1

USDA Comments for the PPDC Worker Safety Regulation Change Subgroup

USDA appreciates the opportunity to provide input into these important worker safety 

issues. USDA complements EPA for the major accomplishments it has undertaken in the 

recent past in reducing pesticide risks to human health and the environment.

▪ EPA required that all pesticide products in use must contain Worker Protection 

Standard safeguards in their labeling by October 1996. The last of these pesticide 

products meeting WPS labeling requirements, including increased PPE requirements, 

began to be used by growers in 1997. 

▪ In 2006-7, EPA completed the reregistration of all pesticides registered before 1984. 

Major and significant risk reductions were accomplished including the cancellation of a 

number of pesticides, cancellation of the riskiest uses of many pesticides, the 

classification of a number of pesticides as Restricted Use Products, lowered application 

rates, fewer applications of those pesticides, increased retreatment intervals, increased 

PPE requirements, mandatory closed-engineering systems, and increased reentry intervals 

from 12 hours to x numbers of days for the great majority of chemicals.

▪ As a result of the reregistratiion effort, children have become more protected more by

the elimination of the most toxic pesticides from use on residential home lawns, within 

residential homes, within school buildings and school areas and public areas such as 

parks.

▪ As a result of the ten year intensive reregistration effort, all pesticide products, 

including anti-microbial agents and agricultural pesticides now have clear label language 

for use by professionals and non-professionals.

Especially noteworthy, the trend in reported pesticide illnesses is clearly downward and 

the numbers reported, while of concern, are not large in magnitude. 

The current federal/state regulatory system is already overwhelmed. So the scope of the 

options under consideration may become an unfunded mandate.

Therefore it is recommended that a full assessment of the recent impact of reregistration 

risk mitigation decisions be undertaken before implementing major worker safety 

regulatory changes. In view of the downward trend in observed illnesses, increased and 

continued federal, state and private educational efforts combined with enforcement is 

recommended.

New significant federal requirements encompassing all pesticide occupational users and 

incidental users and including general use pesticides along with restricted use pesticides 

used for agriculture will require changes in state statutes and regulations. Care should be 
2

taken to consider the impact on the existing infrastructure of state and private 

organizations which now provide worker training as well as impact on the small farmer. 

Issue Paper IA: Expand Scope of Users

▪ USDA is supportive of efforts to protect human health and the environment as a result 

of the use of pesticides. However, major regulatory changes should await a closer review 

of the observed trends in pesticide illnesses and a full evaluation of the benefits of recent 

reregistration decisions completed in 2006 which resulted in the cancellations of many

pesticide registrations or uses of the most toxic pesticides, a reduction in the application 

rates, lengthened re-entry intervals and clarified label language. In the interim, increased 

state, federal and private educational efforts is recommended.

▪ The epidemiological studies brought forward to support increased regulation should be 

evaluated more closely in the light of major Agency actions over the past ten years for 

three reasons. 

- First, it is likely that many illnesses may have been the due to exposure to more

toxic pesticides (e.g. mevinphos, ethyl parathion, methamidophos, ethion, EPN, 

moncrotophos, chloropyrifos,) which are now cancelled or which have undergone 

major restrictions in their use. http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/rup/rupjun03.htm

- http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/a8f952395381d3968525701c005e65b5/

1cbb1b3bd0c3947f852571bf0066fbf7!OpenDocument

- Second, the studies of worker illnesses cited by EPA cover the period between 

1993 through 2003. However, the final deadline for compliance to Worker 

Protection Standard, which increased worker protection significantly by requiring 

increased PPE for all covered pesticide products being distributed or sold was 

October 23, 1996. http://www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/PR_Notices/pr95-5.html So 

it is reasonable to assume that it was not until the 1997 growing season that all 

pesticide products in use met WPS PPE requirements.

- A number of products have received Restricted Use Classifications. For example, 

during the May 2002 and June 2003, thirteen pesticides were place onto the 

Restricted Use Products list http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/rup/rup6mols.htm

Again, the full effect of the reregistration effect completed by EPA in 2006-07 

has not yet been fully realized. 

▪ The trend in reported pesticide illnesses is downward. During the November 2006 

PPDC meeting, EPA conveyed that “EPA is improving human health protection from 

acute adverse effects of pesticides, especially OP’s (1994 to 2004). Unintentional 

pesticide exposures declined 26% and pesticide poisonings declined 37%. Unintentional 

OP exposures declined 72% and OP poisonings declined 70%.” 

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:RErd4OWw9oUJ:www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/2006/november06/session1-

reregis.pdf+pesticide+reregistration+schools+2006&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5
3

Therefore in view of observed downward trends, with the full implementation of WPS 

labeling in 1997, and because the full impact of reregistration has not been fully realized, 

it is not certain that no action or expansion “will leave the public at higher risk of 

exposure from a wider range of applicators using pesticides without any federal 

regulatory standards.” 

