Kathy Davis, US EPA 

worker_safety_regulation_change@epa.gov 

Pesticide Worker Safety Program Enhancement 

June 7, 2007 

The American Association of Pesticide Safety Educators (AAPSE) is committed to the establishment of 

the highest standards in pesticide certification and safety education, the promotion of practical and 

enforceable pesticide certification/education policies, and the implementation of safe and effective 

pesticide-use practices. AAPSE supports pesticide risk reduction programs and practices to protect 

human health and the environment and provides a collective voice for cooperative extension services and 

state, provincial, tribal and federal agencies and industry educators to work cooperatively on Certification 

and Training (C&T) needs, policies, and strategies. The Board has had the opportunity to review issue 

papers C&T 1, 2, 3 and 5, and Worker Protection Standard (WPS) 1 & 2 and provides the following 

comments for the Pesticide Worker Safety Program Enhancement. The Board did not have time to 

review all of the other issues. In a separate letter, AAPSE representatives will submit individual 

comments provided by its members. 

Overall Comments on C&T Issue Papers 

1. AAPSE recognizes changes would be national in scope and that states can still be more restrictive 

than the national standards. 

2. AAPSE’s comments are restricted to conventional pesticides and do not pertain to the application 

and handling of antimicrobials. 

3. AAPSE recognizes that changes to both certification programs and safety education programs 

will be very significant, especially for states that do not already regulate at the level being 

proposed. 

a. EPA must consider how practical and enforceable the proposed changes are. If 

regulations are in place without an enforcement program, the goal of the regulation is not 

realized – regulations must be feasible to manage and enforce. Enforcement costs must 

be calculated along with certification and education costs. 

i. Consider the complexity of understanding the breadth of the regulatory changes. 

Keep the proposed changes simple and relatively easy to explain, such as no 

more than two tiers: certified applicator and technician/handler. States with 

complex certification systems have a real challenge in explaining the different 

types and tiers of those who purchase, supervise, handle, and apply products. 

This can also lead to enforcement issues. 

ii. The number of new “regulated” applicator/technician individuals could be 

immense depending on limitation/expansiveness of the final scope. In states with 

large urban areas, where current regulations do not require certification or 

training of non-restricted use pesticides (NRUP), the numbers could be 

staggering for landscape/residential and public agency pesticide applications. 

AAPSE suggests that EPA contact those states that do and do not currently meet 

the proposed certification/training standard to assess potential impacts. 

b. In order to meet the demands of an expanded scope of applicator certification, resources 

(FTEs, operational dollars) must be provided to support the SLA certification 

infrastructure and Extension education programs in order to develop training resources 

and credential new people as certified applicators and technicians. 

Page 1 of 6 
i. The Agency needs to consider the cost of ramping up certification and education 

programs: training/examination infrastructure, training curricula and materials, 

exams, and databases. 

ii. The Agency needs to consider the ongoing maintenance of programs: numbers of 

verified/monitored trainings, numbers of exams/retakes, database 

management/tracking, training material revisions, everyday client 

communication. 

4. There is also some concern that states that currently regulate beyond an expanded scope might get 

pressure to reduce their current level of regulation. 

5. AAPSE agrees that changes to 40 CFR 171 are needed, but requests that EPA assess mechanisms 

of labeling that could regulate certification level (competency gauge) by product use-restriction 

labeling (e.g., add definitions to rules and change language of RUP statement, and/or or the 

option to make certain occupationally-applied products RUP, due to breadth of use patterns and 

the potential exposure to the public/environment through misuse). 

C&T Issue Paper 1: Expand the Scope of Applicators Subject to Regulation 

1. AAPSE strongly suggests that EPA consider no more than two tiers: tier one for the 

purchaser/supervisor (who can also apply) and tier two for the mixer/loader/applicator employee. 

a. AAPSE cautions EPA to clearly delineate the allowed duties for each tier 

(purchase/supervise versus mix/load/apply). 

