PPDC Worker Safety Regulation Change Subgroup 

Summary of PREP and PPDC Comments 

Issue Paper IA: Expand Scope of Users ...........................................................1

Issue Paper IB: Under the Supervision..............................................................2

Issue Paper IC: Restricted Use Product Dealer Competency.............................3

Issue Paper IIA: Minimum Age for Applicators ...................................................4

Issue Paper IIB: Exams for Applicator................................................................5

Issue Paper IIC: Set Standard Requirements for Testing ...................................6

Issue Paper IID: Competency Requirements Commensurate with Risk .............7

Issue Papers IIE & F: Period and Gauge for Re-Certification.............................8

Issue Paper IIIA: Develop Standard Certification Categories .............................9

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

............................................................................................................................10

Issue Papers IIIC and VIB: Assure Program Accountability.............................11

Issue Paper IVA: Hazard Communication ........................................................12

Issue Paper IVB: Require Timely Training........................................................13

Issue Paper IVC: Require Trainers to Demonstrate Competency.....................14

Issue Paper IVD: WPS Recordkeeping ............................................................15

Issue Paper IVE: Children in Fields ..................................................................16

Issue Paper IVF: Expand WPS Training...........................................................17

Issue Paper VA: Clarify Vague WPS Provisions...............................................18

Issue Paper VB: Clarify WPS Entry Exceptions................................................19

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

WPS....................................................................................................................20
 1

Issue Paper IA: Expand Scope of Users - Ensure that occupational users of potentially 

harmful pesticides have the appropriate competence to use them safely 

Options considered: 

 

1. Establish competency gauge appropriate to risk for all occupational users, including 

those who use pesticide incidentally in their job 

2. Establish competency gauge appropriate to risk for occupational users in intensive 

pesticide-using industries or where sensitive populations may be affected 

PREP Comments: 

3⁄4 Overall, significant support for some level of expansion to non-RUP users 

3⁄4 Public has expectation of safety from pesticide risks 

3⁄4 States have gone beyond RUP use certification with a variety of specifics 

3⁄4 Need more specifics to describe who would be covered; relationship to other 

regulations 

3⁄4 Needs definitions of occupational and intensive use, sensitive groups, etc 

3⁄4 Concern for workload impacts 

3⁄4 Concern for impact on farmers 

3⁄4 Unique industries want specific exams for applicators – expensive for states to 

develop and keep current. 

3⁄4 For consideration: 

o Require only training for certain segments; 

o Increase hazard communication for occupational applicators; 

o Restrict to only those who must wear PPE; 

o Eliminate direct supervision; 

o Rely on FDA for health care uses; 

o Consider other divisions: by industry, product, site, method of application 

o Consider narrowing the scope; 

o Consider a process for exemptions; 

o Evaluate state requirements and use as model; 

o Consider narrowing the scope; 

o Consider a process for exemptions; 

o Consider burden to re-certification 

PPDC Comments: 

 General support for expansion, but need additional detail; including better 

development of scope 

 Concerns for expansion: Antimicrobial industry 

o FIFRA language in which Congress intended to exclude antimicrobial users 

from training requirements 

o Expansion is redundant with OSHA HAZCOMM 

o “All occupational” users too large a scope; exclude incidental users 

o Rationale/need for additional regulation unclear 

 Some comment in support of expansion of competency gauges 

o for antimicrobial industry, 

o in public areas (schools or airliners), and 

o in areas where infectious disease spread is a concern (crime scene cleanup, 

cruise liners, daycare) 

o Incident data used to support rationale are flawed 
 2

Issue Paper IB: Under the Supervision: Protect public health and the environment by 

ensuring adequate supervision of non-certified users of restricted use products 

Options considered: 

