Appendix B 

Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on 

EPA Planned Revisions to 

Two Related Rules: 

Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural 

Pesticides (RIN 2070-AJ22); and 

Certification of Pesticide Applicators (RIN 2070-AJ20)

Comments from Potential Small Entity Representatives following 

6/30/08 Outreach Meeting 

and 

Small Entity Representatives following 9/25/08 Outreach Meeting 

November 3, 2008 
EPA conducted a pre-panel outreach meeting/teleconference with potential Small Entity 

Representatives on June 30, 2008. The Panel received seven sets of written comments, 

which are presented below. The following is a list of potential SERs who submitted these 

comments: 

Ron Cline 

Kenny Crenshaw 

Frank Femling 

John Hester 

Jack Marlowe 

Richard Matoian 

Clint J. Webb 
Comments by: Ron Cline, Cline Air Services, LLC - Aerial applicator 

Questions for Potential Small Entity Representatives to help us estimate the impact 

of potential new requirements the Agency is considering 

Certification Rule 

Adding certification categories for commercial applicators: 

1. Does your state already have the four categories that the Agency is considering 

adding? Washington does not have an Aerial Category.

2. If not, and you needed to be certified in one of these categories, what is your 

estimate of the time it will take to travel to the certification exam and take it? I 

would support Washington State to addopt the Aerial Category and exam in hopes 

that reciprocity would be granted to established business. I would like to be able 

to bring in help in the event of a temporary increase in workload e.g. cereal leaf

beetle. In my opinion, reciprocity should only be granted to Pilots working for 

established businesses.

Applicator minimum age: 

1. Of those applicators that apply Restricted Use Pesticides (RUPs) for your 

business, or others you know of, what is the minimum or youngest age of those 

applicators? This includes commercial applicators, private applicators, and 

anyone applying RUPs under the supervision of a commercial or private 

applicator. A comercial pilots license requires a minimum age of 18.

2. If a minimum age for an applicator is imposed, how would that impact your type 

of operation? The existing minimum age (18) would have no impact.

Applying RUPs under the supervision of Certified Applicators: 

 

1. Do you, or others you know of, employ applicators that are not certified and that 

apply RUPs under the supervision of a certified applicator? Not for Aerial.

2. If yes, how many? None.

3. With respect to the requirements for supervision by the certified applicator: 

a. how close is supervisor to the application area? 

b. does supervisor communicate with the applicator at the application site? How? 

c. is training provided for non-certified applicators? 

d. if a means of instant communication between supervisor and applicator were 

required, how would you do it (for example, walkie talkie, cell phone). Would 

this be an additional cost for your business? 

Worker Protection Standard

Training: 

Deleted: ¶
Comments by: Ron Cline, Cline Air Services, LLC - Aerial applicator 

1. There is currently a 5 day grace period before workers have to be trained. If the 

grace period were reduced or eliminated, what would be the cost to employers? I 

think the 5 day grace period works. I have annual and recurrent training 

depending on workers tasks. Business owners should have the flexibiltiy to 

provide the training needed and not required. L&I, in WA, already has rules in 

place to protect workers. Any additional requirements could place detrimental

liabilities on employers. 

2. Currently, workers must be trained every 5 years. If this were reduced, would 

you have to train more frequently, or do you already train every year because of 

worker turnover, difficulty in verifying previous training, etc.? See above.

3. When workers are hired, can it be determined if they have been trained, or would 

most just train them anyway? Every new hire needs training for company policy.

4. Who does your training (eg., you, hired professional trainer, extension service)? 

5. Do you have a difficult time finding trainers? Owner or employee.

Restricted Entry Intervals (REI): 

1. If you had to post in the field a standard warning notice (reusable sign, not 

 specific to the pesticide) for each application in each field: 

 a. how long would it take for each posting? Could now effectively implement this 

for aerial without detrimental costs.

 b. how many times would you have to post in a year, on average? Unknown.

 c. How much time would it add if you had to record the name of the pesticide and 

 the expiration of the REI on the sign? Grower responsibility.

2. How many times per year do you utilize the exceptions to REIs, to allow early 

 entry? As an aerial applicator, I don’t go into fields after spraying.

Application entry restricted area: 

1. What impact would the requirement of a no-entry zone around fields during 

application have on you? None

Hazard Communication: 

1. How do you know if your workers are following safety precautions related to 

pesticide use such as using PPE properly, and practicing post-exposure hygiene?

Observation.

2. How much burden would it be for you to maintain a file with each 

pesticide MSDS and make them available for workers upon request? None

3. If an MSDS for each pesticide used was required to be posted and available to all 

at anytime, how much additional burden would it add? In my company, MSDS 

sheets are available but not posted. Posting would only be done prior to an 

inspection if required (sorry /)

Deleted: ¶

¶



Comments by: Frank Femling, Afton Apple Orchard - Farm / apple 

Subject:  Response to WPS Changes

Certification Role:

Minnesota does not have the 4 categories, however, the DNR certifies for chemigation.

The time to travel and take the test is minimal, maybe 3 hours.

Competency:

Other than farm owner’s children, I think the child protection act sets the minimum age for

hazardous jobs at age 18.  For farm owner’s children:  They should be able to be certified at any

age, as soon as they can pass the required test.  As for Commercial applicators: For their

children, maybe age 16 would be a compromise.  My son passed certification at about age 16

for private certification.  Establishing requirements for commercial applicators is a good thing in

the subcategories.  The Private applicators test should have some closed‐book parts that they

should know but some open book parts (maybe on how to calibrate sprayer or other areas that

might only be used infrequently.)   

Instant communication for applying RUP’s by non‐certified workers under supervision:   We feel

it may need an exemption in some extreme remote areas where radios or cell phones wouldn’t

have instant communication capabilities available to them.  In non‐remote areas, it is a cost,

but compared to other costs, we feel the safety factor for employees, if an accident happens, is

worth it.  We feel it is a good business practice to have communication with just about

everyone, if something happens, the appropriate people can be notified immediately.  Our

insurance company agrees.  It helps keep negligence claims to a minimum.  Age requirements

for applying RUP’s, under the supervision of a certified applicator, should be same as Private

applicators.  Other than more rules and bureaucracy to follow, which no one likes, we don’t see

a problem with the other rule changes that are proposed.   

To improve effectiveness of worker training:

Reducing the retraining period would have a minimal effect on most of our growers.  Everyone I

talked to trains every year because of worker turn over.  I don’t see a cost issue by eliminating

the grace period, but I feel that eliminating the grace period is a bad idea.  The first day or two

on the job the new employee has to learn the job, fields, farm and many other things.  I think by

waiting a few days before training, the worker retains more knowledge by not being so

overwhelmed the first few days.  On our farm, my wife and son are the trainers.  On the other

farms that I talked to, the owners or owner’s adult children were the trainers.

Improved protection for workers in REI’s:

Improving workers protection on REI is one of the most difficult areas of change.  Our farm and

none of the other growers I spoke with have had to utilize the exceptions to REI’s.   Posting

multiple signs is very time consuming, especially when trying to get multiple sprays on several

crops (small areas of one crop next to small areas of another crop.)  

One grower suggested the following as an alternative to the posting of multiple signs:  

Create a field restriction map at the worker check in point.  Number the fields with highly visible

signs to match the field restriction map.  The fields being sprayed would then be marked on the

map at the check in point as well as having a red flag in the REI field on the highly visible

number sign.  The workers would be required to initial a form each day stating that they looked

at the map to see which field they could not enter.   There could also be a color coded system

for different colored flags if necessary and the workers could all be trained not to enter these

flagged fields.  Another idea would be to exempt the posting rules for small farms if all workers
Comments by: Frank Femling, Afton Apple Orchard - Farm / apple 

are certified applicators and are notified at the time of spraying.  Posting multiple signs with

different REI will be a major time and economic hardship and I think it needs to be thought

through and discussed more before changing.  We feel it is the supervisor’s job to keep workers

out of the fields that have REI’s and how to make the supervisors accountable needs to be

discussed.   

There would be little impact of a requirement of a no‐entry zone around fields that are being

sprayed as long as the distance required is reasonable.  We growers are doing that already, no

one wants to have spray drift onto employees.

It is always a burden to maintain files and have them available upon request.  It is one more

thing to try to keep up to date that takes time from other things that need to be done.  It will be

a major burden when the inspector shows up and you haven’t had the time to keep it up to

date for new products you are using.  If implemented, a more reasonable notification process

or grace period would need to be put in place.  Of all the growers I spoke with, none of them

has had an employee ask for a MSDS.  I don’t know of many employees that know what a MSDS

is.

Requiring a shower and changing area for handlers would be a major burden on small growers

and I don’t think the employees would use it.  I know I wouldn’t if I was an employee.  I

wouldn’t use one now as an owner.  I come home after spraying and leave my jeans and shirt

by the door to go in and wash and take a shower.  My clothes are then properly laundered.  We

realize the goal of this change is to minimize the exposure of chemicals at home.   We feel that

it is best done by properly training the handlers on how to minimize chemical exposures at

home.