2. The AAPSE Board was unanimous in its consensus for requiring any business that applies any 

conventional (i.e., non-antimicrobial) pesticide for hire to have a Certified Pest Control For-Hire 

Applicator in their employ. This individual could purchase and supervise the use of general or 

restricted use pesticides (the credential would also allow them to apply). The scope would include 

any owner, manager, lead-applicator employee who supervises any pesticide applied onto 

properties owned by another for non-wage/salary monetary compensation. This Certified Pest 

Control For-Hire Applicator could supervise a technician(s). This would include any business 

that charges a fee for service to apply pesticides in homes, businesses, landscape maintenance, 

aquatic weeds/fish, forestry, agriculture, schools, right of way, etc. 

a. AAPSE supports that any person working under the supervision of a Certified Pest 

Control For-Hire Applicator (or Certified RUP Commercial or Private Applicator) must 

be credentialed by either a participating in a verifiable, mandatory training or passing a 

content-relevant core exam. 

b. Achieving this expansion to a two-tier scope approach will mitigate human health and 

environmental exposures by ensuring the supervisor and supervisee have met minimum 

competency gauges. 

c. AAPSE philosophically agrees with the premise that any person who applies pesticides to 

the properties of others for a fee (non-wage) should be a certified applicator who has 

passed a core and category exam; however, the impact for some states could be very 

significant since that definition would include high school teenagers or other individuals 

that hire themselves out for summer lawn mowing and make infrequent and limited 

applications of NRUP lawn and garden pesticides. 

3. Regarding certification of applicators (occupational not-for-hire) who as part of their employment 

apply NRUPs on their employers’ properties (public or private property), AAPSE discussed the 

tactic of regulating on “sensitive sites” and found some merit with it since many states already 

regulate this way, but AAPSE also discussed problems with defining what falls within or is 

exempted out of the definition. AAPSE also discussed government employees who apply NRUPs 

to public properties and found some merit in regulating these applicators since some states 

Page 2 of 6 
regulate this way, but found problems as well. AAPSE did not have a majority or minority 

opinion for “occupational not-for-hire” pest control applicators. 

4. AAPSE also discussed the possibility of EPA regulating certification level (competency gauge – 

two tiers: certified applicator or technician-WPS handler) by product use-restriction labeling and 

new definitions in 40CFR171 (e.g., For retail sale to and use only by certified applicators. This 

product may be applied only by the certified applicator or by an EPA-approved trained technician 

or WPS handler under the supervision of a certified applicator and only for those uses covered by 

the certified applicator’s certification.) 

5. AAPSE does not support C&T Issue Paper 1 options 2, 5, or 6. 

6. AAPSE would like to have had more time and more details in order to provide more substantial 

comments to EPA on this scope-defining issue. 

7. For EPA to assess costs and impacts, AAPSE suggests that EPA contact states that have already 

implemented similar regulations to assess new applicator/technician numbers and what 

infrastructure would be required to manage the increase. The Agency should also contact states 

that will be impacted to assess their needs. 

C&T Issue Paper 2: Expand Scope of Applicators Subject to Testing and Training 

1. Given an expanded scope of two tiers, AAPSE suggests the following competency gauges for 

each tier (old and expanded scope). 

a. Tier I - Certified Applicator 

i. RUP Private - state-verified content relevant training program with specific 

training criteria (control elements) or optional content relevant exam 

ii. RUP Commercial – content-relevant core and category exams 

iii. Pest Control for Hire (NRUP or RUP) – content-relevant core and category 

exams

b. Tier II - Supervised Employee

i. Technician– This group would include any non-certified person working under 

the supervision of a RUP Commercial Applicator, Pest Control For-Hire 

Applicator, or RUP Private Applicator (who is exempted from WPS – non farm, 

forest, nursery, greenhouse) who has the appropriate category. AAPSE supports 

a competency gauge with dual-options (per the choice of the technician): (1) 

state-verified content-relevant training program with specific training criteria 

similar to WPS with possible expansion of environmental topics and take home 

pesticides or (2) a content-relevant core exam. Technicians could not purchase 

or supervise others. Since ag handlers must at a minimum have training, then 

non-ag employees who apply RUPs or Certified Pest Control For Hire Applicator 

employees applying NRUPs must meet the same measure. 

ii. WPS Handler – This group would include any non-certified person working 

under the supervision of a certified Private Applicator. The competency gauge

would have dual-options: state-verified content-relevant training program with 

specific training criteria or content-relevant core exam. WPS Handlers could not 

purchase or supervise others. 