1. Development of a more precise definition of “under the supervision:” 

a. Maximum number to be supervised 

b. Maximum number of applications that may be supervised 

c. Maximum distance between supervisor and uncertified applicator 

d. Maximum travel time between supervisor and uncertified applicator 

e. Require appropriate communication between supervisor and uncertified 

applicator 

f. Define “guidance for applying the pesticide properly” 

g. Establish a standard for the demonstration of competency for the 

uncertified RUP applicator 

PREP Comments: 

3⁄4 Proposal is well-supported 

3⁄4 Some states have partially or completely eliminated the option to use RUPs “under 

the supervision” 

3⁄4 Require training for private applicators 

3⁄4 Consider tiered requirements, based on experience 

3⁄4 Strengthening the definition would raise the national standard 

3⁄4 Elimination of under the supervision would improve enforcement 

3⁄4 Consider different options for private and commercial “under the supervision” 

3⁄4 PREP posed a number of options for improving the federal definition 

3⁄4 Concerns for UTS in green industry 

PPDC Comments: 

 Competency measures may suffice – if applicators are trained, UTS is a moot point; 

or appropriate label language to limit RUP UTS 

 Concern for the enforceability of certain options; several commenters agreed that 

UTS is an issue that needs addressing 

 Requirements for maximum travel time or for supervisor to be on-site were of 

concern to some; support for immediate communication with applicator 

 Concerns remain over the details of the proposal 
 3

Issue Paper IC: Restricted Use Product Dealer Competency: Ensure that dealers of RUPs 

have appropriate competence to protect human health, the environment, and homeland security 

Options considered: 

1. Require dealers to become “certified,” provide off-site inventory, and confirm security 

standards 

2. Require dealers to become “certified” 

PREP Comments: 

3⁄4 This change is worthwhile 

o Due to substantial number of violations and other issues 

o Improve security of facilities 

3⁄4 Need more detail in paper 

3⁄4 Shipping across states lines may be problematic 

3⁄4 Certified dealer may not always be present – would he be responsible for failures if 

not there? 

o Would license be issued to the place of business or to individual? 

o If dealership has multiple locations, how would that work? 

3⁄4 Need to consider recertification requirements 

3⁄4 “Bad Actor” list for dealers would be useful 

3⁄4 Time to obtain license is a barrier to adoption 

3⁄4 Offsite inventory 

o Should establishments be required to provide this? 

o Is this appropriate for C&T? What is benefit to states? 

o Homeland security is not relevant here 

3⁄4 This applies only to RUP dealers; states could go further 

o States could establish requirements beyond core exam 

3⁄4 Options for consideration: 

o Need to consider internet sales 

o An option to train on-site employees 

o Consider only for ag sales 

PPDC Comments: 

 Issue paper needs to be more detailed 

 Mixed support for dealer certification programs 

 Positive ID – issues with implementation on internet and phone sales 

 One responder was not supportive of stretching program into homeland security; 

other agencies have addressed security issues. Also, many of the safety goals 

identified in this paper are already addressed. 

 Dealer competence should be limited to health and environmental safety; eliminate 

references to requirements for competency related to product advice. 
 4

Issue Paper IIA: Minimum Age for Applicators: Ensure that children do not endanger 

themselves and others by occupationally applying pesticides 

Options considered: 

1. Establish minimum age of 18 to purchase, handle, or apply occupationally 

2. Establish minimum age of 18 to purchase, handle, or apply occupationally; with 16 

as minimum for children applying on a family farm 

PREP Comments: 

3⁄4 Overall, the proposed change is considered to be worthwhile 

o Better protection of children and the public 

o Strengthens ability to enforce 

o Promotes national baseline consistency 

3⁄4 Include more data on risks and exposure 

o Poison Control center data 

o Ag Health Study 

o Farm Family study 

3⁄4 Reinforce risks to public and environment 

3⁄4 Scope needs to be clarified 

3⁄4 Expand: need to understand PPE use and label directions 

3⁄4 Opinions varied on the appropriate age (between 16 and 18) 

3⁄4 Range of options were suggested, building on those proposed 

PPDC Comments: 