The following information is also offered for consideration:

▪ With regard to safety among agricultural workers, the California Department of 

Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program (PISP) 2004 report notes a 

“long-term decline since the 1980s” of suspected pesticide residue injuries to farm field 

workers (68 in 2004 versus 350 in some years in the 1980s).”The number of suspected 

pesticide residue injuries to farm workers in 2004 remained low, with 68 cases reported,

compared to 58 the prior year and 78 in 2002.” “The number of suspected or confirmed 

agricultural drift illnesses declined for the third consecutive year in 2004 (233 cases and 

37 episodes, compared to 256 cases and 33 episodes in 2003; compared to 478 cases and 

39 episodes in 2002).” “Suspected or confirmed, non-occupational cases have fallen 

dramatically in recent years, from 522 in 2002 to 249 in 2003 to 71 in 2004.” 

http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/whs/2004pisp.htm

▪ From the Michigan Department of Community Health, 

http://www.michigan.gov/mdch/0,1607,7-132-2945_5105-127397--,00.html, it is noted

that the number of confirmed acute, work related pesticide illnesses and injury cases in 

2004 was 116 while the number of confirmed cases in 2005 was 68.

▪ From the Washington Department of Health, 

( http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/ts/Pest/pest-school.htm#jamareport) 

For school illnesses, it is noted that 70% of the reported pesticide illnesses were the result 

the result of pesticides applied on school grounds and 30% were the result of exposure 

from pesticides that had drifted into schools from neighboring farmland for the period 

2000 to 2005. The completion of reregistration in 2006-7 fully considered exposure in 

school settings as required by FQPA. Risk mitigations have included the cancellation of 

a number of pesticides in school settings and adjacent areas. Addtionally, many new 

pesticide product labels with increased protective language such as spray buffers as a 

result of reregistration will be entering the marketplace in 2008 and later. The protective 

decisions as a result of reregistration will not be fully appreciated until beginning 2009.

▪ The full impact of reregistration decisions have not been fully realized in the field 

because the new labels have not yet been implemented. For example, as a result of 

reregistration, organophosphate labels now require respiratory protection for pesticide 

handlers. However, numerous applicators in Washington State were not using respirators 

while using an OP product in 2004 and 2005. Per the Washington State Department of 

Health’s Scientific Advisory Committee for Cholinesterase Monitoring, “Final Report: 

Cholinesterase Monitoring of Pesticide Handlers in Agriculture: 2005,” “As noted in 

2004, approximately 50% of employers investigated are using a Lorsban product that 

does not include a label requirement for respiratory protection” 
4

http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/ts/Pest/pest-illness-data.htm#cholinesterase

▪ The studies provided by EPA (Blondell 2005, Michigan Department of Community

Health 2005, Calvert et.al., 2004) provide an overview of pesticide illnesses in the period 

1993 to 2003. It can be expected that EPA’s recent successful completion in 2006 of the 

reregistration of all pesticides registered before1984 will only continue the decline in 

reported illnesses. For example, numerous OPs such as mevinphos, methyl parathion, 

and ethyl parathion have been cancelled or were levied major risk mitigation measures 

such as increased PPE, engineering controls, lengthened spray buffers, ban on aerial 

applications, reduced application rates, increased retreatment intervals and increased 

reentry intervals levied to further protect human health. The uses for the remaining OPs 

and other cholinesterase-inhibiting compounds have successfully met reregistration 

requirements.

▪ With regard to childrens’ safety, pesticides were reregistered if they met the safety 

standard of “reasonable certainty of no harm” with regard to pesticide use on childrens’ 

playgrounds, school buildings, home lawns and interiors, and public areas such as parks 

as required by the Food Quality Protection Act. As a result, numerous pesticide uses, 

including cholinesterase-inhibiting compounds such as organophosphates, have been 

cancelled or mitigated leading to increased protection of children use in schools and 

home. 

▪ The EPA issue paper states that pesticides “are inherently dangerous when used 

incompetently.” To require user competency of the general working population for all 

pesticides is counter to the current EPA regulatory scheme which includes pesticides 

exempted from regulation under FIFRA Section 25(b), and numerous biopesticides and 

reduced risk pesticides. Per EPA’s FAQ’s, “There are situations where pesticide 

exposure does not cause problems. For example, some pesticides cannot be absorbed 

across the skin. Or, the body may be able to metabolize and excrete small amounts of 

pesticides without adverse effect. Additionally, some pesticides have relatively low 

toxicity for humans.”

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/app_faq.htm#cost

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

▪ To expand the scope of regulated users of pesticides beyond restricted use pesticides, , 

EPA is utilizing a definition which is broader than that intended by Congress in FIFRA or 

within EPA’s current regulations. EPA’s definition of occupational user in the issues

paper is not contained in FIFRA or EPA regulations; “An occupational user is any

person, including a self employed person, who is employed for any type of compensation 

and who mixes, loads, transfers or applies or assists in the application of any registered 

pesticides or who is defined as a handler in 40 CFR 170.” This definition should be fully

discussed on its own merit. This definition would include part-time farm hands who use 

any registered pesticides from Home Depot to spray the family barn to control horse flies.
5

▪ The term “assists in the application” is a major expansion in the proposed regulations, 

is vague and will raise numerous enforcement issues. It would be better that enforcement 

resources be allocated elsewhere.