2. The AAPSE Board strongly supports that EPA require any examination used to demonstrate 

competency be a proctored, written, closed-book, content-relevant examination (definition from 

CTAG issue paper 2003). AAPSE recognizes that closed-book exams can include proctorprovided labels, resource manuals, specimens for identification, etc. In such cases, the exam 

candidate brings no reference materials into the examination room and no reference materials 

leave the examination room. 

Page 3 of 6 
C&T Issue Paper 3: Redefine “under the direct supervision” 

1. AAPSE supports the requirement that anyone who applies pesticides under the supervision of a 

certified applicator (RUP Private or Commercial Certified Applicator or Certified Pest Control 

for Hire Applicator) must be trained in the safe and effective use of RUPs and NRUPs. 

a. AAPSE fully supports a two-tier system and if the two-tier system is implemented, 

supervision becomes moot. Supervision is very complex since it differs between states 

and even within states between certification types. Each state has very different reasons 

for their supervision definitions. Having a second tier of technicians/handlers who 

mix/load/apply who have met a minimum competency gauge protects the environment, 

the public, and the workforce. AAPSE supports a dual-option approach to meet a 

competency gauge. The candidate has the choice of either participating in a verifiable 

content-relevant training program or passing a content-relevant exam (core exam). 

AAPSE supports requiring retraining, which could also be by training program or exam. 

b. If the certification regulation’s scope is not expanded, EPA must address the supervision 

issue to ensure that supervised applicators can safely handle and apply the product. This 

could possibly be achieved by altering the use-restricted statement on RUP products. 

Example language might be similar to “For retail sale to and use only by certified 

applicators. This product may be applied only by the certified applicator or by an EPAapproved trained technician or WPS handler under the supervision of a certified 

applicator and only for those uses covered by the certified applicator’s certification.” 

C&T Issue Paper 5: Establish a Minimum Age for Certified Applicators 

1. AAPSE members were confused by this paper since it seemed to require a minimum age for any 

person that might apply a pesticide even while under the supervision of a certified applicator. 

AAPSE strongly suggests EPA clarify the duties for which a minimum age might be enacted 

(purchase/supervise versus mix/load/apply). 

2. AAPSE members have very divergent beliefs as they pertain to minimum age and the Board 

could not achieve a consensus nor a majority or minority opinion. Discussion by the Board 

included the following points. 

a. Members who support a national minimum age only support a minimum age requirement 

for someone who becomes a Certified Applicator (RUP Private, RUP Commercial, Pest 

Control-for-Hire), defined as a person who can purchase and supervise the use of a 

product. These same members did not support a minimum age for a non-certified person 

working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. Thus, a 15-year old son or 

daughter on a farm could apply an RUP as long as the application was made under the 

supervision of a certified applicator. 

b. Members who do not support a national minimum age maintain this is a state’s issue and 

federal labor law issue. 

3. As stated earlier, regardless of age, AAPSE supports that any individual who purchases and 

supervises the use of pesticides should understand how to safely handle and use pesticides in 

order to protect human health and the environment. Any person who applies under someone’s 

supervision should also know and understand safe handling procedures and the importance of 

complying with the pesticide label. 

Page 4 of 6 
WPS Issue Paper 1: Protect the Health of Agricultural Pesticide Workers and Handlers by 

Informing them of Pesticide Hazards 

AAPSE strongly supports the concept that everyone is entitled to information about hazards they are 

exposed to in the workplace. However, experience in teaching pesticide safety over many years has 

taught us that personal safety is best protected through using best practices all the time as opposed to 

altering one’s practices for specific exposures. We believe it will be most effective to create a culture of 

safety through teaching workers basic principles as well as methods to reduce or minimize exposure of 

themselves, their homes, and their families at all times. 

Providing hazcom information, although an important right, is a separate issue and not necessarily 

contributory to a culture of safe use practices. We disagree with the statement in the rationale for this 

proposed change regarding provision of hazard communication materials that “[t]his lack of knowledge 

[i.e., lack of hazcom information] may prevent [agricultural pesticide workers and handlers] from taking 

appropriate steps to protect themselves, increasing their risk for occupational injuries or illness” (last 

paragraph, p.1). In fact, providing too much very specific information can lead workers to disregard 

certain safety practices when exposed to residues they might consider less “risky” than others. 

