June 13, 2007 

TO: Kathy Davis, Pesticide Worker Safety Program Enhancement, EPA

FROM: Carol Ramsay, Amy Brown, and Kerry Richards, AAPSE members of the PPDC 

Workgroup on proposed changes to C&T and WPS 

RE: Input from AAPSE members 

Following a Board of Directors meeting specially convened on June 4, 2007 to address proposed 

changes to C&T and WPS, the American Association of Pesticide Safety Educators (AAPSE) is 

developing its official stance. The Board was able to the reach consensus on several, but by no 

means all, of the proposed changes. The AAPSE governing body intends to submit its official 

comment by the requested June 15 deadline. 

At this time we, the AAPSE members on the PPDC Workgroup for this issue, are submitting 

additional comments we have received from individual AAPSE members. The comments below 

have not been reviewed by the AAPSE Board and have neither been endorsed nor refuted by the 

AAPSE Board of Directors. 

C&T 1 – Expand the Scope 

 One AAPSE member noted that creating a “sensitive site” category implies that all 

pesticide applications made to these areas are extremely dangerous to the public. Also 

there could be significant difficulty in defining such sites so that regulatory action can be 

taken.

 One member felt that that a for-hire technician has no tactical advantage (business wise 

or competency level) over a for-hire credentialed (unsupervised) applicator. Both require 

training, but the technician needs to be supervised to apply a less risky pesticide. The 

matrix clearly shows that it would be most prudent to eliminate the for-hire technician 

altogether. 

 One member also felt that we would be remiss in our duties not to include private 

applicators applying non-RUPs in our discussions to “enhance” C&T. 

 Another member specifically noted that there was no proposed change to the definition of 

private applicators to include the use of “any pesticide” requiring credentialing which 

they felt was important. 

C&T 2 

 One member noted that any training program for technician credentialing should have 

prior SLA review and approval.
C&T 3 

 One member contributed the following comment if the expanded scope does not include 

a technician/handler tier: the certified applicator must be within visual and voice contact 

at all times or require the RUP be only applied by a certified applicator.

C&T 6 – Standard Exams 

 Several members commented they agree exams should be proctored and identification 

made. Applicators should not be allowed to bring reference material into the test session 

or to take exams home. 

 One member noted for EPA must recognize that states need to utilize the examination to 

assess competency of state issues. 

 One member noted that requiring closed books for category-specific exams would make 

it necessary to simplify the exams and felt that “approved materials” should be allowed to 

be used when taking a category exam. 

C&T 7 – Recertification 

⁪ One member expressed skepticism of a required continuing education component as 

proposed under option #1. With declining funds, fewer states will have the necessary 

staff and resources to conduct annual continuing education sessions. Therefore, the 

member supports giving states the option to administer a recertification exam in lieu of 

retraining in any category. 

WPS 3 – Enhance Safety Training 

 Several members commented they support a minor enhancement of the pesticide safety 

training with the following items for consideration: take home pesticides issues to protect 

families, keep children out of treated areas, proper handling/washing of contaminated 

clothing, heat stress, and how to initiate a complaint. 

 Several members did not support the WPS as a mechanism to protect farmworker 

children through field entry prohibitions based on age or re-entry intervals since there is 

no enforcement mechanism that could prevail. How does an employer verify age, let 

alone SLAs enforce on it? One member expressed concern that it would lead to 

discriminatory hiring practices, and an employer having to verify ages in a community of 

people who are largely illegal aliens is another impossible chore. 

 One member addressed Option 3, saying that it is even more unworkable. When you put 

additional requirements on the label it now places the burden on the applicator. How in 

all practicality is an applicator going to be in compliance with this, especially a custom 
applicator? This sounds very nice if the applicator is the same one who owns the land and 

hires the workers, but it would be a nightmare for a custom applicator. Overnight you 

could destroy an industry with this provision or it simply would be ignored on a large 

scale and further erode the authority of the label. 

 The option to establish a separate mandatory training module focused on family and 

children was seen as having so littlie meat that one cannot tell what this would entail. 

One commenter said that if one has to train children as well as adults, then this would 

really re-orient training philosophy and severely restrict who actually could do the 

training. 

