1

**USDA Comments for the PPDC Worker Safety Regulation Change Subgroup**  USDA appreciates the opportunity to provide input into th ese important worker safet y 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 W orker P rotection S tandard safe guards in their labeling by October 1996
. The last of these pesticide products meeting WPS labeling requirements, including increased PPE requirements, began to be used b y growers in 1997.

▪ In2006
- 7, EPA complet ed the reregistration of all pes ticides registered before 1984. Major and significant risk reductions were accomplished inc luding the cancellation of a number of pesticides, cancellation of the riski est uses of man y 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
- engineeri ng sy stems , and increased reentry intervals from 12 hours to x numbers of day s for the great majority of chemicals.

▪ As a result of the reregistratiion effort, c hildren have become more protected more by the elimination of the most toxic pesticides from use on residential home lawns, within residential homes, with in school buildings and school areas and public areas su ch as parks. ▪ As a result of the ten ye ar intensive reregistration effort, all pesticide products, including anti
- microbial agents and agricultural pesticides now have clear label language for use b y professionals and non
- professionals. Especiall y notew orth y, the trend in reported pesticide illnesses is clearl y downward and the numbers reported , while of concern, are not large in magnitude. T he current federal/state regulatory s ys tem is already

overwhelmed. So the scope of the options under considerat ion 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 il l nesses , 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 a long with restricted use pesticides used for agriculture will require changes in state statutes and regulations . Care should be2

taken to consider the impact on the e xisting infrastructure of state and private organizations which no w 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 e valuation of the benefits of recent reregistration decisions completed in 2006 whi ch resulted in the cancell ations of many pesticide registration s or uses of the most to xic pesticides , a reduc tion 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 s tudies brought forward to support increased regulation should be evaluated more closel y i n the light of major Age n cy actions over the past ten years for three reasons.

- First, i t is likely

that many

illnesses may

have been the due to exposure to more toxic pesticides (e.g. mevinphos, ethyl parathion , methamidophos, ethion, EPN, moncro to phos, chlorop yr ifos, ) which are now cancelled or which have undergone major re strictions 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 b y EPA cover the period between 1993 through 2003. However, the final deadline for compliance to W orker 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 requireme nts.

- A number of products have received Re s tricted 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 ef

fect of the reregistration effect completed by EPA in 2006
- 07 has not y et been full y realized.
▪ The trend in r eported pesticide illnesses is downward. D uring the November 2006 PPDC meeting, EPA convey ed that “E PA 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+pestici de+reregistration+schools+2006&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=53

Ther e fore i n 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:
▪ W ith regard to safety among agricultural workers, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide I llness Surveillance Program (PISP) 2004 report notes a “long
- term decline since the 1980s” of suspected pesticide residue injuries to farm field workers (68 in 200 4 versus 350 in some y ears in the 1980s). ”The number of susp e cted pesticide residue injuries to farm workers in 2004 remained low, with 68 cases reported, compared to 58 the prior y ear and 78 in 2002.” “The number of suspected or confirmed agricultural drift illnesses declined for the third consecutive y ear 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 dramatica lly

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, i t 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 c ompletion 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 produc t labels with increased protective language such as spray buffers as a result of reregistration will be entering the marketplace in 2008 and later . T he 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 pestici de handlers. However, numerous applicators in Washington State were not using respirators while using an OP product in 2004 and 2005. P er 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 employ ers 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) p rovide 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. F or example, numerous OPs such as mevinphos, meth yl parathion, and eth yl 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 a

pplication 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’ safet y, pesticides were reregistered if they met the safet y s tandard 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 b y 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 inherentl y dangerous when used incompetently
. ” T o require user competency of the general working population for all pesticides is counter to the current EPA regulatory scheme which includes pes ticides 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 a cross the skin. Or, the body may be able to metabolize and excrete small amounts of pesticides without adverse effect. Additionall y, 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 defi nition 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 regulat i ons; “An occupational user is any person, including a s elf employed person, who is employ ed for an y t yp e 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 discusse d on its own merit. This definition would include part - time farm hand s who use any registered pesticides from Home Depot to spray the famil y barn to control horse flies.5

