as is) or when 

newly hired Rather than 

reduce interval, require 

documentation of 

training (Farm)

A WPS Training/ 

Grace period

 Do not eliminate, bad idea. Too much 

in first few days(Farm)

 Need grace period for flexibility

(Farm)

 Retain 5-day grace period (Aerial)

 Supports retention of grace periods 

(Ag custom applicator)

 Need to retain a grace period for 

flexibility around busy 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

Worker 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/ 

Handler 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)

 Ag 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-home 

exposure (Farm)

 Additional PPE for 

handlers /mixer/loaders 

(Farm)

 Protect better by 

requiring workers to 

remove early 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

Worker Protection Standard

Issue/Potential 

proposal

Comments Time or Cost ($) Related 

Comment

Alternate proposals Response/Recommendations

respirator requirements (Landscape 

maintenance)

B General  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 by 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 any change to the current 

exemption for protections during the 

REI. Do not believe will reduce risk 

and will be extra burden. (Crop 

advisor)

 Estimate that a consultant 

would have additional cost of 

$2000 to $6000 per year. 

(Crop advisor)

 If employee 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)

 Rarely needs to use early entry, but no 

need for written notification (Farm)

B REI/ Records  Careful records of worker entry should 

be kept by grower (Farm)

B Posting content  Signs do not need to have specifics. 

Specifics may be misinterpreted by

workers. Skull and crossbones would 

be less effective than current symbol 

(Farm).

 Signs become consumable 

rather than reusable (Farm)

 Posting pesticide name and 

REI expiration would add 30 

minutes per field (Crop 

advisor)
Page 5 of 11

Summary of SER comments

October 16, 2008

Worker 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 nearby 

residences (Farm)

 Opposed – arbitrary 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 always available, so 

not a good idea(Farm)

 PPE 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 by workers 

(Aerial)

 Will add hours of time for 

finding and printing, as well as 

additional 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 employees. 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 decon site should not 

cost much (Crop advisor)
Page 6 of 11

Summary of SER comments

October 16, 2008

Worker 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/ 

Application 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 less than 2% 

of treatments in corn and soybeans, so 

testing is not useful (Ag custom 

applicator)

 Time consuming and 

expensive (Ag custom 

applicator)

 Require baseline for 

those who apply on 

regular basis for more 

than 30 days (Ag custom 

applicator)

B PPE /Cab 

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 have 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 Sys. 
Page 7 of 11

Summary of SER comments

October 16, 2008

Certification Rule

Issue/Potential 

proposal

Comments Time or Cost ($) 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 custom 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 (Ag custom applicator).

 No minimum, need to use family

(Landscape maintenance)

 Would be forced to hire 

certified applicators or older 

workers. Could delay

applications, affecting yield 

(Farm)

 Cost to replace lost family 

worker: salary, unemployment 

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 Cost ($) 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 applicator 

(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 family

(Farm)

 Would be forced to hire 

certified applicators or older 

workers. Could delay

applications, affecting yield 

(Farm).

A Application of 

RUP’s under the 

supervision of a 

certified 

applicator 

/Communication 

method

 Radios and cell phones are problem in 

some remote areas. Generally 

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, not always 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 any additional 

burden, as requirements 

already exist in state 
Page 9 of 11

Summary of SER comments

October 16, 2008

Certification Rule

Issue/Potential 

proposal

Comments Time or Cost ($) Related 

Comment

Alternate proposals Response/ Recommendations

though may apply 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 & M44, as these do not pose human risk 

(Farm)

 WA does not have aerial applicator 

category 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 

categories 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 type(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 Cost ($) 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 

requirements (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 employees 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 by 

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 Cost ($) Related 

Comment

Alternate proposals Response/ Recommendations

C Application of 

RUP’s under the 

supervision of a 

certified 

applicator 

/Training Records

C Recertification