 Several members did not support that only EPA-approved materials can be used in 

training. Concern was expressed that EPA does not have the staff available to tackle such 

a big job, and would not be likely to be able to turn out or commission, or approve of 

training materials for WPS in a timely fashion. 

WPS 4 - Miscellaneous options 

 170.1 – One member noted landscape and maintenance workers would be brought in if 

the scope is expanded to include Pest Control For Hire Applicators and their supervised 

employees. AAPSE does not support this as part of WPS but as part of 40CFR171. 

Another member stated that EPA should not expand the scope of WPS to additional areas 

because EPA is proposing to require occupational applicators to be credentialed in some 

manner, and that these applicators would meet the current criteria under WPS for being 

trained. 

 170.103 – One member supports non-agricultural or so-called “technician” community. 

Another member commented that EPA needs to be aware of the types of employees 

likely to be included in such an expansion of WPS. This member thought that “wide area 

management programs” should not include such situations as mosquito or grasshopper 

management programs. This could include county commissioners, mayors, street 

department employees, cowhands, etc., as they receive compensation from the agency 

authorizing the application. That member did agree, however, that boll weevil 

eradication and gypsy moth spray programs to forest areas should be covered under WPS, 

and pointed out that they are covered under the current WPS. 

 170.104 – One member supports. Another member questioned how EPA will clarify the 

definition of owner or immediate family. Without a definition, appropriate input cannot 

be provided. 

 170.110 –Two members commented that they were unable to comment meaningfully 

without better definitions and clarification. For instance, what is meant by a greenhouse: 

only the bay where the application is being made, or the entire structure? Another needed 

definition pertains to “spraying.” Many greenhouses inject pesticides through irrigation 

systems; would this be considered spraying and require the entire greenhouse to be 
vacated? EPA did not describe how the ventilation criteria would be changed; therefore, 

members cannot comment. 

 170.112 – 

• Two members expressed concern about confusion with a new skull and cross bones 

sign because of similarity on pesticide labels and the possible dual interpretations. 

These members also disagreed with the proposal to require signs every 100 feet, 

labeling it impractical. Consider that a 40 acre field (which is small in some 

commodities) requires 53 signs at $25 per sign, thus $1,325. How does the grower 

ensure an attached paper remains attached? Another member pointed out that the 

requirement to have a sign posted every 100’ feet would mean 106 signs on a 160 acre 

field measuring 2,640 ft x 2,640 ft. One issue would be the cost of the signs; another 

would be the necessity of posting on the “back side” of fields where there are no 

workers or other people. There are sections (640 acres) in some locations of the US 

that have the same crop (corn and soybeans) with virtually no hand labor present, but 

they do have workers on the farm. The proposal would require posting around the 

entire field for crops that are very likely not to be entered. 

• Additionally, a member stated that including all pesticides applied in the last 30 days 

to a posted field is the same as the information required at the central location. If 

workers will not read the information there, why should they read the information at 

the field? Does EPA realize how many pesticides can be applied to some greenhouse 

or nursery crops in 30 days? 

• Other questions raised included whether the Agency is proposing that three languages 

be on the posted sign – English, Spanish, and another language spoken by a majority of 

the workers employed by that employer. Does EPA mean all workers, or only field 

workers? Does EPA intend the signs to have more than English and Spanish is there 

are workers that speak other languages? Most farmers do have common entry points 

for fields. If EPA wants specific areas posted, the member suggests that the first entry 

point for each day a work crew enters a field be posted, and that the sign should be 

moved from point to point as the work crew moves through the field. 

⁪ 170.122 – One member questioned why the application time is needed unless this is an 

enforcement issue for SLAs to determine if the REI and posting occurred within the 

required time period. If this is the issue, time of application (start and ending) would be 

very important for SLA inspectors to be able to access. The member supports requiring 

the end time of the REI. If an area is posted, everyone should know to stay out and the 

question is when one can enter, so require the time posted that re-entry can be done. 

Once the posted sign is up no one should be entering the area. Thus, there is not a need 

for requiring the start time of the REI because the start time is when the poster goes up. 