▪ The term “assists in the application” is a major expansion in the proposed regul ations, 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 pesti cide. Bu yi ng 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 bu y and transport pesticides.
▪ Expanding the scope of users to includ e 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 pestici d es, sanitizers or disinfectants” in defining maintenance applicators and service te chnicians. As with conventional pesticides, EPA has recently completed the reregistration of anti
microbial pesticides so it is suggested that major worker safet y 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 an y examination to establish competency in the use of pesticides.” Establishing a mandatory federal competency

ga uge for private applicators appears contrary to the intent of FI FRA 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 ty

pes 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 propert y for a fee. (neither term include s pe rsons 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 prope rt y.)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. F rom FIFRA Sec tion 136w
- **5**
. “ Minimum requirements for trainin g 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 applicator s 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) S ection 2(e) (1) and (3) defines and limits certified applicators, p rivate applicators, and commercial applicators as those using onl y 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 accordanc e with its directions for use, warnings and cautions and for the uses for which i t is registered, or for one or more of such uses, or in accordance with a widespread and commonly recognized practice, may

generall y ca

u se, without additional regulatory restrictions, unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, including injury to the applicator, the Admin i strator 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 currentl y. **Protection of School**  **Children** ▪ As stated previously , the full effects of the positive impacts of reregistration have not ye t been full y 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 illnes s es among school chil dren
. ▪ While school children must be protected, it is noted that the overall i ncidence 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 I llnesses Associated with Pesticide Exposure at Schools “report in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), by

Alarcon, Calvert, Blondell, et. al. http://jama.ama
assn.org/cgi/content/short/294/4/455 . Fortunately, only three cases of the 2593 persons7

evaluated for the five ye ar period, including children, were considered high severit y 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 o r 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 superviso r “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 ye ars of experience for example. Th e ability to effectivel y 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 IVcategory

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. Itis 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 d iffering regulatory

definitions among states would be easier to manage than volunteer industry standards such as those of Crop L i fe America.
▪ U SDA 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 incompetenc e for general use p esticides has been proble matic so as to require increased regulation.
▪ Itis not clear if EPA is proposing competency standards for pesticide dealers only or also their sales employees. e.g. customer as sistance personnel
.

▪ With regard to homeland securit y, o n December 2 8 , 2006, the US Department of Homeland Securit y issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ``interim final regulations'' for the security of certain chemical facilities in the United States. P ublic comment closed on February 7, 200 7. These proposed regulations may not affect the sites of pesticide dealers. Depending on the standards to be set, n ot every pesticide dealer8

facility storing pesticide products may be considered a high
- risk facility especiall y smaller facilities
. Additi onally , the Department of Homeland Security may not require homeland securit y safeguards for all classes of pesticides beyond Restricted Use Pesticides. http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi
bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=08071821172+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve **Issue Paper IIA: Minimum Age for Applicators**
▪ USDA supports the protection of youths in agricultural employ ment and other occupations
. EPA is commended for nearl y completing i n 2006
- 7 , the reregistration of all old pestic i des (pre
- 1984 registrations). Many uses were cancelled or modified by reduct ions in the maximum use rate, reductions in the numbers of applications, additional PPE requirements, and required engineering controls such as closed
- handling s ys tems and water soluble packaging for the most acutel y t oxic.
▪ The full effects of these m easures 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 Product s 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 require d WPS language and therefore the required worker safet y protection measures until October 199 6 (PR Notice 95
- 5) . The benefits of required PPE, worker training, washing facilities and other worker safety measures were
▪ With regard to appl yi ng pesticides occupationally , i t was noted Calvert et.a l (2003), that only 15 of 70 of the youths (15

– 17 y ears) over a eleven ye ar period (average of 1.4 per ye ar) were reported ill from directly handling (applying, disposing, o r mixing/loading) pesticides in an agri cultural setting. The magnitude of numbers of illnesses is small and m ost illnesses were not classified as major. While I ssue IIA wishes to ensure that youths in agriculture do not “endanger” themselves, USDA notes that no mortality was observed over the eleven ye ar 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 rep orted illnesses for agricultural and non - agricultural related incidences over a twelve ye ar period (average 4 4 cases per ye ar), 7 (1%) w ere reported as major severit y and 418 (79%) w ere classified as minor severity
. ▪ While Calvert (2003) recommended th at “the FSLA and the Worker Protection Standard should be reviewed and appropriatel y revised to ensure that workers younger than 18 y ears are protected against toxic pesticide exposures,”9