A lot of products sprayed do not require the use of a respirator while spraying.  If the products

do require a respirator then we agree that the enclosed cab should be required to meet

filtering standards.  If filtering standards cannot be met on the enclosed cab then a respirator

must to be used while in the enclosed cab.   

Requiring medical monitoring and fit testing for all handlers would be a major burden on small

growers and should be discussed more in depth if it is going to be required.  The costs involved

can be quite expensive for a small grower to sustain.

All of the growers that I spoke with want to emphasize that keeping the paperwork to a

minimum is a priority for us.  Record keeping is one of our greatest burdens.  We realize that

record keeping is necessary for the safe operation of the farm but we also only want what is

essential to keep workers safe.  

 

Sincerely,

 

Frank Femling

Afton Apple Orchard

cfemling@aol.com
Comments by:  John Hester, Nichols Agriservice L.L.C  ‐  Agricultural ground applicator

1

June 30, 2008‐ Pre‐Panel Outreach Meeting  

E.P.A. Small Business Advocacy Review

Small Entity Representative Comments

My name is John Hester, owner/manager of Nichols Agriservice in Nichols, Iowa. Our business sells fertilizer

and pesticides to farmers including restricted use products. We also are a custom applicator and spray farmer’s corn

and soybean fields and includes RUP’s.  We have 2 locations with 9 employees at each location. The following

comments are from the 1st outreach conference call meeting on June 30, 2008.

Applicator Certification Overview

When commercial and private applicator rules were first adopted by EPA for agriculture there was a vast

difference between the size and scope of the commercial applicator and the private applicator. The commercial

applicator is much safer and more technology focused today than he was back then, however, the private applicator

has grown substantially in acres and personnel involved as farm size has grown. In other words, the commercial

applicator was spraying most of the farm fields for the small, medium and many larger farmers who then farmed as

much as 1000 acres. Today there are large farmers who farm over 50,000 acres and some may even spray more RUP

acres than a commercial applicator.  

My customers who prefer to apply their own products are required to sit through a 2 hour training session

once per 12 months after they have passed a test in their initial year. They are aware that a commercial applicator like

me has significantly more training, recordkeeping and enforcement than they do and do not want to be considered a

commercial applicator even though some spray for their neighboring farmer and use the barter system instead of a

charge per acre. Some of these folks are flying under the regulatory radar as a private applicator and some are using

untrained workers to apply pesticide products including RUP’s.

Commercial applicator rules and restricted use sales recordkeeping are very strictly enforced through our

state department of agriculture through a contract by the regional EPA office. The fines start at $5,000 and every year

many fines are imposed on commercial applicators or retailers who sell RUP’s to farmers who do not have a current

private applicator license. This enforcement action as well as the tremendous liability taken on by commercial

applicators are the primary reasons that the employees who operate sprayers are so well trained, paid and have at

their disposal all of the PPE needed for any job under almost any circumstances or levels of safety. Since the private

applicator has had so little enforcement and very little liability and since he is applying to his own acres, they do not

have the impetus to do any more than required  to comply with rules.
Comments by:  John Hester, Nichols Agriservice L.L.C  ‐  Agricultural ground applicator

2

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Applicator Training

Commercial applicators spend countless hours training employees in the proper application, environmental

and safety issues involved in crop protection since professional application is what they do for a living and regardless

of regulation, these processes take place and in most cases the applicator, handler and trainer have more than 10

years experience.

Private applicators can be qualified and experienced, however, many times the farmer holding the license

gives the loading, handling and application to under‐qualified and poorly trained employees.

Since both commercial and private applicators are applying the same products, then the training should be

similar

Language barriers to safe application

This is very important and very simple. Safe and proper application requires that all people involved have the

ability to read and understand the labels, safety instructions and all other processes involved in crop protection. If

and English speaking person were to move to a foreign country and apply for work in crop protection, they would

have to understand their common language.

Age Requirements

It is my personal opinion that one cannot understand the concept of safe and accurate application until they

reach the age of 18. Some handling and mixing processes can be taught to younger people, however, age does bring

maturity and I would not hand off something as important as my crop protection jobs to a child. I might let them

sweep the floor but not anything else until they were 18.

Grace Periods

The seasonal nature of the crop protection business requires massive influx of temporary and new employees

to this business. Grace periods are necessary to get all the “ducks in order and to comply with the myriad of rules and

regs. Too often the application window may be over before a new employee could be brought into complete

compliance and some grace periods are necessary.

Communication

Although this subject was not specifically spelled out in the written materials it was discussed in the

conference call. There is no way that the person in charge can safely and correctly complete a spraying task  when the

two parties are not within speaking distance without commercial radios or cell phones. I talk to my applicators

through both of these mediums at least 10‐20 times per day even though they have more than 15 years experience

and are both certified commercial applicators as well as “Certified Crop Advisors” Instant and clear communication is

a must ruling out hand signals and yelling out to each other or returning to the base of operations for questions or

further instruction.
Comments by:  John Hester, Nichols Agriservice L.L.C  ‐  Agricultural ground applicator

3

Cholinesterase Testing

Up until 15 years ago Cholinesterase Inhibitors were the primary insecticides applied to crops in the U.S.

Because of the danger and new, much safer, chemistry available now, few of these products are sold today.

Establishing base lines for these compounds in a workers blood stream is an absolute must to make testing at a time

of exposure accurate. This would be very time consuming and extremely expensive. An alternative would be

requirements for base line testing for those employees who apply these compounds on a regular basis for more than

30 days per year.  

Personal protective Equipment

PPE is used on a regular basis by retailers and commercial applicators and even though we offer gloves and

goggles to our customers who apply for themselves as private, the gloves are used quite well but nothing else.  

The requirement for full body protection such as Class A will never work and is not considered by most

applicators and handlers since the safety issue from heat stroke is of higher concern than the need for full protection.

We have not sprayed or sold any product in the last 10 years that would require any more than a respirator and over

90% require only gloves and long sleeve shirts with some calling for goggles

Beards of any type are a problem for those employees required to wear a mask and employers must deal with

this issue by requiring no beards if the PPE is deemed necessary.

Recordkeeping

This is certainly required and enforced with commercial applicators and those retailer's who sell RUP’s yet

there seems to be no enforcement with private applicators. Again, we are handling the same products and similar

requirements are necessary.

REI’s and Posting

Both are used and adding more regulation would be very costly and very difficult to enforce with very little

benefit. We must remember that most products sold and applied today and as much as 10 times safer than products

used when these laws went into effect.

In conclusion, we meet to discuss ways and means of further regulation because that’s what state and federal

agencies do naturally. Have we ever considered that products and processes used today are immensely safer to all

living species and the environment than the products we used at the time that these regulations began?  I believe

that we should be focusing on this fact as much as the cost to comply or the need for strengthening  current laws and

if we are going to have  the same products used by both commercial and private applicators then all the rules should

be the same.
Comments by: Jack Marlowe, Eden Advanced Pest Technologies - Structural pest control 

Joe, 

As requested, I am sending comments from the meeting in written form. 

I am a Pest Management Company operating in Washington State. So my 

comments are targeted to the certification issue. In general, the proposed 

changes already exist as state requirements so I do not see any extra 

burden. I do believe that 18 is a good minimum age although I could see 

some apprentice program where 16 would be allowed, although not to work 

alone. I am in favor of certification standards as I believe they are 

critical for not only worker and public safety, environmental protection, 

but also for the overall professionalism of our industry. 

One suggestion, when requiring testing, there needs to be provisions for 

continued review of the tests. Many of our tests in Washington are 

extremely outdated, referencing materials that are no longer legal and 

methods that do not represent current practices so that the testing is a 

necessary evil for new employees, but does not in any meaningful way prepare 

them for the job. I am sure they did twenty years ago. When we confront 

the state agency responsible, they say there isn't funding to go through the 

process of developing new tests. 

Hope that was helpful. 

Jack Marlowe 

Eden Advanced Pest Technologies 
Comments by: Richard Matoian, Matoian Brothers - Farm / grape 

July 14, 2008 

Joe Hogue 

US EPA/OPPTS (7506-P) 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Dear Mr. Hogue; 

As a member of the Small Entity Representative regarding the impact of potential new 

requirements to the Agency regarding Ag Worker Protection Standards, I will respond to 

both the PowerPoint presentation and the written questions that were presented to us. I 

have the following thoughts: 

From PowerPoint Slides: 

I understand the need for additional training for fumigation, chemigation and aerial 

application, but don’t quite understand the need for compound 1080 and M-44. Those 

baits do not pose a risk for human risk for application, whereas the other compounds have 

a acute toxicity level that should require additional training. 

Regarding minimum age, I would have to disagree with many of the Small Entity 

Representatives (SER’s) that were on the conference call that did not believe that a 

minimum age should be established. I could forsee a large PR nightmare if a worker 

were to get sick and it be determined that a 14 year old was responsible for the sickness. 