▪ USDA is not aware of major numbers of reported illnesses or accidents associated with 

the buying or transport of a pesticide. Buying and transporting a pesticide consumer 

product from the supermarket for work should not require certified applicator training or 

the son or daughter of a family farmer to buy and transport pesticides. 

▪ Expanding the scope of users to include occupational users of anti-microbial products 

appears to run counter to Section 2(jj) and Section 2(kk) of FIFRA which excludes 

individuals who use “antimicrobial pesticides, sanitizers or disinfectants” in defining 

maintenance applicators and service technicians.

As with conventional pesticides, EPA has recently completed the reregistration of antimicrobial pesticides so it is suggested that major worker safety related regulatory changes 

for anti-microbials should be reserved until an assessment of the outcome of those risk 

mitigation decisions can be determined. The anti-microbial products industry will be 

submitting additional occupational exposure data as well

Private Applicators

▪ With regard to private applicators, could the Agency elaborate on FIFRA Section 

11(a)(1) “Federal Certification [of restricted use pesticides] ”...”Such program....shall 

not require private applicators to take any examination to establish competency in the use 

of pesticides.” Establishing a mandatory federal competency gauge for private 

applicators appears contrary to the intent of FIFRA 11(a)(1).

Maintenance Applicators and Service Technicians

▪ EPA, in its definition of “occupational user,” seeks to include applicators who use or 

supervise the application of structural or lawn care pesticides. Following is EPA’s 

summary of FQPA’s requirements for maintenance applicators and service technicians. 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/laws/fqpa/fqpafifr.htm

“Sec. 120 Training for Maintenance Applicators and Service Technicians 

Creates two new types of pesticide applicators: l) maintenance applicators - who use or 

supervise the use of structural or lawn care pesticides not classified for restricted use and 

2) service technicians - who use or supervise use of pesticides (other than a ready to use 

consumer products pesticide) for structural pest control or lawn pest control on another's 

property for a fee. (neither term includes persons who use antimicrobials, sanitizers, and 

disinfectants. In addition, maintenance applicators do not include government employees 

or people who use pesticides not classified as restricted use on non-commercial property.) 
6

Authorizes states to establish minimum training requirements for these applicators; EPA's 

role on these minimum training requirements is to ensure that states understand these 

provisions.

From FIFRA Section 136w-5. “Minimum requirements for training of maintenance 

applicators and service technicians”

 

“Each State may establish minimum requirements for training of maintenance applicators 

and service technicians. Such training may include instruction in the safe and effective 

handling and use of pesticides in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency

approved labeling, and instruction in integrated pest management techniques. The 

authority of the Administrator with respect to minimum requirements for training of 

maintenance applicators and service technicians shall be limited to ensuring that each 

State understands the provisions of this section.”

The Federal Insecticides, Fungicides and Rodenticides Act (FIFRA) Section 2(e) (1) and 

(3) defines and limits certified applicators, private applicators, and commercial 

applicators as those using only restricted use pesticides.

However, FIFRA Section 3 (d)(1)(C) provides EPA with the authority to classify a 

general pesticide as a restricted use pesticide: “...when applied in accordance with its 

directions for use, warnings and cautions and for the uses for which it is registered, or for 

one or more of such uses, or in accordance with a widespread and commonly recognized 

practice, may generally cause, without additional regulatory restrictions, unreasonable 

adverse effects on the environment, including injury to the applicator, the Administrator 

shall classify the pesticide, or the particular use or uses to which the determination 

applies, for restricted use.” Additional training can be mandated for users of these 

restricted use pesticides as is done currently.

Protection of School Children 

▪ As stated previously, the full effects of the positive impacts of reregistration have not 

yet been fully apprised on the school population. 

▪ USDA supports EPA’s ongoing initiatives for integrated pest management programs 

and increased educational efforts via increased hazard communication efforts by state, 

federal and private groups to reduce pesticide-related illnesses among school children.

▪ While school children must be protected, it is noted that the overall incidence rate, 

while increasing among children for 1998 – 2002, the 7.4 cases per million children rate 

is still three times lower than the overall incidence rate among adults was 27.3 cases per 

million full-time employee equivalents. 2005 “Acute Illnesses Associated with Pesticide 

Exposure at Schools “report in the Journal of the American Medical Association 

(JAMA), by Alarcon, Calvert, Blondell, et. al. http://jama.amaassn.org/cgi/content/short/294/4/455. Fortunately, only three cases of the 2593 persons 
7

evaluated for the five year period, including children, were considered high severity 

illnesses. Of the 2593 cases, there were no mortalities. 

Issue Paper IB: Under the Supervision 

▪ USDA supports efforts to clarify the requirements of direct supervision of uncertified 

applicators to avoid enforcement confusion. Perhaps a requirement for line-of-sight or the 

equivalent could be considered instead of maximum number of feet there may be trees or 

hills obscuring the view. Will a nationally required minimum distance of x feet actually

be enforceable? Still, reported incidences such as single field supervisor “directly

supervising” 500 workers and another supervisor who was located 6 hours away should 

be avoided. But for these two given cases, is a national regulation necessary? 