 Respondents generally agreed with 18 as minimum, with limited exceptions 

 Definitions for handling and certification need to be better defined 

 Paper should better justify need 

 Distinction needs to be made between agricultural and non-agricultural pesticides 

 Limiting purchase to 18 or older would restrict use of personal insect repellents and 

25(b) pesticides 

 Concern expressed for compliance on farms 
 5

Issue Paper IIB: Exams for Applicators: Protect by ensuring that occupational pesticide users 

are determined to be competent through use of a reliable competency gauge 

Options considered: 

 

1. Require competency exams for all occupational users 

a. Language in FIFRA limits the agency’s authority with respect to requiring 

examinations for private applicators. 

2. Require competency exams for all commercial users; outline extensive alternative 

competency regimen for private applicators 

PREP Comments: 

3⁄4 The proposal is worthwhile 

3⁄4 Burden to states could be significant 

3⁄4 Other considerations include optional exams for handlers and private applicators 

3⁄4 PREP participants made suggestions for gauges of competency 

3⁄4 Handler examinations too difficult to administer (language issues, etc) 

3⁄4 Gauge for private applicators needs to be reasonable 

PPDC Comments: 

 Mixed responses 

o Applicators under the supervision should take core exam 

o Support for high-risk applicators taking exams 

o Incidental users, others should not need exam 

o Paper needs clarification on relationship to the “under the supervision” topic 

o Concern for costs related to training and testing an increased number of 

applicators 

o Needs definition of occupational user 

o Trained and competent users may not pass test – language barrier 

o Prefer option to demonstrate competency w/o exam 

 
 6

Issue Paper IIC: Set Standard Requirements for Testing: Standardize exam development 

and exam administration to ensure consistently tested applicators 

Options Considered: 

1. Define and require minimum standards for a secure and content-relevant exam 

a. Written, closed-book, proctored, require positive ID 

b. Content-relevant exam development process 

2. Define and require minimum standards for a secure exam 

a. Written, closed-book, proctored, require positive ID 

PREP Comments: 

3⁄4 The proposed change is worthwhile: 

o improve credibility; decrease reciprocity issues 

o increase applicator professionalism and competency 

o improve accountability with public 

o needed applicators would be available in emergency situations 

3⁄4 Both options received some support 

3⁄4 Assure consistency 

3⁄4 Basic support for content-relevant exams; 

o exam development varies across the states 

3⁄4 Manual development should be a consideration 

3⁄4 Category or core – which to standardize? 

3⁄4 Rationale supports the proposal 

3⁄4 Needs more detail and definitions 

PPDC Comments 

 Positive ID is necessary 

 Mixed opinions on whether reciprocity would be improved 

 Concern for burden to states; both initially and for exam re-writes 

 Mixed opinions on closed book exams 

 One responder felt exams should be available in Spanish 

 Option 1 preferred by commenter, also believe EPA should develop 

national exams 
 7

Issue Paper IID: Competency Requirements Commensurate with Risk: Ensure that 

applicators have appropriate competence to protect human health and the environment from 

higher-risk applications 

Options Considered: 

1. Establish additional protections through specific exams for applicators making 

higher-risk applications 

2. Establish additional competency gauges for higher risk exams, for example, 

practicum or apprenticeship 

PREP Comments: 

3⁄4 Proposal is worthwhile: there are gaps in protections for high-risk situations: 

o presented by application method 

o or compound 

3⁄4 Protections could be based on 

o label requirements for training 

o more categories and exams 

3⁄4 For unclassified products, change classification to RUP 

3⁄4 Use state program profile as model for high-risk categories 

3⁄4 Concern added burden to states 

3⁄4 Clarification needed in issue paper, “high-risk” needs to be defined 

3⁄4 CTAG should finalize their tiered approach paper 

PPDC Comments: 