- Calvert (2003) reported that the incidence ratio among working youths aged 15 to 17 employ ed 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 Labo r Standards Act (FLSA). These 3 youths were younger than 16 ye ars, were employed on farms not owned or operated by their parents, and were applying or handling EPA acute toxicity category Ior 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 b y EPA to be in the market by October 199 6 , w e 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 severit y” 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 w ere 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, wo re PPE [Calvert et.al. (2003)] in a review of incidences between 1993
- 1998
. The label requirements for increased protection under WPS w as required for all pesticide products b y October 23, 1996
. The product labels were reaching the field for the 1997 growing season. The requirement for the availa bility 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 y ear , (1 988 to 1999 ) , the number of youths who did no t 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 yo uths were exposed to now - cancelled pesticides (mevinphos, ethyl parathion, monocrotophos). The full benefit of new labels is y et to be full y realized. For example, the Washington Department of Health Report 2005, stated that 40 % of growers in 2004 an d 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 y et 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 relativel y small numbers of persons . There were 21310

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 m ajor regulatory changes are implemented to avoid unnecessary

negative impact on famil y farms and elsewhere. ▪ USDA does not believe that a person must be 18 to purchase or transport even the least toxic registered pesticides especiall y 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 I ssue 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 appl yi ng them. In “Acute Pesticide
- Related I llnesses 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. ▪ A s proposed, a worker would need t o 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 Nation al 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 i n force. Overlapping regulations from three gov ernment 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 applyingagricultural chemicals if the chemicals are classified under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act a s 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 returnin g empty containers, or serving as a flagman for aircraft appl yi ng agricultural chemicals.) **Issue Paper I**  **IB: 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 Safet y Educators (AAPSE) states receive approximately 1.8 million dollars to run their programs. Th e funding comes from EPA and USDA. For the last 3 or 4 y ears AAPSE has indicated that this level of funding from EPA and USDA has been insuffici ent. State s will require additio nal monies to administer a substantially expanded program; monies will most li kely not available, to run the program as described.
▪ C urrently , in the northeastern states, at least two states do not allow for reciprocity
. This is problematic for a federal emplo yee who may need to work across state boundaries as those states do not recognize an y certification outside of their jurisdic tion. 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 s ys tem by the federal government need to be set up?
▪ Has EPA undertaken a preliminary economic analy sis 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? o r will th e 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 man y different exams will there be? Who will construct those exams? How will regional differences be taken into account? What protections will be available to state s 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? I s the a pprentice 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.” Initiall y, USDA believes that such an effort w ill be extremely complex to regulate and manage. Instead of developing another lay er 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: gener al use and restricted use with mandatory

training for restricte d use pesticides. Mandatory product stewardship requirements are already on many pesticide labels. **Issue Papers IIE & F: Period and Gauge for Re -**  **Certification Issue Paper II**  **I A: 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 onl y a handful of states have reciprocity issues, m ight it be easier for EPA to work with th ose 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 ty pe 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 Pr ogram 2004 (HS
- 1865). California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Pesticide Regulation) **Issue Paper IIIB: Update Federal/ State/T**  **ribal Certification Plan Requirements** ▪ APHI S will submit comments shortly
. **Iss ue Papers IIIC and VIB: Assure P**  **rogram Accountability**

▪ **Issue Paper IVA: Hazard Communication**
▪ If not alread y undertaken, U SDA suggests that EPA work with the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and H ealth 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 oth er parties is supported.13

▪ Under WPS, the farm worker receives training, has access to a safet y poster and information display . Additional information that is provided to the w orker 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 shou ld 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 w ith 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 ap proaches.
▪ 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 equipm ent, 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 strongl y supported. **Issue Paper IVB: Require Timely Training** 
▪ USDA strongl y 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 th at a lost or reduction of a grace period would be burdensome to small farmers if the training requirement is detailed and would take day s to complete. Video
- based r efresher training should be part of the solution. Continued education and hazard communi cations efforts are strongl y recommended.
▪ EPA cites Das et. al. (2001) who reported 313 farmworkers in California had becom e ill doing routine farm work between 1998

– 1999. It should be noted that the EPA’s reregistration effort had modestly begun b y then. By