Consideration should be undertaken for available technology to enable appropriate direct 

supervision e.g. web cams and cell phones. The need for closer direct supervisons

depends on the experience of the uncertified workers. First-day recruits would require 

more attention than laborers with five years of experience for example. The ability to 

effectively communicate to the uncertified applicator merits elaboration. 

USDA notes that EPA has the discretionary authority to prescribe that an RUP may not 

be applied “under the direct supervision.” EPA could provide guidance on when an RUP

product would not qualify for use “under the direct supervision” But for Tox II, III and 

IV category pesticides, increased education and outreach could be utilized. 

Issue Paper IC: Restricted Use Product Dealer Competency

▪ USDA supports in general increased competency in pesticide dealers of restricted use 

pesticides. It is noted though that some states define “pesticide dealer” as one who deals 

restricted use pesticides and other states define a pesticide dealer as one selling all 

pesticides. It is not clear if adding a new federal requirement layered over differing 

regulatory definitions among states would be easier to manage than volunteer industry

standards such as those of Crop Life America. 

▪ USDA supports limiting dealer competency to restricted-use pesticides since FIFRA 

does not address training requirements for general use pesticides and since no 

information has been provided indicating that pesticide dealer incompetence for general 

use pesticides has been problematic so as to require increased regulation.

▪ It is not clear if EPA is proposing competency standards for pesticide dealers only or 

also their sales employees. e.g. customer assistance personnel.

▪ With regard to homeland security, on December 28, 2006, the US Department of 

Homeland Security issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ``interim final 

regulations'' for the security of certain chemical facilities in the United States. Public 

comment closed on February 7, 2007. These proposed regulations may not affect the sites 

of pesticide dealers. Depending on the standards to be set, not every pesticide dealer 
8

facility storing pesticide products may be considered a high-risk facility especially

smaller facilities. Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security may not require 

homeland security safeguards for all classes of pesticides beyond Restricted Use 

Pesticides. http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=08071821172+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

Issue Paper IIA: Minimum Age for Applicators

▪ USDA supports the protection of youths in agricultural employment and other 

occupations. EPA is commended for nearly completing in 2006-7, the reregistration of 

all old pesticides (pre-1984 registrations). Many uses were cancelled or modified by

reductions in the maximum use rate, reductions in the numbers of applications, additional 

PPE requirements, and required engineering controls such as closed-handling systems 

and water soluble packaging for the most acutely toxic. 

▪ The full effects of these measures and their benefits on youth have yet to be realized as 

newer product labels are still entering the market place. From May 2002 to June 2003

alone, 13 pesticide active ingredients were placed onto the Restricted Use Products list 

http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/rup/rup6mols.htm. Some active ingredients were

cancelled altogether including mevinphos, monocrotophos, ethyl parathion. Further, 

pesticide products could be sold without the required WPS language and therefore the 

required worker safety protection measures until October 1996 (PR Notice 95-5). The 

benefits of required PPE, worker training, washing facilities and other worker safety

measures were 

▪ With regard to applying pesticides occupationally, it was noted Calvert et.al (2003), that 

only 15 of 70 of the youths (15 – 17 years) over a eleven year period (average of 1.4 per 

year) were reported ill from directly handling (applying, disposing, or mixing/loading) 

pesticides in an agricultural setting. The magnitude of numbers of illnesses is small and 

most illnesses were not classified as major. While Issue IIA wishes to ensure that youths 

in agriculture do not “endanger” themselves, USDA notes that no mortality was observed 

over the eleven year period evaluated. 

▪ While the overall incidence for youths in agriculture is 27 times higher than that 

observed in the general working population of youths, the total numbers are small in 

magnitude (44 cases per year). Of the 531 total reported illnesses for agricultural and

non-agricultural related incidences over a twelve year period (average 44 cases per year), 

7 (1%) were reported as major severity and 418 (79%) were classified as minor severity.

▪ While Calvert (2003) recommended that “the FSLA and the Worker Protection 

Standard should be reviewed and appropriately revised to ensure that workers younger 

than 18 years are protected against toxic pesticide exposures,”
9

- Calvert (2003) reported that the incidence ratio among working youths aged 15 to 

17 employed in agriculture was lower than in adults (0.74) suggesting that youths 

in agriculture had a lower risk than adults in agriculture. 

- Calvert (2003) also noted that “only 3 youths appeared to be working in violation 

of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). These 3 youths were younger than 16 

years, were employed on farms not owned or operated by their parents, and were 

applying or handling EPA acute toxicity category I or II pesticides.”

▪ It was also noted in Calvert et.al. (2003) that for cases from 1993 to 1998, “Nineteen 

percent (9 of 48) of youths employed in agriculture used protective equipment.” Since 

labels conforming to WPS requirements for use of PPE for handlers were required by 

EPA to be in the market by October 1996, we can expect substantial improvement from 

1997 onward. Fortunately, for the period 1993- 1998, “79% of the cases of acute 

occupational pesticide-related illness among youths were of minor severity” and “no 

fatalities were identified.”

▪ With regard to reentry exposure, “Among the 55 agricultural workers not handling 

pesticides, 33 (60%) were exposed while handling plant products previously sprayed with 

pesticides.” It would be worthwhile effort to determine if the pesticides involved were 

any of the organophosphates which have been cancelled between 1993 through 1998. 