 170.135 – One member strongly supported using the decontamination site as the “central 

location”. Many growers find it practical. Another member said for large growers this 
will be impractical and overreaction. EPA should consider allowing two or more central 

locations for large operations. The problem then becomes what is large? The states with 

migrant workers may be able to determine a distance for the multiple central posting 

locations. The same information should be posted at each location to avoid any worker 

not being informed of a pesticide application. 

 170.150 (Decontamination) – 

• One member questioned how EPA intends to define farm? Many farms have 

separated land units that are many, many miles from the home farm; this could require 

mobile changing areas. 

• Another member said that although this is a good idea, EPA is requiring 

establishments that have workers to provide facilities that come under OSHA or other 

federal regulatory agency(s). This will not be well received and may actually negate 

any compliance towards WPS by establishments avoiding coming under WPS. The 

member opposes EPA including bystander in this regulation. This could include 

anyone within an unspecified area of a treated field/forest. If EPA expands WPS to 

maintenance workers this could include entire office building employees or everyone 

within a school or university. The member suggests pesticide use information only be 

provided to professional health care providers in a medical emergency, and supports 

the two business working days for providing such information. Providing such 

information to “his/her representative” could result in employers having to provide 

information to “representatives” who are just seeking pesticide use information and not 

related to a “suspected” medical situation. 

 170.240 – One member said that although this has good intentions, just placing on a label 

or establishing a regulation does not result in compliance. EPA should realize that in 

many areas of the nation there are not medical facilities or industrial hygienists available 

for fit testing applicators. There will be added costs for applicators to drive many miles 

(50+ miles one way) to reach such facilities. EPA should have baseline data on EPA’s 

alleged non-compliance to compare with the compliance that will occur with the new 

regulation. 

 170.3 

• One member supports. 

• Another member noted that the problem is not with EPA’s definition of closed cabs, 

but with their availability. EPA should not require the use of equipment that is not 

readily available to the applicator community. 

 170.7 
• One member supports, as long as the view of retaliation lines up with that of OSHA 

and the states that have their own regulations. 

• Another member questioned the supporting documentation of problems with this 

section: “A problem is more than just a few incidents.” 

 One member questioned how many states laws do not already have a required respirator 

program in place for agricultural pesticide handlers? If many, consider requiring a 

respirator program as part of WPS, if and only if the employee is required to wear a 

respirator. Most pesticides do not require their use. 

 Cholinesterase monitoring – 

• One member noted Washington data on cholinesterase testing indicates that CHE 

depressions are fairly crop specific. It would be better for EPA to assess the exposure 

risks on a crop use basis and mitigate exposures by cropping systems with high human 

exposures. 

• Another member said EPA needs to realize that in many parts of the United States 

medical facilities are few and far between. Who is to determine when a worker has 30 

or more hours in a 30 day period? Is this the SLA or the employer? If the employer, 

what type of records are to be kept so the SLA can monitor the records and 

compliance? EPA needs to work with their partners to ensure that enforcement can be 

done in a clearly definable procedure. EPA needs to clarify “...and periodic plasma 

and red blood cell cholinesterase tests.” time line. “Periodic” is not very precise. The 

medical facility/doctors must report to the workers in a language the workers can 

clearly understand. 

WPS 5 – Crop Advisor Issues 

 One member supported. Another member said that crop advisors need the same 

protection as field workers, and Option 2 is the better option. One major reason is how 

will pesticides affect crop advisors differently from field workers? They both would 

enter a treated field prior to the REI, so why should the crop advisor not wear PPE but the 

field worker must? How are SLAs to determine when a crop advisor entered and exited a 

field? This would create a situation where SLAs could not enforce the regulation. 

Indirectly, the crop advisor is an employee of the farmer/manager of the field. The 

person/company was hired to inspect the crop. Thus, they should be considered like 

other employees in regards to pesticide safety. Crop advisors should be handlers under 

WPS. Crop advisors should have PPE and decontamination facilities available. 

WPS 6 – Clarify REI Exceptions 
 One member supports especially due to the irrigation water scheduling. When water is 

available it must be used. Another member commented that it may be best to retain 

existing vague wording rather than go through another ten years of new vague wording. 

If EPA expands WPS to dairy, livestock, landscape, and maintenance, there will be more 

exceptions needed, which will likely create more unclear wording.