Rather, I believe a minimum age of between 16-18 should be established for commercial 

applicators. I would also agree with the prescribed method for testing, as outlined. 

However, regarding private applicators, I believe a minimum age of 16 is appropriate. 

Regarding, ensuring competency of non-certified applicators applying Restricted Use 

Pesticides (RUP) under the supervision of a certified applicator, I agree with all the 

proposed standards, but would want to see some leniency regarding possession of the 

label. We are allowed to have the label within a reasonable distance of the application 

site, but not to be carried on the applicator’s person. 

Regarding improving protections to workers from Restricted Entry Intervals (REI), oral 

and written notification in my mind is not feasible. You cannot foretell who will be 

entering a given treated field, nor can you guard the field. Rather, posting for only 

Restricted Use Pesticides, or other materials that may have a high dermal exposure makes 

sense. In our table grapes, we can spray up 3 times per month for approximately a 4 

month period, and during our gibrellic acid spray period, we are literally spraying every 4 

days for about three weeks. Such oral and written notifications would take up to 1 hour 

per each spray performed to notify every possible person that COULD enter that field 

before the end of the REI. As a small business employer, I do not have the time to 

inform in such a manner Rather, place the requirement where it belongs, on Restricted 
Comments by: Richard Matoian, Matoian Brothers - Farm / grape 

Use Pesticides instead, and place a reasonable posting requirement on that field....at the 

very least on each possible entry point and on each corner.....no more than that. 

Also requiring a shower and changing area seems unreasonable. I do not have a shower 

facility on my properties, but rather a metal shed, hoses and electricity. Placing a 

requirement for a shower would be an undue requirement for me and could cost me in the 

tens of $1,000 for each ranch site that I have, especially those that do not have water or 

electricity nearby. Rather, the use of PPE for handlers, mixer loaders would make more 

sense. We give our handlers a Tyvek suit when they mix and load. 

Cholinesterase testing restrictions were not very clear. Therefore, it was somewhat 

difficult to address. Regarding eliminating closed cabs.....this to me appears to be the 

best protection against drift. If the issue is the filtration system, encourage the 

manufacturers to develop new, better filters that provide some protection, or require some 

filter overwrap that provides the needed protection, but please do not eliminate closed 

cabs. It is the cheapest, quickest way to protect those who apply materials. 

From Written questions: 

Applying RUP’s under supervision: yes, a supervisor should be somewhat close, but I am 

more concerned with the ability to communicate when there is a problem. Requiring 

some form of communication, I believe, is more cost effective for small business, as most 

if not all would have two-ways or cell phones. I do not think that would be an additional 

burden or cost. 

The current 5 day grace period and its elimination is not really a cost issue, but more of 

timeliness issue. For me, the grace period allows me flexibility if I am busy on the first 

couple of days to provide me more time to complete the training. Again, a small business 

person is handling multiple tasks. Training every five years makes sense, but if there is 

concern with this, then require a written document showing that training has taken place 

rather than increasing the frequency. Specific, documented training should be for 

Restricted Use Pesticides, not on all product use. I am more concerned with appropriate 

training where the need dictates rather than just training for training sake. 

I’ve already addressed posting, but to respond to the written question, posting could be 

quite difficult and time consuming. In a given year, I could spray my table grape 

vineyard up to 15 times (herbicide, foliar sprays, pesticides, fungicides, fertilizers). As I 

mentioned above, I could do 5-6 sprays within a three week period. Posting would take 

up a very large chunk of my time. I would rather post for RUP’s. The only time I expect 

early reentry is for irrigation, which would be opening valves at the end of the row, for 

about 1 hour per day over a 2 day irrigation period. Minimal contact with foliage occurs 

during this time. 
Comments by: Richard Matoian, Matoian Brothers - Farm / grape 

A No-Entry zone around the field would have a disastrous impact upon us. We have 

shared avenues with other producers, who are growing different crops, with different 

spray schedules.....this is impossible to accept. 

Regarding MSDS’s, unless you subscribe to a service, it is very difficult to obtain them. 

I have asked for them from my pesticide dealer, and they don’t always have them, and 

trying to get them from the manufacturer is very difficult for a small business. They just 

don’t have the manpower to get us what we need and we don’t have the clout (because of 

our low volume purchasing) to get their attention. 

I hope my comments have been helpful. Please let me know if I can answer and 

questions. 

Sincerely, 

Richard Matoian 
Comments by: Clint J. Webb, Webb Farms - Farm / cotton 

Clint J. Webb 

Webb Farms 

6430 Dixie-Barwick Rd. 

Boston, GA 31626 

Family farm: cotton, peanuts, corn, hay 

Commercial Applicator personal use only 

One employee 

June 30, 2008 Potential SER Outreach Meeting Follow up 

Adding certification categories for commercial applicators: 

Here in Georgia we already take two tests to become certified commercial applicators; 

one is general pesticide safety and worker protection standards and the other is specific to 

one of over 16 subcategories. The tests are proctored, closed book and only given at 

approved locations and times around the state. This can sometimes limit when a person 

may get certified, but it seems to be working fine today. I think this is the appropriate 

way to do it and any standardization on the national level would be an improvement. 

Applicator minimum age: 

I am not comfortable with the EPA establishing a generic minimum age for applicators. I 

personally know forty year old men that are not capable of applying RUPs and also 

twelve year olds that are fully capable and mature enough for the job. I personally started 

applying RUPs as early as 12 or 13, and I know some around that will use guys 16 or 

possibly younger. Speaking as a small family farm, we regularly use family labor that 

may be young for such jobs. They have been familiar with such tasks and are supervised 

by a licensed adult. Without the option for such labor, we would either have to rely only 

on the certified applicators to do the work or be forced to hire additional help of an older 

age. Both scenarios would add unnecessary expense to the operation and/or delay 

pesticide applications which will result in yield reductions. I think the certified applicator 

should be competent enough to determine if an individual is capable of safely applying 

the chemical. 

I also feel there should be no minimum age on who can receive a pesticide license; 

whether private or commercial. The test should be of the caliber to address that concern. 

If one is capable of learning and understanding the concepts on the written test then they 

should be given the rights that come with that knowledge. If I am working a 12 or 15 or 

25 year old employee, I would much rather they go take the private applicator test and be 

certified than they simply be under my supervision just because they have not crossed 

some arbitrary age threshold. I feel that in preparing for that test they will undoubtedly 

pick up important information on how to react to a situation that I may have overlooked 

because it is second nature to me as an experienced applicator. 
Comments by: Clint J. Webb, Webb Farms - Farm / cotton 

 Applying RUPs under the supervision of Certified Applicators: 

I have one employee that is not a certified applicator. He works under my supervision and 

that of my dad, who is a private applicator. This employee has been with us for 23 years 

and is perhaps more familiar with pesticides that many recently passing the test. There 

are many farmers in the area that have applicators working under supervision. These 

employees are trained typically by the supervising applicator. I think there is no reason a 

licensed applicator cannot do the training. I do not have a problem with a more specific 

training program. It would be good to have a clear set of criteria that should be covered 

when doing employee training, but it should be done in house. I do not feel that it is 

necessary to carry employees off farm or bring in additional staff for training. That again 

adds expense to the operation. 

 Supervisors often range from being in the field with the applicator, perhaps on 

another piece of equipment, to being in the area, often checking in regularly as they 

manage multiple workers in different area. Having a means of instant communications is 

a great idea. Those that have two-way radios and cell phones certainly have an advantage, 

but it seems to be an overreach to require such devices. Such issues that may come up 

and need communications should be handled in the training. I understand that things 

happen, but a well trained employee should have been told ahead how to deal with 

situations like spills or contamination. We have some cell phones and some radios, but 

we are not covered in all areas at all times. I like to be in communication with my help, 

but there are times and equipment that is not currently possible. To make it so would be 

an added expense of several hundred if not thousands of dollars in equipment and future 

subscriptions. 

Worker Protection Standard

Training: 

Properly training employees is very important to both their safety as well the functioning 

of the company. It is important that they be trained thoroughly and promptly. However, 

the current grace period is essential to allow time for new employee training. I find it 

basically impossible to verify training so any new employee undergoes training, but it 

really helps to have the flexibility to know it can be worked around our busy schedules 

rather than having to stop some vital task to perform the training. That is especially true 

since I do my own training. As I said earlier, I think the training criteria should be 

clarified and would even like to see a consistent, concise training manual so that I know I 

have covered everything necessary. 