2006, man y 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 REI s determined by EPA to be fully protective. Major federal changes should await a determination in the benefits of reregistration.14

▪ The justification fo r shortening the retraining interval of five ye ars 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 Surve illance Program (PI SP) 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 y ears in the 1980s).”The number of suspected pesticide residue injuries to farm work ers in 2004 remained low, with 68 cases reported, compared to 58 the prior ye ar 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 D as et. al. (2001) i n North Carolina, only 37% stated that the i r employ ers posted information about products in a central location. It would appear here that new initiatives should be enfor cement - 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 , m any pestic ides were cancelled or had their uses rates reduced. Pesticide re - entry intervals were re - evaluated with the most recent scientific standards . Most REI s were lengthened. Hand activity was especially scrutinized by

EPA’s Health Effects Division. M ulti
- fold safety

margins were built into the decision to reregister the se pesticide s . ▪ Rather than a ddressing children in fields under the Worker Protection Standard, USDA recommends that educational efforts of families should be emphasized. Special considerat ion 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 diminished15

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 b e exercised in extrapolating this small initial study ’s findings into the US context.

- First, i t should be noted that the children in the lower farm areas were exposed daily to indoor household insect spraying .which could have play ed the over riding role rather than on - farm chemical exposure. Per Guilllete et. al (1998) , an initial site visit revealed that household bug spray s were usuall y 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 reg istered 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.

- Unfortunatel y, 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 emplo yed in Mexico versus the US.

- This study conducted in Mexico is an extreme scenario, “Farmers reported that two crops a ye ar may

be planted, with pesticides a pplied up to 45 times between planting and harvesting per crop.” A number of the chemicals specificall y 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 .” O utdoor uses of e ndosulfan and methyl parathion uses in the US have been closed reviewed and recentl y mitigated. REI s for these two chemicals exist. There are no indoor uses for these two chemicals.

- Unfortunatel y in this study , no blood or urine sampl es 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 s tudy
.

- The powerful estrogenic effects of enviro nmental mycotoxins should not be discounted as well. The agricultural lowlands will have had higher humidit y levels and temperatures than the foothills. The lowlands farmers may not have be en properly

st oring 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 1 30 0 feet (400 meters) above sea level. The foothills weather will be averag ing 5 degrees cooler on ave rage 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.html16

- To date, p esticide exposure studies of U.S. farm worker children appear to be limited to measuring the general pesticide breakdown products
. Li nk ing whether the children were actuall y exposed to potent pesticide residues would have added more value to these studies. Measured exposure s to relativel y benign non - toxic degradates/metabolites in the environment are not proof of toxicological harm
. Mea surements should be made of c hemical
- specific bio markers. 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. Ac quavella 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.farmfamil yexposure.org/html/abstract_3.html

“ Our prel iminary

anal ys is 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 anal ys is of biomonitoring data for farm spouses and children found few with appreci able 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 ar e 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 degra dates
. ( “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 r eported urinary levels of malathion di carbox yl ic acid rang ed 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.cd c.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 Is sue Paper IVE: Children in Fields regarding regulatory

inclusion of children safet y into WPA training requirements. USDA is not aware of studies showing that biologicall y - active pesticidal metabolites are being carried to the farm house in amounts of toxicological si gnificance. ▪ USDA support s o ngoing educational efforts through state, federal and private efforts particularl y stressing the washing of hands b y workers.17

**Issue Paper VA: Clarify Vague WPS Provisions** ▪ Growers need maximum flexibility to reenter their fields to perform tasks i n a timely manner. Clarifications which will enable their reentry in a timel y manner and which are based on data, without compromising human health are strongl y supported. Recent risk mitigation decisions through EPA’s reregistration effort have signific antl y i ncreased worker safet y. 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 b y 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. ▪ I f the Agency

wishes to remove the provision that allows for administrative excepti ons, 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 pest icide 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 ree nter their fields to perform tasks in a timely manner. Clarifications which will enable their reentry without compromising human health are strongl y supported. Data generated b y the Agricultural Reentry Task Force, and peer
- reviewed b y EP A, have shown wh ich 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 alr eady

well
- trained professional personnel. Certainly , USDA supports any enhances educational or hazard communication efforts by NAI CC and CCA. Similarly , aerial applicators should also maintain their current WPS exemptions.