Also, stated earlier, it can be expected that new lengthened reentry intervals from 12 

hours to x number of days, as required in EPA’s completed reregistration effort in 2006-

07 will have a positive impact in reducing reentry related incidences.

▪ The fruits of reregistration from 2006 onward can be expected to reduce reported 

illnesses. For example, only 16 percent of the 70 agricultural youths affected, for which 

information on PPE was available, wore PPE [Calvert et.al. (2003)] in a review of 

incidences between 1993 - 1998. The label requirements for increased protection under 

WPS was required for all pesticide products by October 23, 1996. The product labels 

were reaching the field for the 1997 growing season. The requirement for the availability

of water for washing and the changing and washing of worker clothes was also 

strengthened. Further, under WPS, training requirements were strengthened. It would be 

instructive to evaluate by the year, (1988 to 1999), the number of youths who did not the 

now- required PPE (respirators, long sleeved shirts and pants, gloves, etc.) or were not 

subject to WPS training requirements. Also, since 61% of the youths reported ill were 

exposed to insecticides, it would also be instructive to evaluate how many youths were 

exposed to now-cancelled pesticides (mevinphos, ethyl parathion, monocrotophos). The 

full benefit of new labels is yet to be fully realized. For example, the Washington 

Department of Health Report 2005, stated that 40 % of growers in 2004 and 2005 

reported using a certain organophosphate product whose label had no respirator 

requirement on it. The newer labels requiring a respirator as a result of reregistration had 

not yet been utilized within the state.

▪ While the incidence rate for youths in agriculture was 28 times that of those not 

working in agriculture based on hours worked (Calvert (2003), it is also noted that this 

extrapolation was made from a relatively small numbers of persons. There were 213 
10

cases in agriculture over a six year span (average 35.5 cases annually). Cases in the 

nonagriculture sector totaled 107 cases (17.8 annually). Because of the small magnitude 

of cases per annum, USDA urges that the full effects of WPS implementation and 

reregistration be assessed before major regulatory changes are implemented to avoid 

unnecessary negative impact on family farms and elsewhere. 

▪ USDA does not believe that a person must be 18 to purchase or transport even the least 

toxic registered pesticides especially if they will not be the applicator. In the Calvert et. 

al. 2003 report, no youth was reported ill from the purchasing or transport of pesticides. 

Per EPA in the Issue IIA paper, “A report in the American Journal of Public Health 

demonstrated that few pesticide incidents involving children were due to violations in the 

Fair Labor Standards Act.” 

▪ Evidence was not provided that youths aged 16 and above were more prone to risk or 

abuse from the purchasing and transport of pesticides as opposed to applying them.

In “Acute Pesticide-Related Illnesses Among Working Youths, 1988-1999,” by Calvert 

et.al (2003), the incidence ratio among working youths aged 15 to 17 employed in 

agriculture was lower than that observed in adults (0.74) suggesting that youths in 

agriculture had a lower risk than adults in agriculture. 

▪ As proposed, a worker would need to be 18 even to purchase personal insect repellents 

and 25(b) pesticides.

▪ With regard to minimum age and hazardous communications issues, USDA urges EPA 

to cooperate with Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

and CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health if it has not already

done to minimize confusion on the part of family farms and growers. Child labor laws, 

regulations and posting requirements are already in force. Overlapping regulations from 

three government organizations instead of two should be minimized for the sake of farm 

worker, large producers, and family farms.

http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/docs/hazag.asp

http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/youthlabor/agerequirements.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/childlab.html

http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/cl/exemptions.asp

▪ Pending further data, USDA supports the existing Department of Labor’s regulations 

that youth under 16 must not be “Handling or applying agricultural chemicals if the 

chemicals are classified under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act as 

Toxicity Category I -- identified by the word "Danger" and/or "Poison" with skull and 

crossbones; or Toxicity Category II -- identified by the word "Warning" on the label. 

(Handling includes cleaning or decontaminating equipment, disposing of or returning 

empty containers, or serving as a flagman for aircraft applying agricultural chemicals.)

Issue Paper IIB: Exams for Applicator 
11

▪ Certification of all users of pesticides (general use vs. RUP) will place a greater burden 

on states. According to the American Association of Pesticide Safety Educators 

(AAPSE) states receive approximately 1.8 million dollars to run their programs. The 

funding comes from EPA and USDA. For the last 3 or 4 years AAPSE has indicated that 

this level of funding from EPA and USDA has been insufficient. States will require 

additional monies to administer a substantially expanded program; monies will most 

likely not available, to run the program as described. 

▪ Currently, in the northeastern states, at least two states do not allow for reciprocity. 

This is problematic for a federal employee who may need to work across state boundaries 

as those states do not recognize any certification outside of their jurisdiction. Will there 

be a way for federal agencies to work with states to allow for true reciprocity if EPA does 

establish a program that is minimally consistent across all states and federal agencies?

▪ Additional training requirements will require more state enforcement and state costs. 

Compliance costs will be passed onto the applicator. A number of association 

organizations are already in place to train personnel. Does another system by the federal 

government need to be set up? 