 I do not agree with shortening the retraining interval. In Georgia, my license has 

to be renewed every 5 years. If that is enough for a commercial applicators license then it 

is enough for worker training. We have no turn over, I know several that have very low if 

any turnover; I would hate to see regulation geared toward high turnover operations that 

simply puts us going over the same ground time after time. Each employer will have to 

do new training as his labor situation demands, but to retrain current employees more 

often than 5 years is simply unnecessary. 
Comments by: Clint J. Webb, Webb Farms - Farm / cotton 

Restricted Entry Intervals (REI): 

Here in Georgia we currently have to post a warning sign after applying RUPs. The sign 

is a standard written and pictorial sign issuing a warning of danger to stay out. They are 

to be posted for the duration of the REI. Putting the signs up as you leave the field is not 

a great burden, however, keeping track of different fields and times so they are not left up 

unnecessarily can be time consuming. We only have to place the signs at the entry to the 

field. Currently dealing only with RUPs, for crops like cotton or peanuts we will typically 

have to post a field five times a year. Proposals to require posting on all pesticides having 

an REI would dramatically increase that number to as much as 30 or 40 for crops like 

cotton. The task of keeping up with posting time and expiration times would be 

tremendous. For our small operation, only about 500 acres in cotton, it could take one 

person up to one hour each day just riding and updating posting signs. Add to that the 

cost of the gas and the vehicle and you just spent $25 a day in added costs all the while 

that worker is not doing some other important task. 

 There are two concerns with having to add the chemical name and REI expiration 

to the sign. One, the signs become consumable rather than reusable because the 

chemicals and times change with each posting. Two, with the chemical name present, you 

open the sigh to interpretation by employees rather than it standing alone as clearly “do 

not enter”. 

 The signs we currently use display a red octagon and a man with a hand 

indicating stop. These symbols work to convey the information of restricted access. Other 

suggestions such as the skull and crossbones would be much less effective as they do not 

simply say stay out but rather convey a message of impending danger; which is not the 

case with these pesticides so long as the REI is honored. 

 We discussed guidelines for posting signs in fields. I firmly believe it is only 

necessary to post such signs at logical points of entry. There is no reason to have to place 

signs along perimeters or other configurations around a field. The signs are there to 

inform authorized personnel and chance entrants of the dangers in the field; we are not 

trying to barricade the field with them. Postings in general, but especially any such 

regulation would have added effect on small farmers. Typically as farm size decreases 

average field size decreases. Under either scenario, the small farmer will have to put out 

more signs and spend more time per acre than a larger farm. 

 For example, on 500 acres with average field size of 30 acres, I would have to 

post 17 signs just at entrances. Add perimeter signage and you can increase that number 

by 10 to 100 fold. By comparison, take a farmer with 5000 acres of cotton with an 

average field size of 250 acres, he will post 20 signs, but each sign will cover three times 

as many acres as the small farmer. Also, in the case of perimeter postings, the larger the 

field, the fewer perimeter feet per acre equaling fewer signs per treated acre. It just begins 

to spiral into unbearable demands of time and manpower. 

 We rarely need to send in workers earlier than the labeled REI. Under such 

situations it is important to communicate with the workers that they understand the 

proper protections to take. There is no reason such communications must be in writing. 

The workers should be verbally informed about the restrictions and dangers posed by 

entry. Careful records should be kept of workers entering those areas in the event of 

adverse effects from exposure. 
Comments by: Clint J. Webb, Webb Farms - Farm / cotton 

Application entry restricted area: 

We currently have a policy of not applying pesticides with people in the immediate area 

of the application. There are times that it is necessary for a worker to be in the area. We 

have several fields with residential homes around them. We maintain a good working 

relationship with these people and inform them of the dangers of the pesticide we use. 

With that said, I feel that a no-entry zone for fields and forests is not possible like that of 

a contained structure like say a greenhouse. It is not practical for farmers or homeowners 

to force their yard into a no entry zone for an extended period of time. As for workers, it 

is important that they stay out of harms way during pesticide applications. 

Hazard Communication: 

We discuss proper PPE use and cleanup regularly with staff. We monitor their use of 

such equipment both visually and verbally to ensure their safety. We make every effort to 

provide adequate eye flush water and rinse water at mixing sites. The problem with many 

farms is that we have to be mobile. There may be one central shop or office, but for a 

farm to be productive the workers are rarely there and even fewer pesticides are used 

from there. Decontamination equipment such as soap, towels, and eye flush is kept in the 

mix wagon for applicators, but is not efficient or necessary to have an excessive amount 

of it or to mandate a shower system for every operation. 

 I feel a restriction on the amount of time handlers are allowed to work with OP 

and Carbamates is unnecessary. Following approved label PPE should adequately protect 

workers for these compounds. If that is not enough protections then the label should be 

altered so that it will. If there is a limit imposed we could run into a situation of having to 

delay pesticide applications that could reduce crop yields. On the same line, if a label 

establishes that an enclosed cab will replace a respirator then let it. If the enclosed cab is 

not adequate protection, then why were we allowed to use them in the first place? Such 

enclosed cabs should be maintained and routinely inspected with appropriate 

recordkeeping, just as respirators or any other piece of PPE should be. I firmly support 

safety, but there is no need to have duplication. 

 Requiring that MSDS be kept for all chemicals used will add many hours of time 

spent finding and printing sheets just to be placed in a file. You will have the added space 

necessary to keep the file. I would much rather have a database online where anyone 

could go at anytime to look up MSDS by chemical name. That way everyone will have 

them readily accessible without having to devote time and space to keeping up with them 

on every farm. 
SER Written Comments: SBAR Panel 

Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides and

Certification of Pesticide Applicators 

following September 25, 2008 Outreach Meeting 

Name Industry/Sector Location 

Berglund, Dennis Crop advisor Twin Valley, MN 

Elmstrand, Rod Farm / berry North Branch, MN 

Hester, John Agricultural ground applicator Nichols, IA 

Reed, Rick Aerial applicator Mattoon, IL 

Webb, Clint J. Farm / cotton Boston, GA 

Wegmeyer, Tyler Farm / American Farm Bureau Federation Washington, DC 

Wright, Morgan Wood treatment Warsaw, VA 
"Dennis Berglund" 

<dennisb@tvutel.com>

10/09/2008 03:21 PM

To Caryn Muellerleile/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc "Al Averitt" <aaveritt@earthlink.net>, "Jim Steffel" 

<Jim@LABServices.com>, "Allison Jones \(Allison Jones\)" 

<JonesNAICC@aol.com>

bcc

Subject RE: Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides 

and Certification of Pesticide Applicators - Small Business 

Advocacy Review Panel Outreach Meeting Invitation and 

Materials for Small Entity Representatives

Caryn,

I have attached 2 documents.

The "Final SER Comments to EPA 10-9-08.pdf" contains the joint comments from

Al Averitt and Dennis Berglund.

The "NAICC Monitoring Profiles Report.pdf" is a report that NAICC gave to

the EPA in 2005, and we referred to it in our comments, so I have included

it in this e-mail.

Thank-you! 

Dennis Berglund

Centrol Crop Consulting

Cell: 800-630-6848 or 218-766-6848

Office: 218-584-8562

Home: 218-584-8562

-----Original Message-----

From: Muellerleile.Caryn@epamail.epa.gov

[mailto:Muellerleile.Caryn@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 10:30 AM

To: Dennis Berglund

Subject: RE: Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides and

Certification of Pesticide Applicators - Small Business Advocacy Review

Panel Outreach Meeting Invitation and Materials for Small Entity

Representatives

Hello Mr. Berglund,

Yes, this email address would be great. Please send your comments as late

today as you need.

thanks,

Caryn

Caryn Muellerleile

Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (1806A) Washington, DC 20460

Phone: (202) 564-2855

Fax: (202) 564-0965

muellerleile.caryn@epa.gov

 
 "Dennis 

 Berglund" 

 <dennisb@tvutel. To 

 com> Caryn 

 Muellerleile/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

 10/09/2008 11:28 cc 

 AM 

 Subject 

 RE: Worker Protection Standard 

 for Agricultural Pesticides and 

 Certification of Pesticide 

 Applicators - Small Business 

 Advocacy Review Panel Outreach 

 Meeting Invitation and Materials 

 for Small Entity Representatives 

 

Caryn,

I am a Small Entity Representative and I am planning on sending my comments

in today....

Can I send them to you at this e-mail address?

Thanks!

Dennis Berglund

Centrol Crop Consulting

Cell: 800-630-6848 or 218-766-6848

Office: 218-584-8562

Home: 218-584-8562

-----Original Message-----

From: Muellerleile.Caryn@epamail.epa.gov

[mailto:Muellerleile.Caryn@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 4:06 PM

To: cvh@centralvalleyheli.com; reedfly@aol.com; jhester@nicholsag.com;

bilihun@spraytec.com; aaveritt@earthlink.net; dennisb@tvutel.com;

cfemling@aol.com; elmst002@umn.edu; webbfarm@netzero.net;

rmatoian@westernpistachio.org; dasherfarm@alltel.net;

rmetzler@pearsonrealty.com; whjjr30@aol.com; tylerw@fb.org;

richard@arbor-nomics.com; kcrenshaw@herbi-systems.com;

lonniealonso@ColumbusPestControlinc.com; anne@royalpest.com;

bruce@csipest.com; jackmarlowe@edenpest.com; mwright@woodpreservers.com

Cc: Hogue.Joe@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: Re: Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides and

Certification of Pesticide Applicators - Small Business Advocacy Review

Panel Outreach Meeting Invitation and Materials for Small Entity

Representatives

Dear Small Entity Representative,

In preparation for this Thursday's meeting, I'm attaching a draft agenda.
Please let me know if you do not receive this attachment or have not

received any of the others listed below.