The key to proactive implementation of measures to protect personal safety is education. Workers cannot 

be expected to understand even information presented primarily pictorially without proper education as to 

the meaning of pictograms. For instance, a pictogram currently under consideration in GHS to indicate 

the potential for certain health effects (a person with a star-shaped image radiating from the chest) is 

meant to depict any of the following: the potential for carcinogenicity, respiratory effects, target organ 

toxicity, reproductive toxicity, or mutagenicity. Aside from the fact that the individual viewing the 

pictogram will be extremely unlikely to know the meaning(s) a priori, what should the individual do 

specifically to protect himself and his family from this pesticide as opposed to a pesticide that does not 

carry this pictogram? In fact, instituting universal precautions, rather than picking and choosing 

appropriate safety practices for each residue to which one is exposed, will better ensure exposure 

minimization. Training workers on the meaning of the various pictorial images and how to interpret them 

would take time and resources away from training that currently focuses on teaching workers how and 

why to protect themselves and their families. 

On the other hand, if hazcom information is maintained as a right-to-know issue, it would properly be 

made available to both the worker and his/her health care provider in the event of an overexposure or for 

questions from the worker about personal health. The Agency’s rationale for this proposed change states 

that “[those who] respond to reports of pesticide illnesses among migrant workers...should have access to 

pesticide-specific hazard information for pesticides they may be exposed to in the workplace so these 

workers can...receive appropriate medical care in the event of a pesticide exposure incident or illness (first 

full paragraph, p.4).” AAPSE strongly agrees with this argument, but rejects the phrase indicating that 

pesticide-specific information would help workers “reduce their chance for pesticide exposure, injury, and 

illness.” Again, we believe it is counterproductive to expect workers to decide on how best to protect 

themselves on the basis of specific products, especially when exposed merely to the residues; rather, they 

should institute best practices at all times, regardless of the product. 

AAPSE supports access to hazcom information solely as a right-to-know issue. Current requirements for 

notification and central posting of products used satisfy this need. AAPSE believes that if hazcom 

materials are to be distributed or made available in written and pictorial form (even primarily pictogram 

form requires some text) with a goal of improving workers’ safety practices, it changes the goal of rightto-know to one of education, which is already adequately covered under current WP standards plus other 

proposed changes to improve training. Providing such written materials in English and Spanish only 

seems to contradict the spirit of the original WPS which requires that training be conducted in a language 

Page 5 of 6 
understandable by the trainee. In such case, the materials ought properly to be provided in every 

language spoken by any of the workers (which would be a logistic nightmare for employers, SLAs, and 

registrants) or provided in English only. AAPSE recommends that EPA check with OSHA to determine 

if other industries are required to translate right-to-know information into languages spoken by 

employees. 

In summary, AAPSE urges that hazcom materials should be considered an important right-to-know issue 

that serves a separate purpose. Personal protection is best achieved through instituting universal 

precautions regardless of individual product. 

WPS Issue Paper 2: Improve Administration of Safety Training to Help Protect Agricultural 

Workers from Pesticide Exposure 

AAPSE supports eliminating the grace period and requiring periodic training within at least every three 

years. We believe it is important for workers to know and understand any potential risks, as well as how 

to protect themselves and their families, prior to entering treated fields. From our experience with 

pesticide education in both WP and C&T, we believe repeating basic safety messages increases adoption 

of improved safety practices. 

AAPSE supports the concept of knowledgeable, effective trainers. Ideally, trainers should be well-versed 

in both the subject matter and effective educational delivery methods. However, the realities of field 

situations may favor simply the availability of trainers who can deliver the subject matter using proven 

training materials. We believe this is particularly true for trainers of workers as opposed to trainers of 

handlers. In general, the handler population is more stable, and access to trainers within a very short time 

period is less of a problem than for workers. If certified applicators can no longer serve as trainers 

without completing a Train-the-Trainer course, it may adversely affect the availability of trainers, 

especially in large rural expanses. Since a workshop-trained trainer may not be available before the 

worker needs to start in the field, this would compromise the ability to eliminate the grace period. 

AAPSE urges EPA to lengthen the timeline for consideration of the issue of who should be able to serve 

as a trainer of handlers and workers. We believe this is necessary in order to develop a feasible approach 

that will ensure availability of knowledgeable and effective trainers while not increasing the burden on 

employers to the point where noncompliance is enticing. 

Submitted by: 

Ples Spradley 

Chairman of the Issues and Evaluation Committee, 

American Association of Pesticide Safety Educators 

Page 6 of 6