 Mixed support for proposal 

o Unnecessary - products which pose additional risk should be addressed 

through mandatory stewardship provisions on labels; existing requirements 

adequate 

o Necessary – additional or different exams for higher risk uses needed 

o More detail on proposal is needed 

 Concern for added burden of exam development 

o Consider replacing exams with additional training 

o Develop national, standardized exams to make requirements for certification 

standard 
 8

Issue Papers IIE & F: Period and Gauge for Re-Certification: Better protect human health 

and the environment by establishing national standards for recertification that cover core 

competencies as well as the changing field of pesticide application 

Options Considered: 

1. Establish a minimum retesting period, and national standards for continuing 

education programs 

2. Establish a minimum recertification period to help maintain core competency, and 

establish guidelines for states to approve continuing education programs 

PREP Comments: 

3⁄4 States have established a variety of re-certification requirements in the absence of 

a federal baseline 

3⁄4 Option 2 was preferred 

3⁄4 Burden to states in developing and maintaining separate tests 

3⁄4 Consider evaluations and exit surveys to value training 

3⁄4 Would standard be the same for recert as for initial certification? 

3⁄4 Minimum standard for recertification is needed. 

3⁄4 Consider retesting every 5 years with CEUs in between 

3⁄4 Change is needed and worthwhile 

PPDC Comments: 

 Support expressed for Option 1 with option for CEUs/testing 

 Support also expressed for Option 2 

o With a national review board for program approval 

 Allow federal government to require retesting for specific products/uses/categories. 

 Establish federal standards to ensure applicators stay current with their area of 

certification 

 Allow states to decide if recertification is by exam or CEUs 

 Support for a maximum re-certification interval with a one-time retest 

 Concern for burden and cost 

 Issue needs additional detail 

 Reciprocity would not be facilitated – issue still comparability of state requirements 
 9

Issue Paper IIIA: Develop Standard Certification Categories: Establish national consistency 

in applicator certification categories and improve and expand program administration and scope 

This Issue Paper received only limited comment from the PPDC. We would like to encourage our 

stakeholders and partners to comment on this proposal. 

Options Considered: 

1. Require all states to adopt an expanded list of federal categories for pesticide 

users/all occupational users. States may not add categories or subcategories. 

2. Require all states to adopt an expanded list of federal categories for pesticide 

users/all occupational users. States may establish additional categories under 

limited circumstances. 

PPDC and PREP Comments: 

 Significant reciprocity issue 

 PREP had less concern for reciprocity; supported Option 2 

 PPDC supported Option 2 

 Commenter did not support the tiered, risk-based system for applicators described 

in Option 1; instead supporting a single license through a valid national exam. 
 10

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

efficiency and operation of the pesticide applicator program by updating the regulatory 

requirements for federal, state, and tribal plans 

This Issue Paper was not reviewed at the PREP meeting, and received only one comment from 

the PPDC. We would like to encourage our stakeholders and partners to comment on this 

proposal. 

Options Considered: 

1. Improve efficiency and operation of the pesticide applicator certification program by 

making the needed regulatory revisions to part 171 to address the policy, regulatory, 

and program implementation 

PPDC Comments: 

 Agree that consistent requirements are needed 
 11

Issue Papers IIIC and VIB: Assure Program Accountability: The absence of consistent 

reporting inhibits EPA’s ability to manage the program, establish priorities, and meet new 

program accountability obligations. 

This topic area is primarily for program assessment, and we would not expect the range of 

comments we received for other topics. We do recognize that our co-regulators in the states and 

our partners in cooperative extension may be impacted by these decisions, and look forward to 

their comments. 