Caryn Muellerleile

Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (1806A) Washington, DC 20460

Phone: (202) 564-2855

Fax: (202) 564-0965

muellerleile.caryn@epa.gov

(See attached file: Draft Agenda 9-25-08.pdf)

 Caryn

 Muellerleile/DC/

 USEPA/US

 09/12/2008 11:05

 AM

Dear Small Entity Representative (SER):

Please see the attachments below for the Worker Protection Standard for

Agricultural Pesticides and Certification of Pesticide Applicators Rules.

The first attachment is a letter

(Panel_SER_coverletter_20080912.pdf) from Alex Cristofaro, the Chair of the

Small Business Advocacy Review Panel, to all of you who are Small Entity

Representatives (SERs). The other attachments are supplemental information

(outreach material) referred to in the letter from the Chair.

Specifically,

the attachments to the letter are:

(1) PowerPoint Presentation "Revisions to Two Related Rules: Worker

Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides and Certification of

Pesticide Applicators" (SER panel outreach mtg presentation.ppt)

(2) Questions for Small Entity Representatives - Small Business Advocacy

Review Panel on Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides; and

Certification of of Pesticide Applicators (SER questions.pdf)

(3) List of SERs (SER List OPP 2008.pdf)

The Panel looks forward to your participation in the September 25, 2008

outreach meeting and conference call from 1:00 - 3:00 EDT. The toll-free

number for the meeting is 866-299-3188; the conference code is 202-564-6559,

which is entered after the operator asks for the conference code.

You may join in the meeting via conference call or in-person in Washington,

DC. Please see the cover letter and enclosures for more

details. As the cover letter states, the SBAR Panel requests your

written comments by close of business October 9, 2008.

If you need a paper copy of the attached information, contact me via e-mail

(muellerleile.caryn@epa.gov) or telephone (202-564-2855).
Caryn Muellerleile

Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (1806A) Washington, DC 20460

Phone: (202) 564-2855

Fax: (202) 564-0965

muellerleile.caryn@epa.gov

[attachment "Panel_SER_coverletter_20080912.pdf" deleted by Caryn

Muellerleile/DC/USEPA/US] [attachment "SER panel outreach mtg

presentation.ppt" deleted by Caryn Muellerleile/DC/USEPA/US] [attachment

"SER questions.pdf" deleted by Caryn Muellerleile/DC/USEPA/US] [attachment

"SER List OPP 2008.pdf" deleted by Caryn Muellerleile/DC/USEPA/US]

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com

Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.6/1714 - Release Date: 10/9/2008

9:44 AM
Comments to the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on

Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides and 

Certification of Pesticide Applicators

Dear EPA: 

Al Averitt and Dennis Berglund are sending these comments together as Crop Consultants and Small 

Entity Representatives. 

Al Averitt is the current Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee for the National Alliance of 

Independent Crop Consultants (NAICC). Dennis Berglund is the Past-Chairman of that committee and 

currently sits on the committee. 

Our main concern in making these comments is that we are able to retain our WPS exemption for 

Certified Crop Consultants and our direct employees. 

First, an introduction to the WPS exemption for Certified Crop Consultants.

In 1995, EPA granted Certified Crop Consultants, and their direct employees, an exemption from certain

portions of the Worker Protection Standards (WPS). 

This exemption allows Certified Crop Consultants to use their discretion concerning the appropriate level 

of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) that is needed. 

Both EPA and USDA helped the Crop Consultants obtain this WPS exemption, and it is important that 

they help minimize any erosion to this WPS exemption. 

The current situation: 

1. In order for Certified Consultants to carry out Integrated Pest Management (IPM), they must be 

able to enter the field in a timely manner. 

2. Fields are not commonly entered when a Re-Entry Interval (REI) is in effect. 

3. The WPS exemption allows Certified Consultants to use their education and experience to decide 

how to protect themselves, when an REI is in effect. 

4. The Consultant’s ability to implement IPM in a grower’s field will be reduced if he/she cannot 

enter the field during an REI, without being “suited up” in PPE. 

5. We need to reserve the right to enter the field, according to our WPS exemption, in order to 

efficiently carry out our IPM duties. 

6. According to the Crop Monitoring Profiles that we have provided EPA, the exposure from scouting 

is very low. 

There are several “scouting scenarios”: 

1. If the field has recently been sprayed, then most consultants and employees will not enter the 

field. 

2. If they do enter the field, with an REI in effect, it is usually “a field here and a field there”, rather 

than “field after field”. 

3. If the field was sprayed “today”, then the spray has not had time to work, and it is probably not 

necessary to check the field. 

4. If the field was sprayed “yesterday”, then the follow-up visit (when an REI is in effect) is often a 

cursory, quick look at the field, to check for efficacy, rather than an extensive field visit. 

5. There can also be some “Incidental entry”, where a consultant enters the field, realizes that it was 

recently sprayed, and then leaves the field without delay. 
In 2004, we provided the NAICC Crop Monitoring Profiles to help EPA make informed decisions on the 

impact of WPS on consultants. A copy of that report has also been provided to this panel. 

NAICC is comprised of Professional Crop Consultants and Professional Research Consultants. These 

consultants make their living by helping farmers and companies make better decisions by implementing 

Integrated Pest Management (IPM). 

NAICC Policy Statement Concerning Employees of Certified Agricultural Professionals

Regarding the EPA Worker Protection Standard (WPS), The National Alliance of Independent Crop 

Consultants (NAICC) believes the exemption to certain portions of the WPS, which was granted by EPA 

in 1995 to qualified crop consultants, and their direct employees places responsibility on all exempted 

certified consultants to: 

 Pursue additional continuing education on all matters relating to pesticide safety procedures 

 Routinely conduct pesticide safety training for all employees covered by the NAICC WPS 

exemption 

 Consider that such training should include information regarding appropriate personal protective 

equipments (PPE), appropriate clothing and the care and handling of same. 

 Closely evaluate what are appropriate ages of current and prospective employees who will be 

engaging in tasks covered by the WPS exemption, such that these employees are able to bring 

sufficient knowledge and awareness to their respective duties. 

 Refrain from directing employees into tasks that differ substantially, temporally or spatially from 

that of the consultant so as to avoid any inadvertent reduction in safety-related practices or 

procedures. 

 The NAICC encourages all qualified consultants to adhere to these practices. Further, NAICC 

pledges to work with EPA to disseminate informational materials to consultant members through 

electronic media and printed materials. 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

The comments that follow are our answers to the written questions that were sent out. We followed the 

order of the written questions, even though the numbers may not exactly match the original questions. 

We did not comment on the questions under “Applicator Certification Rule (Restricted Use Pesticides)” 

as we think that there will be good comments from other SER members concerning that. 

General

1) We think that it would be helpful for small business to have some flexibility in complying with 

requirements. But, if the goal is to reduce risk, then the requirements should be general enough that 

they can be applied to protect the employees of small entities, as well as larger businesses. 

Worker Protection Standard (Workers and handlers in plant agriculture)

Training:

1) If the current 5-day grace period for training was reduced or eliminated, then we would need to 

speed up the training, but the actual time required would be similar. In other words, it would be a little 

more hassle, but not much more cost. 

2) We normally do WPS training every year, but if the WPS training interval were reduced from every 5 

years to every year, then it would increase the time and effort expended by some entities by 4-5 

times. 

3) We typically train our employees, even if they have been trained previously. 

4) We do our WPS and Safety training internally. 

5) We would have a difficult time finding qualified trainers, if outside trainers were required. 

6) We estimate that a training session for workers would take 30-60 minutes. 
7) We estimate that a training session for handlers would take 45-60 minutes. 

8) Our training materials are obtained through videtapes, videos on the internet, and the extension 

service. The actual cost is fairly minimal. 

9) The EPA estimate of 6 minutes per training session to keep training records of who received 

pesticide safety training seems short. It’s tough to do anything that quickly, and we think that it would 

take at least 30 minutes. 

10) We do not supply any of our employees with WPS or Safety training cards 

11) We were not aware of any federally funded training resources. 

Restricted Entry Intervals (REI):

1) We estimate that it would take 30 minutes to post a single REI warning notice (reusable sign, not 

specific to the pesticide) at the usual point of entry. 

2) We estimate that it would take at least 1 hour to post 4 signs at the corners. 

3) In Minnesota, most growers have 20-40 fields, and spray 3-5 times, so our average grower would 

have over 100 to 200 postings per year. 