▪ Has EPA undertaken a preliminary economic analysis on the cost of the revamping of 

the program? How many states will need to revise their statutes, rules and categories in 

order to conform to a national standard? Can savings be expected? or will the 

requirements be significant but unfunded? 

Issue Paper IIC: Set Standard Requirements for Testing 

▪ Standardized exams are good, however there are problems with these sorts of exams. 

How many different exams will there be? Who will construct those exams? How will 

regional differences be taken into account? What protections will be available to states to 

prevent pirating of exams? How often will exams be updated to assure that information 

is scientifically and technically correct? 

▪ An apprenticeship can be an onerous task. Who would determine that certain 

“minimum competencies” are met? Is the apprentice then given an exam to determine 

“competency?” Who would develop the practical exams? There are a number of people 

in pesticide education who have never been involved in operational treatment projects. 

These same people develop and put in place guidelines that are not efficient or practical 

for operational applications of pesticides.

▪ In general, states can still have programs that are more stringent than the EPA

C&T program which may still lead to states not wanting to grant reciprocity to

other states or federal agencies that have EPA approved C&T programs. Can this

stumbling block be overcome?. 
12

Issue Paper IID: Competency Requirements Commensurate with Risk

▪ How will “competency based on risk be determined?” Previous discussion seems to 

imply that all pesticides are “high risk” and “inherently dangerous” The description of 

“competent person” is nebulous at best.

▪ EPA has suggested an option to “establish [a] competency gauge appropriate to risk.” 

Initially, USDA believes that such an effort will be extremely complex to regulate and 

manage. Instead of developing another layer of pesticides regulation, it might be more 

expedient to continue to utilize the administrative process already provided by FIFRA 

section 3 which provides for two classes of pesticides: general use and restricted use with 

mandatory training for restricted use pesticides. Mandatory product stewardship 

requirements are already on many pesticide labels.

Issue Papers IIE & F: Period and Gauge for Re-Certification

Issue Paper IIIA: Develop Standard Certification Categories

▪ An expanded list of federal categories for restricted use pesticide applicators with an 

option for states to add categories is supportable if this will increase reciprocity among 

the states. If only a handful of states have reciprocity issues, might it be easier for EPA 

to work with those neighboring states? There is still no assurance that states will 

reciprocate if a national standard were implemented. The same would apply even during 

emergencies. 

▪ Certification based on risk associated with the site or type of application should await 

until an assessment of the impacts of reregistration in view of the observed long term 

continuing downward trend in observed worker illnesses. (“Summary of Results of the 

California Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program 2004 (HS-1865). California 

Environmental Protection Agency Department of Pesticide Regulation)

Issue Paper IIIB: Update Federal/ State/Tribal Certification Plan Requirements 

▪ APHIS will submit comments shortly.

Issue Papers IIIC and VIB: Assure Program Accountability

▪

Issue Paper IVA: Hazard Communication

▪ If not already undertaken, USDA suggests that EPA work with the Department of 

Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration on hazard communication 

materials. Changes should possibly also await the completion of the Global 

Harmonization effort for pesticide labels. Continued educational efforts and postings to 

minimize confusion on the part of farm workers and all other parties is supported.
13

▪ Under WPS, the farm worker receives training, has access to a safety poster and 

information display. Additional information that is provided to the worker must be 

understandable. Information in their native language and accessibility such as via 800 

number can be considered if not already.

▪ Per Das et.al. (2001) in North Carolina, only 37% stated that their employers posted 

information about products in a central location. It would appear here that new efforts 

should be enforcement-related and focusing on the mandatory WPS posting 

requirements. 

▪ The issue paper states that the Agency has undertaken several hazcomm pilot projects 

and studies. “The final results from these various efforts will provide the Agency with 

better information regarding the best options and approaches for communicating 

pesticide-specific hazards to agricultural pesticide workers.” A briefing of the PPDC 

workgroup on the final results might be beneficial in determining future options or 

approaches.

▪ The 2005 Washington Department of Health SAC report, cited in-field issues which can 

lead to increased worker exposure: improper use of equipment (e.g. improper fitting of 

respirators, facial hair including beards), improper cleaning of equipment, not changing 

of respirator cartridges, the use of improper respirator cartridges, not washing of hands, 

and an OP label which did not require the use of respirator). Continued educational 

efforts along these lines is strongly supported.

Issue Paper IVB: Require Timely Training

▪ USDA strongly supports agricultural worker safety. Because of the observed 

downtrends in reported worker illnesses, and because it is not evident that a shorter time 

interval before training is needed, USDA is concerned that a lost or reduction of a grace 

period would be burdensome to small farmers if the training requirement is detailed and 

would take days to complete. Video-based refresher training should be part of the 

solution. Continued education and hazard communications efforts are strongly 

recommended.

▪ EPA cites Das et. al. (2001) who reported 313 farmworkers in California had become

ill doing routine farm work between 1998 – 1999. It should be noted that the EPA’s 

reregistration effort had modestly begun by then. By 2006, many requirements had been 

imposed to increase worker safety including: the cancellation of pesticides, cancellation 

of many pesticide uses, lowered application rates, increased PPE requirements including 

use or respirators, required closed engineering controls and increase reentry intervals. 