Options Considered: 

1. Add to the rule a requirement for states to report needed data; rule will reference a 

document describing those data needs 

2. Add specific reporting requirements to the rule 

3. Encourage voluntary reporting 

PPDC Comments: 

 Support expressed for both Options 1 and 2 

 Reporting requirements need to be meaningful, reasonable, and clearly stated as 

requirements 
 12

Issue Paper IVA: Hazard Communication: Protect the health of Agricultural Workers by 

providing them pesticide specific hazard information 

Options Considered: 

1. Add requirements for pesticide-specific hazard communication to the agricultural 

worker protection regulation 

PREP Comments: 

3⁄4 Change is worthwhile 

3⁄4 Important for worker safety 

3⁄4 More detail needed 

3⁄4 Assurance that EPA has coordinated with state and federal OSHA 

3⁄4 Rationale needs to be stronger 

o Why existing WPS protections are not considered adequate 

3⁄4 Include results from pilot studies 

3⁄4 Stress that hazard communication is for pesticide specific information 

3⁄4 Discuss MSDS and their advantages and disadvantages 

3⁄4 Discuss handler Hazcomm 

3⁄4 Stress risk basis for proposal, not equivalency to OHA 

3⁄4 Need to discuss implementation 

3⁄4 Consider labeling to convey pesticide specific information to handlers 

3⁄4 Consider options to central display, which is not useful and is high maintenance 

3⁄4 Hazcomm would need to be addressed in training 

3⁄4 Pesticide-specific Hazcomm would need to be site-specific 

3⁄4 Concern for resources – all WPS material would need changing 

3⁄4 Long implementation schedule needed 

o Design of pesticide specific sheets 

o Retraining of inspectors 

o Statute and regulations in states may need changing 

PPDC Comments: 

 Worthwhile proposal 

 Why aren’t existing WPS protections adequate? 

o PPE, REIs, and handling of clothing are keys to protections 

o Concern for extended training 

 Some support for MSDS 

 Consider specific recommendations for Hazcomm product 

 Hazcomm product should not include MSDS or those from 1992 proposal 

 Hazcomm product should be paid for by registrants 

 Consider an 800-number for reference information instead of crop sheets or MSDS 

 Share results of EPA’s pilot 
 13

Issue Paper IVB: Require Timely Training: Improve Timing and Frequency of Pesticide Safety 

Training to help agricultural workers protect themselves 

Options Considered: 

1. Eliminate the grace period and option for brief training; require annual retraining to 

ensure workers have an adequate understanding of the risks and protective 

measures 

2. Eliminate the grace period and option for brief training; require annual retraining 

every two years to ensure workers have an adequate understanding of the risks 

and protective measures 

PREP Comments: 

3⁄4 Change is worthwhile 

3⁄4 In some states, the primary violation is training 

3⁄4 Review state programs that have implemented this, see if training has made a 

difference 

3⁄4 Brief training is required; shouldn’t be a problem to replace with full PST 

3⁄4 Eliminating grace period simplifies inspections 

3⁄4 Two-year retraining was preferred option; some advocated three-year 

o States can be more stringent 

PPDC Comments: 

 Support for both options voiced 

 Support for eliminating the grace period 

o Also consider reducing the grace period 

 Coupled with other improvements to training, consider a longer retraining interval 

than proposed 

 Array of training materials would need to be expanded 

 Some preferred refresher training to full retraining 

 May be impractical for some growers 

 Need impact analysis/benefit analysis for retraining interval 
 14

Issue Paper IVC: Require Trainers to Demonstrate Competency: Ensure that safety trainers 

are competent to provide needed safety training to farm workers 

Options Considered: 

1. Establish verification of competency for trainers of field workers by requiring 

certification under the pesticide applicator certification regulation 

2. Require that trainers successfully complete an approved train-the-trainer (TTT) 

workshop to advance their skills in teaching to this difficult-to-reach population 

PREP Comments: 

3⁄4 Worthwhile proposal 

3⁄4 Concern for costs 

3⁄4 Rationale adequately supports proposal 

3⁄4 Certification is too high a hurdle/certification is appropriate 

3⁄4 Need a national TTT program 

3⁄4 Need to establish a re-training interval for trainers 

3⁄4 Have state program with exam but not certify 

3⁄4 Consider other ideas: 

o Use CEUs to encourage participation 

o Add trainer category to Applicator certification regulation 

o Keep handler trainers in mind 

PPDC Comments: 