4) In North Carolina, most growers have 50-200 fields, so some growers would require more than 1,000 

postings, possibly requiring a full-time employee to do the posting. 

5) The EPA estimate that recording pesticide name and REI expiration would add 30 minutes per field 

sounds about right, but the record-keeping would be tough. 

6) If we consider the number of fields in North Carolina and estimate that it would take 1 employee to

do the posting, then we have a concern. 

a) What about that employee’s exposure, especially if they have to walk the perimeter of the field. 

b) Could the posting occur just prior to the application? 

c) If the posting was done prior to applications, then the posting requirements might postpone timely 

applications. 

7) As Crop Consultants, we talk to our employees often about not going into fields that have recently 

been sprayed. We also try to schedule field visits outside the REI, usually by 3-4 days. 

8) How many times per year do you utilize the exceptions to REIs, to allow early entry? 

a) We are crop consultants. 

i) We do not apply or handle any products, so we do not have exposure to concentrated product 

or spray solutions. 

ii) We normally wear boots, long pants, short- or long-sleeved shirts and a cap, which already 

fulfill many PPE requirements. 

iii) Our efforts to help the grower implement IPM should not be restricted 

iv) It is important to realize that most of the contact that we have with pesticide residues is with 

the dried residues, is incidental and very limited.

v) Our employees do not stay in a sprayed field and work for 8 hours per day, like a worker might 

do when hand-harvesting. 

vi) Our employees are instructed to leave the field if they notice that it was recently sprayed. 

b) We would like to keep the WPS exemption for Certified Crop Consultants and Research 

Consultants 

i) We would also like to keep the WPS exemption for EMPLOYEES of Certified Crop 

Consultants and Research Consultants. 

ii) There has been some discussion at EPA about restricting the WPS exemption for employees 

of Certified Crop Consultants 

(1) EPA has indicated that they are not too worried about the Certified Crop Consultant being 

able to decide for themselves, but is concerned with the employee being able to make that 

decision. 

(a) If there is some employee training that would help lessen these fears that the EPA has, 

then we should be able to find a way to document it. (such as occupational training, 

safety training, WPS training, etc) 
(2) The NAICC has had numerous discussions with EPA concerning our WPS exemption and 

appreciates the ability to work with EPA to find a way to meet the goals of WPS while 

effectively implementing IPM at the grower level. 

c) If we can’t keep the full exemption for EMPLOYEES, then it could possibly be modified to allow 

for “incidental exposure”. 

i) This “incidental exposure” would mean that they would not enter the field at all if it was being 

sprayed and would leave the field WITHOUT DELAY (within 5-10 minutes?) if they noticed 

that it was recently sprayed and that it could be within the REI. 

ii) We would continue to give our employees Safety training along with WPS and IPM training. 

d) Revoking the Certified Crop Consultant’s WPS exemption would be burdensome. 

i) If we need to suit up in PPE in order to make a quick check, it would be burdensome. 

ii) We conservatively estimate that revoking our WPS exemption would cost a crop consultant at 

least: 

(1) $1,000-$3,000 per year, in unnecessary expenses, plus 

(2) $1,000-$3,000 per year, in inefficiencies, for a 

(3) Total of $2,000-$6,000/ year 

iii) There could also be health issues with heat and humidity, etc, when requiring PPE, when it is 

not necessary. 

Application entry restricted area:

1) A no-entry zone of 25 to 100 feet around the field during application would not have much effect on

us, as we do not enter the fields during application. We sometimes help the grower adjust the planter 

and have a concern if there would be an REI, if working behind the planter. 

Hazard Communication:

1) We reinforce hygiene and safety to our employees often, but do not have a good way to monitor 

compliance. We normally wear boots, long pants, short- or long-sleeved shirts and a cap. We also 

sometimes wear gloves, for various reasons, such as cold temperatures, or to reduce transfer of 

disease to other fields. 

2) Maintaining a file with each pesticide MSDS would take a significant amount of time, effort and 

management, and would be difficult and burdensome. While it would not cost that much in actual 

dollars, it would be costly in time and management. 

3) Posting an MSDS for each pesticide that was used would take a lot of time, effort and management 

and would be very burdensome. 

Decontamination:

1) We have a shower at our office for the employees, but it is not used much. 

2) We are usually mobile, in pickups, on foot, or on ATVs and I don’t know how we could provide a 

decontamination shower. 

3) Requiring safety posters at the decontamination site in addition to the central display should not cost 

very much. 

Sincerely, Sincerely, 

Al Averitt Dennis Berglund 

Crop Consultant Crop Consultant 

Small Entity Representative Small Entity Representative 

Chair, NAICC Governmental Affairs Committee Member, NAICC Governmental Affairs Committee 
Monitoring Profiles Report - NAICC 2/17/2005

Page 1

This Report of the Monitoring Profiles Task Force has 8 Sections:

1. Executive Summary

2. Introduction

3. Background

4. Data Matrix

5. Crop Narratives

6. NAICC Employee Statement

7. Summary

8. Appendix

Executive Summary

In 1995, EPA granted Certified Crop Consultants, and their direct employees, an exemption from certain

portions of the Worker Protection Standards (WPS). This exemption allows Certified Crop Consultants to

use their discretion concerning the appropriate level of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) that is needed.

EPA and USDA helped Crop Consultants obtain this WPS exemption, and it is important that they help

minimize any erosion to this WPS exemption.

The current situation:

1. In order for Certified Consultants to carry out Integrated Pest Management (IPM), they must be able

to enter the field in a timely manner.

2. Fields are not commonly entered when a Re-Entry Interval (REI) is in effect.

3. Certified Consultants are allowed to use their education and experience to decide how to protect

themselves, when an REI is in effect.

4. The Consultant’s ability to implement IPM in a grower’s field will be reduced if he/she cannot enter

the field during an REI, without being “suited up” in PPE.

Scenarios:

1. If the field has recently been sprayed, then most consultants and employees, will not enter the field.

2. If they do enter the field, it is usually “a field here and a field there”, rather than “field after field”

with an REI in effect.

3. If the field was sprayed “today”, then the spray has not had time to work, and it is probably not

necessary to check the field.

4. If the field was sprayed “yesterday”, then the follow-up visit (when an REI is in effect) is often a

cursory, quick look at the field, to check for efficacy, rather than an extensive field visit.

NAICC is doing these Crop Monitoring Profiles in order to:

1. Defend and maintain the Consultant’s WPS exemption by documenting scouting exposure.

2. Help EPA make informed decisions on the impact of REI on consultants, so that they don’t need to

use the default assumption of 8 hours per day.

3. Continue to be proactive, rather than “wait and see” how rules affect our WPS exemption

The data included should prove that the WPS exemption for Crop Consultants, and their employees, should be

maintained.
Monitoring Profiles Report - NAICC 2/17/2005

Page 2

Introduction

NAICC Membership is comprised of Professional crop consultants and Professional research consultants.

These consultants make their living by helping farmers and companies make better decisions by

implementing Integrated Pest Management (IPM).

In order for Consultants to effectively do IPM, they need to enter the field on a timely manner. Fields are not

usually entered when a Re-Entry Interval (REI) is in effect, but it is important to reserve the ability to go into the

field during REI, for what is often a cursory, quick check of the field.

In 1995, EPA granted Certified Crop Consultants, and their direct employees, an exemption to certain portions of

the WPS. This allows Certified Crop Consultants the ability to use their discretion concerning the appropriate

level of personal protective equipment (PPE).

In 1999, NAICC shared with EPA “Example Crop Monitoring Profiles” (CMP) for:

1. Cotton

2. Spring wheat

3. Tomatoes

These “Example Crop Monitoring Profiles” suggested that Crop Consultants have a low risk from pesticide

exposure, and the profiles are located in the Appendix.

In 2002, EPA asked NAICC for cooperation in developing Crop Monitoring Profiles (CMP) for other crops.

In late 2002, NAICC President Al Averitt appointed Dennis Berglund to Chair an NAICC Task Force to work

with EPA to document the time crop consultants and their employees spend in the field doing their duties.

Why are we doing these Crop Monitoring Profiles?

1. To defend and maintain our Crop Consultant’s WPS exemption.

2. We aren’t in the field very often during the Re-Entry Interval (REI), but we must reserve the option to

enter the field during REI, by using our professional judgment on PPE.

What are our Monitoring Profiles Task Force (MPTF) Objectives?

1. To help EPA make informed decisions on the impact of REI on consultants, so that they don’t need to use the

default assumption of 8 hours per day.

2. To defend and maintain our WPS exemption by documenting the exposure we have when scouting.

3. To develop a format for Crop Monitoring Profiles (CMP) and deliver the information to EPA.

4. To position NAICC as a credible, impartial source of information.
Monitoring Profiles Report - NAICC 2/17/2005

Page 3

Background Data

Because this dynamic and fuzzy process called “MONITORING” is not easy to document in absolute numbers,

an explanation of the whole thought process is needed.