Workers will be entering fields with longer REIs determined by EPA to be fully

protective. Major federal changes should await a determination in the benefits of 

reregistration.
14

▪ The justification for shortening the retraining interval of five years to three was weak in 

view of the declining, low numbers of reported illnesses. With regard to safety among 

agricultural workers, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide 

Illness Surveillance Program (PISP) 2004 report notes a “long-term decline since the 

1980s” of suspected pesticide residue injuries to farm field workers (68 in 2004 versus 

350 in some years in the 1980s).”The number of suspected pesticide residue injuries to 

farm workers in 2004 remained low, with 68 cases reported, compared to 58 the prior 

year and 78 in 2002.” “The number of suspected or confirmed agricultural drift illnesses 

declined for the third consecutive year in 2004 (233 cases and 37 episodes, compared to 

256 cases and 33 episodes in 2003; compared to 478 cases and 39 episodes in 2002).” 

“Suspected or confirmed, non-occupational cases have fallen dramatically in recent years, 

from 522 in 2002 to 249 in 2003 to 71 in 2004.” 

http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/whs/2004pisp.htm

▪ Per Das et. al. (2001) in North Carolina, only 37% stated that their employers posted 

information about products in a central location. It would appear here that new initiatives

should be enforcement-related and focusing on WPS posting requirements.

▪ Similarly, with regard to enforcement and education, per Das et. al. (2001), “A survey

of California farm workers showed that 57% of the respondents admitted to receiving 

training in the safe use of pesticides.” 

Issue Paper IVC: Require Trainers to Demonstrate Competency

For family farms, video based training should still be an option. Language differences,

“trainer availability,” cost-effectiveness, and consistency in training from recognized 

competent experts are accomplished through the use of videos.

Issue Paper IVD: WPS Recordkeeping

Issue Paper IVE: Children in Fields

▪ With the 2006-7 completion of the reregistration of pesticides registered before 1984, 

many pesticides were cancelled or had their uses rates reduced. Pesticide re-entry

intervals were re-evaluated with the most recent scientific standards. Most REIs were 

lengthened. Hand activity was especially scrutinized by EPA’s Health Effects Division. 

Multi-fold safety margins were built into the decision to reregister these pesticides. 

▪ Rather than addressing children in fields under the Worker Protection Standard, USDA 

recommends that educational efforts of families should be emphasized. Special 

consideration should be upon abiding by mandatory re-entry intervals. 

▪ For this issue paper, EPA cited Guillette et. al (1998), “An Anthropological Approach 

to the Evaluation of Preschool Children Exposed to Pesticides in Mexico.” The study

found that “those children exposed to pesticides demonstrated comparatively diminished 
15

motor skills and had reduced short-term memory skills, among, other issues.” This initial 

study, involving 33 children from the agricultural area., is commendable and noteworthy

but care should be exercised in extrapolating this small initial study’s findings into the 

US context. 

- First, it should be noted that the children in the lower farm areas were exposed daily to 

indoor household insect spraying.which could have played the overriding role rather than 

on- farm chemical exposure. Per Guilllete et. al (1998), an initial site visit revealed that 

household bug sprays were usually applied each day throughout the year in the lowland 

homes. In contrast, the foothill residents maintained traditional intercropping for pest 

control in gardens and swatting of bugs in the home.” The article did not identify which 

pesticides were being applied indoors by the families. Malaria is present in the region. 

No organophosphates or carbamates are registered for use in residential settings now in 

the US as a result of EPA’s reregistration efforts which may not be the case in Mexico.

- Unfortunately, for the purposes of this EPA issue, the paper does not describe how often 

the children who live in the lowland agricultural area enter or work in the fields. Nothing 

was noted on what REIs are employed in Mexico versus the US.

- This study conducted in Mexico is an extreme scenario, “Farmers reported that two 

crops a year may be planted, with pesticides applied up to 45 times between planting and 

harvesting per crop.” A number of the chemicals specifically mentioned in the article 

should have little or no impact on the US which has long banned these chemicals for 

indoor use and outdoor use. “Contamination of the resident human population has been 

documented, with milk concentrations of lindane, heptachlor, benzene hexachloride, 

aldrin, and endrin all above limits of the Food and Agricultural Organization of the 

United Nations after 1 month of lactation.” Outdoor uses of endosulfan and methyl 

parathion uses in the US have been closed reviewed and recently mitigated. REIs for 

these two chemicals exist. There are no indoor uses for these two chemicals.

- Unfortunately in this study, no blood or urine samples were taken to definitely link the 

observed behaviors to any specific pesticides which may have been already banned or 

whose risks have been mitigated in the US for indoor or outdoor use. PCBs and dioxins 

could also have been measured as stated in the study. 