 Support voiced for both Options, and combination 

 Support for no change - current requirements are adequate 

 Alternative proposal: national registry of certified trainers and develop an industry 

standard 

 National program must be flexible to allow states to address unique situations 

 Proposed changes are too burdensome 

 TTT programs do not ensure quality training 

 Consider accepting appropriate training education and experience 

 Improving training is one of better ways to improve protections 

 Have a nationwide registry for trainers 

 Revise issue statement to focus on the goal of improved training 
 15

Issue Paper IVD: WPS Recordkeeping: Protect agricultural workers’ health by verification of 

pesticide safety training 

Options Considered: 

1. Require employers to keep records of workers who receive WPS safety training for 

two years 

2. Require employers to keep and submit records to the state lead agency 

PREP Comments: 

3⁄4 Change is worthwhile 

3⁄4 Some prefer Option 1 with option for states to decide to issue verification cards 

3⁄4 Some states require recordkeeping already 

3⁄4 One of top three violations 

3⁄4 Important to verify training; paper trail needed for enforcement actions 

3⁄4 Burden of change not significant to states 

3⁄4 If handlers aren’t moved into C&T same requirements should apply 

3⁄4 Other options: 

o Make card mandatory 

PPDC Comments: 

 Change is worthwhile; compelling case is made 

 Important for enforcement 

 Nationwide tracking system 

 Some preferred Option 1 

o Records maintained to match re-training interval 

o Recommend elimination of requirement for trainers to use EPA-approved 

materials, instead have trainer certify that all training topics covered 

o Option 2 too bureaucratic and costly; solution is more frequent training, and 

verification of same 

 Some preferred Option 2 (states receive records) 

o Tracking system would discourage use of fraudulent cards 

o Would be costly but worth the trouble 

 Cards should be issued by trainers as proof of training 

o Growers may be leery of cards as proof of training 

 Workers without cards cannot be discriminated against for hiring 

 Workers should be paid for time spent in training 
 16

Issue Paper IVE: Children in Fields: Protect agricultural workers’ children from pesticidetreated fields 

Options Considered: 

1. Require employers to restrict field access, prohibiting farm worker children under 

the age of 12 from being in the field 

2. Enhance farm worker training requirements to include the effects of pesticides on 

children and provide additional information for farm workers to protect their families 

PREP Comments: 

3⁄4 This change is worthwhile 

3⁄4 Issue paper needs to clarify issue of authority and discuss enforcement 

3⁄4 Label language (outside Ag Use Box) option would make applicator responsible 

3⁄4 Concern for impact from Option 1 on farm workers without options for daycare 

3⁄4 Address other youths who may cross through fields 

3⁄4 How would inspectors determine child’s age? 

3⁄4 Paper doesn’t address housing located in treated fields 

3⁄4 Option 2 preferred: expand training prudently 

o Encourage advocacy to support this effort in the field 

o No enforcement hook from this option 

3⁄4 Other options: 

o Use aggregate risk assessment and set REIs for children 

o Have day care centers provided by employing facilities 

o Include spouses in training, engage ag employers 

PPDC Comments: 

 Those who prefer Option 2 felt more practical approach; empowers parents to 

make informed decisions 

 Support also voiced for Option 1 

 Consider adding language to WPS to prohibit children in covered areas 

 Observe state requirements and model on them 

 Consider leaving some decision-making up to parents 

 Support for additional protective information 

 It is parent’s responsibility to supervise children 

 Support for regulatory requirements that would make parents responsible for 

children’s access to fields 

 Has EPA/state authority to prohibit access? 
 17

Issue Paper IVF: Expand WPS Training: Enhance safety training to better protect agricultural 

workers and their families 

Options Considered: 