The Doane Survey from August 2002 was reviewed and shows:

A. Nearly half of the consultants surveyed do not enter fields during an REI

B. Clothing worn is usually long pants, work boots and a cap.

a. As the crop grows taller, consultants switch from a short-sleeved shirt to long-sleeves.

b. Shorts are seldom worn and respirators are seldom used.

C. That consultants are in the crops during an REI for 0-122 hours (0-15.3 days) per season

a. The average was 31 hours per season (3.9 days)

Time Spent In Field During REI (Doane Survey – August 2002)

Days/Year Days/Week Hours/Day

Contact No Contact Contact No Contact Contact No Contact

Corn 10.9 26 2.1 2.6 3.2 3.9

Cotton 9.4 34.8 2.1 3.1 3.7 2.4

Sorghum/Milo 2.2 5.7 1.0 1.0 0 1.0

Grapes 5.7 8.3 1.5 1.0 1.0 2.5

Hay/Alfalfa 6.6 28.2 1.8 3.3 2.7 4.5

Peanuts 11.0 80.0 1.5 3.0 1.0 2.0

Potatoes 10.4 7.0 1.3 1.0 7.0 5.0

Rice 11.0 19.0 1.8 1.5 1.0 1.5

Soybeans 10.6 24.9 3.4 2.9 4.3 4.1

Sugarbeets 11.0 20.0 3.0 3.0 - 3.5

Sugarcane 21.0 80.0 3.0 5.0 2.0 10.0

Tobacco 4.0 2.0 - - 0.5 0.5

Tree Fruits/Nuts 38.6 41.0 2.8 1.7 2.0 1.0

Turf 1.0 8.7 - - 2.0 1.0

Vegetable 8.9 18.6 1.8 2.1 2.2 1.0

Wheat 27.2 23.1 2.4 2.0 4.5 2.0

PPE Worn By Growth Stage (Doane Survey – August 2002)

Planting/

Sprouting

Ankle

High

Knee

High

Waist

High

Shoulder

High

Over

Head

Long Pants 90% 92% 92% 92% 89% 91%

Work Boots 92% 91% 92% 92% 91% 93%

Hat/Cap 84% 81% 84% 86% 84% 84%

Long-sleeved Shirt 49% 47% 40% 51% 55% 59%

Short-sleeved Shirt 57% 58% 62% 53% 48% 46%

Gloves 37% 30% 26% 27% 30% 30%

Face Mask 2% 2% 2% 2% 7% 11%

Respirator 2% 2% 2% 2% 7% 9%

Shorts 6% 4% 4% 2% 5% 5%
Monitoring Profiles Report - NAICC 2/17/2005

Page 4

The Doane Survey from August 2002 is NOT added to the Appendix, but can be obtained, by request, from:

 Doane, Lynn Henderson, (314) 569-2700

 NAICC Headquarters, Allison Jones, JonesNAICC@aol.com, (901) 861-0511

 CENTROL Crop Consulting, Dennis Berglund, dennisb@tvutel.com, (218) 584-5107

The “Risk Model” was reviewed by talking to EPA and a presentation by Jeff Dawson.

Things that influence risk are:

A. Crop type

a. Orchards

b. Vineyards

c. Trellis (Berries)

d. Row Crops

B. Leaf type

a. Hairy

b. Smooth

c. Waxy

C. Crop height and crop stage

D. Field activities

E. Degree of contact

F. Duration of exposure

A “Lay-person’s” simplified “Risk” equation is:

A. Transfer Coefficient * Toxicity * Dermal Contact * Time = Risk

a. Transfer Coefficient and Toxicity are constants for a given chemical

b. However, we can help EPA improve their estimate of “Time” and “Dermal Contact”

ARTF Videos

We reviewed the Ag Re-entry Task Force (ARTF) videos that form the basis of EPA’s exposure estimates. We

feel that our project should complement the ARTF videos and give EPA more information with which to base

their estimates of monitoring exposure.

EPA asked NAICC for a proposal for developing CMP for other crops.

NAICC commends EPA's desire to collect and use better data than they currently have.

Since EPA gave us a lot of latitude here we started with some basic questions:

1. What format would be best?

2. Will this be a “Time and Motion” study?

3. What kind of funding is available?

4. Should it be general or specific?

5. 10 crops or 50 crops?

6. What crops would EPA recommend?

7. What Regions would EPA recommend?

8. How can we document the duration of exposure?
Monitoring Profiles Report - NAICC 2/17/2005

Page 5

High Intensity Survey

1. We started with an extensive survey (which was expensive)

2. Guidelines

a. We’ll do 10-20 crops

b. We’ll have 10-30 scout participants

c. Each survey would require about 40 hours of time

d. Each scout would keep week-long time logs at three different times during the season and would

document field time, travel time, office time, etc

e. Quality assurance would be provided by Certified NAICC members being the participants

f. Estimated cost is $1,000 per scout

g. 10 crops with 30 scouts give 300 units @ $1000 = $300,000

h. 20 crops with 30 scouts give 600 units @ $1000 = $600,000

We met with EPA in March of 2003 and reviewed the High Intensity Project. It was determined that funding was

not available for a project of this magnitude. We talked with EPA about the value of a “low intensity” survey

compared to the “high intensity” survey outlined above. We then started planning for a lower intensity survey,

rather than the in-depth survey.

Lower Intensity Approach

We decided to take a “non-survey” approach to our Crop Monitoring Profiles. This would be similar to our

Example Crop Monitoring Profiles (See Cotton, Tomatoes and Spring Wheat in Appendix).

We had a 2 day “focus group” meeting of EPA and NAICC members that had these goals:

1. Draw on our experience and expertise.

2. Stimulate discussion and arrive at consensus on scouting risk.

3. Construct a Data Matrix to give EPA realistic time and contact estimates to use in their risk assessments.

Data Matrix

1. Exposure definitions

a. Average hours per employee in all fields per day

i. The time that is spent in all fields of that specific crop

ii. Early, Middle and Late crop stages

b. Average hours per employee in contact with crop per day

i. The amount of time spent in-contact with plant parts in that specific crop

ii. Early, Middle and Late crop stages

c. Number of Days in field/all activities

i. Days that an employee is in that specific crop during the growing season

ii. Early, Middle and Late crop stages

d. Description

i. Early, Middle and Late crop stages

ii. According to development and varies by crop

e. The data is applicable to both consultants and employees.

2. Time definition

a. We estimated the actual time, whether it was 1/2 to 16 hours per day.

b. We did incorporate averages, however, since some days we spend less time in fields than other

times and some scouts spend more time than others.

3. The terms “scouting” and “monitoring” are used interchangeably.

4. The terms “scout” and “summer intern” are used interchangeably.
Monitoring Profiles Report - NAICC 2/17/2005

Page 6

Data

Matrix

Average hours in

all Fields per day

All data is per

employee

Average hours in

contact with crop

per day

All data is per

employee

Number of Days

in field/all

activities Description of field activities

Crop

Region/

State Early Mid Late Early Mid Late Early Mid Late Early Mid Late

Vegetables

Sweet Corn CA/WA 1 4 2.3 0.6 2.8 1.8 10 60 13 Whorl Silk Harvest

Sweet Corn NY 5 2 6 0.1 0.2 6 14 2 60 0-4 Leaf 5-tassel

Tasselharvest

Sweet Corn FL 3 4 5 0.1 2.4 5 56 70 90 0-4 Leaf Whorl

Silkingharvest

Tomatoes FL 2.8 4 4 1.1 1.6 1.6 60 80 50 Transplant Fruit setting

Fruit

maturationharvest

Lettuce NM 0.5 1 1.8 0 0.5 1.8 20 10 4

PlantingthinningThinninghead dev.Headingharvest

Lettuce FL 3 3.4 4 0.4 1.5 2 64 80 64

Seedingpre-cup CuppingHeadingharvest

Succulent

(green) peas NY 5 2.5 1 0.5 2.5 1 14 7 1 0-4 Node

5 NodeblossomBlossomharvest

Succulent

(green) peas TX 0.5 1 1 0.25 0.5 0.5 8 8 8 0-4 Node

5 NodeblossomBlossomharvest

Carrots MI 2.5 3.1 3.4 0.25 1 3.4 25 10 45 0-5” Tall 6-11” Tall >12” Tall

Carrots NY 4 4 4 0.5 3 4 20 8 40 0-5” Tall 6-11” Tall >12” Tall

Cabbage NY 3 6 8 1.5 4 8 24 40 60 0-10 Leaf Cupping

After head

formation

Apples MI 3 3 3 1.5 1.5 1.5 2 5 20

Dormantdelayed

dormant

1/2" Greenpetal fallPetal fall to

harvest

Apples WA 6 6 4 2 2 2 3 4 23

Dormantdelayed

dormant

1⁄2" Greenpetal fallPetal fall to

harvest

Grapes CA 6 6 6 1 1 1 24 24 24 Bloom Early fruit Late fruit

Peaches WA 2 2 2 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.3 0.3 7

Dormantdelayed

dormant Green-tip

Petal fall to

harvest

Oranges FL 5 5 5 0.5 1 0.5 2 6 3

Bloom

Feb-May

Early fruit

Jun-Sept

Harvest OctJan

StrawberriesCA/AZ/

WA 5 5 5 2.5 3 3 80 80 80

Pre-bloom

Oct-Nov Pre-harvest Harvest

Strawberries FL 3 2.6 2.6 1.5 1.8 2 48 48 48

Pre-bloom

Oct-Nov

6 month crop

Harvest -

Dec-March

Harvest

Dec-March

Pecans GA 3 3 3 2 2 2 22 22 22

Dormant50% bud

break

Pollinationnut fillingGel stage to

shuck split
Monitoring Profiles Report - NAICC 2/17/2005

Page 7

Pecans TX/NM 2 4 2 0.5 1.5 1.5 60 120 120

Dormant50% bud

break

Pollinationnut fillingGel stage to

shuck split

Cotton West TX 3 4 2 0.3 2.5 1 21 20 18

Cotton GA/NC 3 4 2 0.5 3 1.5 22 19 21 <36" 36-40" 36-40"

