July 14, 2008

Joe Hogue

US EPA/OPPTS (7506-P)

1200 Pennsylvania Ave N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

Dear Mr. Hogue;

As a member of the Small Entity Representative regarding the impact of potential new 

requirements to the Agency regarding Ag Worker Protection Standards, I will respond to 

both the PowerPoint presentation and the written questions that were presented to us. I

have the following thoughts:

From PowerPoint Slides:

I understand the need for additional training for fumigation, chemigation and aerial 

application, but don’t quite understand the need for compound 1080 and M-44. Those 

baits do not pose a risk for human risk for application, whereas the other compounds have 

a acute toxicity level that should require additional training.

Regarding minimum age, I would have to disagree with many of the Small Entity

Representatives (SER’s) that were on the conference call that did not believe that a 

minimum age should be established. I could forsee a large PR nightmare if a worker 

were to get sick and it be determined that a 14 year old was responsible for the sickness. 

Rather, I believe a minimum age of between 16-18 should be established for commercial 

applicators. I would also agree with the prescribed method for testing, as outlined.

However, regarding private applicators, I believe a minimum age of 16 is appropriate. 

Regarding, ensuring competency of non-certified applicators applying Restricted Use 

Pesticides (RUP) under the supervision of a certified applicator, I agree with all the 

proposed standards, but would want to see some leniency regarding possession of the 

label. We are allowed to have the label within a reasonable distance of the application 

site, but not to be carried on the applicator’s person.

Regarding improving protections to workers from Restricted Entry Intervals (REI), oral 

and written notification in my mind is not feasible. You cannot foretell who will be 

entering a given treated field, nor can you guard the field. Rather, posting for only

Restricted Use Pesticides, or other materials that may have a high dermal exposure makes 

sense. In our table grapes, we can spray up 3 times per month for approximately a 4 

month period, and during our gibrellic acid spray period, we are literally spraying every 4 

days for about three weeks. Such oral and written notifications would take up to 1 hour 

per each spray performed to notify every possible person that COULD enter that field 

before the end of the REI. As a small business employer, I do not have the time to 

inform in such a manner Rather, place the requirement where it belongs, on Restricted 
Use Pesticides instead, and place a reasonable posting requirement on that field....at the 

very least on each possible entry point and on each corner.....no more than that. 

Also requiring a shower and changing area seems unreasonable. I do not have a shower 

facility on my properties, but rather a metal shed, hoses and electricity. Placing a 

requirement for a shower would be an undue requirement for me and could cost me in the 

tens of $1,000 for each ranch site that I have, especially those that do not have water or 

electricity nearby. Rather, the use of PPE for handlers, mixer loaders would make more 

sense. We give our handlers a Tyvek suit when they mix and load.

Cholinesterase testing restrictions were not very clear. Therefore, it was somewhat 

difficult to address. Regarding eliminating closed cabs.....this to me appears to be the 

best protection against drift. If the issue is the filtration system, encourage the 

manufacturers to develop new, better filters that provide some protection, or require some 

filter overwrap that provides the needed protection, but please do not eliminate closed 

cabs. It is the cheapest, quickest way to protect those who apply materials.

From Written questions:

Applying RUP’s under supervision: yes, a supervisor should be somewhat close, but I am 

more concerned with the ability to communicate when there is a problem. Requiring 

some form of communication, I believe, is more cost effective for small business, as most 

if not all would have two-ways or cell phones. I do not think that would be an additional 

burden or cost.

The current 5 day grace period and its elimination is not really a cost issue, but more of 

timeliness issue. For me, the grace period allows me flexibility if I am busy on the first 

couple of days to provide me more time to complete the training. Again, a small business 

person is handling multiple tasks. Training every five years makes sense, but if there is 

concern with this, then require a written document showing that training has taken place 

rather than increasing the frequency. Specific, documented training should be for 

Restricted Use Pesticides, not on all product use. I am more concerned with appropriate 

training where the need dictates rather than just training for training sake.

I’ve already addressed posting, but to respond to the written question, posting could be 

quite difficult and time consuming. In a given year, I could spray my table grape 

vineyard up to 15 times (herbicide, foliar sprays, pesticides, fungicides, fertilizers). As I

mentioned above, I could do 5-6 sprays within a three week period. Posting would take 

up a very large chunk of my time. I would rather post for RUP’s. The only time I expect 

early reentry is for irrigation, which would be opening valves at the end of the row, for 

about 1 hour per day over a 2 day irrigation period. Minimal contact with foliage occurs 

during this time.
A No-Entry zone around the field would have a disastrous impact upon us. We have 

shared avenues with other producers, who are growing different crops, with different 

spray schedules.....this is impossible to accept.

Regarding MSDS’s, unless you subscribe to a service, it is very difficult to obtain them. 

I have asked for them from my pesticide dealer, and they don’t always have them, and 

trying to get them from the manufacturer is very difficult for a small business. They just 

don’t have the manpower to get us what we need and we don’t have the clout (because of 

our low volume purchasing) to get their attention. 

I hope my comments have been helpful. Please let me know if I can answer and 

questions.

Sincerely,

Richard Matoian