1. Enhance the existing pesticide safety training for agricultural workers by including 

all of the recommendations made by the assessment workgroup 

2. Enhance the existing pesticide safety training for agricultural workers by including 

points on hazard communications and on protecting families 

PREP Comments: 

3⁄4 Change is worthwhile/ change is unnecessary 

3⁄4 Some states have already enhanced their training 

3⁄4 Concern for details about reporting incidents and complaints 

3⁄4 No concerns raised for additional information about take-home exposure and 

protecting families 

3⁄4 Consider expanding handler training as well 

3⁄4 Paper supports proposals, needs clarification – we need to see regulatory 

language to fully comment 

3⁄4 Prefer Option 2 

3⁄4 Potentially costly and burdensome to all involved 

PPDC Comments: 

 Option 1 preferred, consider 

o Guarantee of confidentiality for reporting illnesses or complaints 

o Include NPIC 800# 

o HazComm training 

 Concern for burden – cost of changing materials 

 Concern for length/complexity of training resulting in lost message 

o Consider providing examples of new training materials for review 

 Support for expanding training scope, consider 

o Only needed if other reg changes proposed are not implemented 

o Potentially shift burden to OSHA 
 18

Issue Paper VA: Clarify Vague WPS Provisions 

Options Considered: 

1. Make needed changes to regulations to clarify vague provisions and address other 

regulatory problems 

PREP Comments: 

3⁄4 Need more detail on proposals and options 

3⁄4 Look to ASAE for assistance in developing definitions/performance standards 

3⁄4 Consider DoL for retaliation concerns 

3⁄4 Proposed changes are worthwhile 

3⁄4 Concern for burden 

PPDC Comments: 

 Option 1 supported; 

o clarity in regulation important for compliance 

o reminds the agency that some critical crop monitoring must be done under the 

REI 
 19

Issue Paper VB: Clarify WPS Entry Exceptions 

This Issue Paper was not reviewed at the PREP meeting, and received only one comment from 

the PPDC. We would like to encourage our stakeholders and partners to comment on this 

proposal. 

Options Considered: 

1. Clarify exceptions 

PPDC Comments: 

 Clarify and simplify – improve compliance 

 Administrative exceptions may still be necessary, particularly if exceptions are 

listed specifically 
 20

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

Options Considered: 

1. Remove all references to crop advisors and aerial applicators from the agricultural 

worker protection regulation and include them in the pesticide applicator 

certification regulation 

2. Amend WPS to reference C&T regulation as exemption for crop advisors and 

remove provisions to allow them to determine appropriate PPE for their employees. 

Amend the WPS to exempt certified aerial applicators from the PPE provisions 

under 40 CFR 170 for pilots except as required by product labels. 

3. Amend WPS to reference C&T regulation as exemption for crop advisors and 

revise the training provisions to require general occupational use certification under 

the revised 40 CFR 171. Amend the WPS to exempt certified aerial applicators 

from the PPE provisions under 40 CFR 170 for pilots except as required by product 

labels. 

PREP Comments: 

3⁄4 Rationale does not adequately support proposal 

3⁄4 Need clarity on coverage of CCAs; coverage of non-certified crop advisors 

3⁄4 Need to focus on protections 

3⁄4 Discussion of CCAs in Applicator certification program, without being applicators 

3⁄4 Aerial should be a separate discussion 

3⁄4 Justification for aerial is not clear 

3⁄4 Provide differentiation about protections for applicators/pilots vs M/L and other 

handlers 

3⁄4 Discuss how states would implement certification 

3⁄4 Consider keeping CCAs in WPS, amend to better protect CCA employees 

3⁄4 Not convinced that aerial applicator proposal is needed 

3⁄4 Need more information to evaluate options 

PPDC Comments: 

 Support for continuation of the Crop Advisor Exemption under the WPS 

o or assurance that exemptions for existing crop advisor programs are retained 

 Support for enhanced training 

 Concern for overly-stringent option 2 and burden 

 Support also voiced for moving aerial applicators and CCAs to the applicator 

certification program