- The powerful estrogenic effects of environmental mycotoxins should not be discounted 

as well. The agricultural lowlands will have had higher humidity levels and temperatures 

than the foothills. The lowlands farmers may not have been properly storing and drying 

their corn to minimize mycotoxin levels. The agricultural area is 10 – 30 feet above sea 

level while the foothills group appears to be 1300 feet (400 meters) above sea level. The 

foothills weather will be averaging 5 degrees cooler on average with less humidity with 

more of a difference depending on the prevailing wind movement. Daily household 

sprayings in the lowlands and no pesticide use in the foothills indicates a great difference 

in humidity and temperature conditions.

http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2000/108-1/focus.html
16

- To date, pesticide exposure studies of U.S. farm worker children appear to be limited to 

measuring the general pesticide breakdown products. Linking whether the children were 

actually exposed to potent pesticide residues would have added more value to these 

studies. Measured exposures to relatively benign non-toxic degradates/metabolites in the 

environment are not proof of toxicological harm. Measurements should be made of 

chemical-specific biomarkers.

http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2006/8620/abstract.html

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYP/is_3_111/ai_100730739

▪ There is at least one biomonitoring study showing few appreciable changes in urinary

concentrations in farm spouses and their children following pesticide application.

Acquavella JF, Gustin C, Alexander B, Mandel JS. Farm Family Biomonitoring Studies: 

Implications for Epidemiologic Studies of Pesticides. Scand J Work Environ Health 

(accepted for publication). http://www.farmfamilyexposure.org/html/abstract_3.html

“Our preliminary analysis of biomonitoring data for farmers before, during and after a 

pesticide application suggests variation for different pesticides in: the proportion with 

detectable urinary concentrations, urinary level, and patterns of uptake and elimination. 

These findings, and the limited predictive modeling done to date, suggest that chemical 

specific differences need to be considered in exposure classification schemes. Our 

analysis of biomonitoring data for farm spouses and children found few with appreciable 

changes in urinary concentration after a pesticide application. These findings point to the 

need to validate assumptions about exposures in studies of individuals who are not 

directly involved in pesticide application.”

▪ Farm workers themselves are the most exposed agricultural individuals, more so than 

their spouses and their children. A US biomonitoring study of date dusters and harvesters

was conducted involving the measurement of chemical-specific biomarkers residues 

instead of general OP degradates. (“Krieger, R. I. and T. M. Dinoff 2000. Malathion Deposition, 

Metabolite Clearance, and Cholinesterase Status of Date Dusters and Harvesters” California. Arch. Of 

Environ. Contam. And Toxicol. 38: 546-553) The reported urinary levels of malathion 

dicarboxylic acid ranged from 4-10 ug/gram creatine. Per the Centers for Disease 

Control, “Such worker values are only slightly higher than those detected in the 

NHANES 1999-2000 subsample.” http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/. Furthermore, 

cholinesterase measurements in the Krieger study revealed no effect on cholinesterase 

activity. 

Issue Paper IVF: Expand WPS Training

▪ Please refer to USDA comments in Issue Paper IVE: Children in Fields regarding 

regulatory inclusion of children safety into WPA training requirements. USDA is not 

aware of studies showing that biologically-active pesticidal metabolites are being carried 

to the farm house in amounts of toxicological significance. 

▪ USDA supports ongoing educational efforts through state, federal and private efforts 

particularly stressing the washing of hands by workers. 
17

Issue Paper VA: Clarify Vague WPS Provisions

▪ Growers need maximum flexibility to reenter their fields to perform tasks in a timely

manner. Clarifications which will enable their reentry in a timely manner and which are 

based on data, without compromising human health are strongly supported. Recent risk 

mitigation decisions through EPA’s reregistration effort have significantly increased 

worker safety. More detail is needed on the how the current exceptions are vague which 

are placing “these workers at increased risk for pesticide exposure and adverse health 

effects.” Data generated by the Agricultural Reentry Task Force, and peer-reviewed by 

EPA, have shown which activities may be classified as “no” and “low” contact activities 

which do not jeopardize the well-being of the farm worker. 

▪ If the Agency wishes to remove the provision that allows for administrative exceptions, 

what other process will be in place to provide for exceptions, should any arise?

▪ The proposal to promulgate restricted entry areas around farms and forests during aerial 

applications is not necessary in view of the continued downward trends in pesticide 

illnesses. The recently completed 2006-7 reregistration effort is expected to continue the 

downward trend. Hazard communication should continue to be stressed. 

Issue Paper VB: Clarify WPS Entry Exceptions

▪ Growers need maximum flexibility to reenter their fields to perform tasks in a timely

manner. Clarifications which will enable their reentry without compromising human 

health are strongly supported. Data generated by the Agricultural Reentry Task Force, 

and peer-reviewed by EPA, have shown which activities may be classified as “no” and 

“low” contact activities which do not jeopardize the well-being the farm worker.

Issue Paper VC: Exempt Certified Crop Advisors and Aerial Applicators from WPS

▪ USDA would support Option 3 to maintain the current exemptions under the Worker 

Protection Standard for certified crop advisors, critical for successful IPM programs. 

Crop advisors are not in fields 8 hours a day as most field workers so they have a lower 

risk from pesticide exposure and they are already well-trained professional personnel. 

Certainly, USDA supports any enhances educational or hazard communication efforts by

NAICC and CCA.

Similarly, aerial applicators should also maintain their current WPS exemptions.