Cotton LA/MS 3 5 2.5 0.6 3.5 2 25 24 26

Corn IA/MN 1.5 1 1.7 0.3 1 1.8 21 10 22 <24" 24-42" >42"

Corn IL 4 4 6 0.1 1.2 1 2 4 4 <24" 24-42" >42"

Corn NE/KS 3.5 4 4 1.3 3.2 4 26 8 25 <24" 24-42" >42"

Corn

MidSouth 0.75 0.75 1.5 0.25 0.25 1.4 10 5 16 <24" 24-42" >42"

Soybeans

MidSouth 0.5 1.5 3 0.2 1.2 2.8 5 10 15 Pre-flower R2-4 R5-7

Soybeans MN/IA 0.5 2.5 2.3 0.3 1.3 2.3 20 10 25 Pre-flower R2-4 R5-7

Potatoes ID 3.9 4.5 4.4 0.8 3 4.4 10 10 32 0-10” tall 10-18” Tall Full canopy

Potatoes WA/OR 2.1 5.1 5.1 0.6 2.6 5.1 4.1 8.2 40 0-10” tall 10-18” Tall Full canopy

Potatoes MN/ND 3 4 6 0.5 2 6 15 15 50

Emergingankle highAnkle highfull canopy Full canopy

Potatoes MI/NY 3.1 4.3 4.6 0.6 2.9 4.6 20 10 36 < 10" 10-18"

18"+/Row

close

Potatoes CO 2.5 5 6.5 1 3.5 6.5 25 20 45 < 10" 10-18"

18"+/Row

close

Sugarbeets MN/ND 2.5 1.7 1.8 0.3 0.5 1.8 30 15 35 < 6 leaf 6-10 Leaf 12+

Sugarbeets ID 1.5 1 1.5 0.2 0.3 0.25 35 24 40 < 6 leaf 6-10 Leaf 12+
Monitoring Profiles Report - NAICC 2/17/2005

Page 8

Crop Narratives

This dynamic and fuzzy process called “MONITORING” is not easy to document in absolute numbers! Since our

Data Matrix is somewhat "coarse", these Crop Narratives will be as important as the Data Matrix to give a good

understanding of what we do in the field. The Crop Narratives follow on the next dozen or so pages.

Apples – (Tree Fruit) Pacific Northwest

o Clothing for scouts:

 Upper Body – long or short sleeve shirts

 Lower Body – long pants, socks, shoes or boots

 Rubber boots and tyvek suits when needed

o Early season: Dormant to Delayed Dormant – orchards are inspected once for evaluation prior to

applications for pest controls

 Approx. 4 hours per day

o Mid-season: 1⁄2 inch green to petal fall – orchards are checked weekly, there is no foliage

 Approx. 5.5 hours per day

o Late season: Petal fall to harvest – foliage is present, scouts deploy traps and check them weekly

 Approx. 5.5 hours per day

o Scouts are equipped with 4 wheelers and wear proper clothing. They receive safety instructions

including being told not to enter any orchard where there is evidence of recent applications (odor

or residue) or if the orchard is posted.

o Average actual contact hours with tree fruit foliage: mid-April through September = 577.5 hours

Cabbage - NY

o Early season: 0-10 leaf (precup)

 Clothing worn

• Short sleeved shirts, long pants, shoes, rubber boots and/or plastic rain pants when

foliage is wet. Latex gloves optional.

 Activities

• Examination of foliage for pest infestation

• Moderate contact

• All fields walked

o Mid-season: Cupping to head formation

 Clothing worn

• Short sleeved shirts, long pants, shoes, rubber boots and/or plastic rain pants when

foliage is wet. Latex gloves optional.

 Activities

• Examination of foliage for pest infestation

• Disease observation

• 67% of time in contact with crop

• All fields walked

o Late season: Head formation to harvest

 Clothing worn

• Short sleeved shirts, long pants, shoes, rubber boots and/or plastic rain pants when

foliage is wet. Latex gloves optional.

 Activities

• Examination of foliage for pest infestation

• Disease observation

• 100% of time in contact with crop

• All fields walked
Monitoring Profiles Report - NAICC 2/17/2005

Page 9

Carrots – MI and NY

o Scouting done weekly from early May till mid-late September. Some processing fields are not

harvested until late October, but as temperatures cool very little spraying and scouting needs to be

done. Fields generally not scouted during restricted entry intervals. Spray intervals are generally

longer than 7 days except in heavy disease pressure years when spraying is done weekly late

season.

o Clothing worn

 Short sleeved shirts, long pants, shoes, rubber boots and/or plastic rain pants when foliage

is wet.

o Early season: Planting to 3 true leaves or 5 inch plants. Stage lasts 5-6 weeks.

 Minimal crop contact. Stand counts done with pen separating plants while counting.

Weed control assessments made . Sweeping of grassy margins for aster leafhopper.

o Mid season: 4-6 true leaves or 6-11 inch plants. Stage lasts only 2-3 weeks.

 Crop contact only 25-33% of time while in fields. Sweep fields for aster leafhoppers.

Begin spreading leaves, checking new growth, and examining petioles for disease

symptoms.

o Late season: Full canopy 7+ true leaves or 12+ inch plants. Stage lasts 8-10 weeks.

 Crop contact 100% of time in field. Sweeping and plant checks for disease continues.

Begin digging plants to check root health.

Citrus (oranges) - FL

o Clothing

 Short sleeves and long pants, plastic chemically resistant gloves are worn 50% of the time

(this is an individual trait and not based on pesticide applications), cap/hat, boots/shoes

and socks.

o Transportation

 Drive pick-up or ATV up to field or grove edge and walk into and through and out of field

and load back up.

o Early season: Bloom/early fruit development (about Feb to May)

o Mid-season: Early/mid fruit development (June to Sept)

o Late season: Fruit maturation (Oct to Feb). Activity is essentially the same through out the crop:

examining leaves or fruit for mites.

Corn – Illinois (GIS based type of scouting)

o Activities:

 Early season: Stand counts, Insect and Disease Monitoring

• Clothing: Boots, Long pants, long sleeve shirt, hat

 Mid-season: Insect, Disease and Plant Vigor monitoring

• Clothing: Boots, Long pants, Long sleeve shirt, hat

 Late season: Pollination progress/success, Insect & Disease monitoring,

• Yield Estimates

o Clothing: Boots, Long pants, Long sleeve shirt, hat

o All info is totally GIS based (this data)

o Very little foliage contact up to about V5-V6 (10-12") as ATV is used to traverse fields.

o Aerial imagery is used at all times as a navigation guide and time saver (dramatically reducing

contact time)

o Entrance and exit of field(s) is recorded in a Geo-referenced way-point with time, date, field

name, activity performed, pertinent crop info, any compound applied/date, etc., etc. and attributed

to the point for instant retrieval at any time.
Monitoring Profiles Report - NAICC 2/17/2005

Page 10

o All observations are recorded in detail and attributed to a geo-referenced way-point which can

also include an actual voice recording for instant retrieval at any time.

o All data is immediately transferred to the master GIS program for review, analysis and as a

permanent record.

o In most of Illinois, very little post emergence compound of any type is ever applied. An

occasional outbreak of European corn borer will occur 1 out of 5 or 6 years. Even in this

situation, the field is only sprayed one time and seldom is a re-entry made. Chemical exposure

during scouting operations is not a problem.

Corn - MN/IA

o Early season: 0-8” tall

 Clothing worn

• Cap or hat, jacket, gloves, long pants or coveralls, boots

 Activities

• Stand counts

• Weed observation

• Very little contact

 ATVs, walking, etc

• ATV’s are mainly used

o Mid-season: 8-24” tall

 Clothing worn

• Cap or hat, possibly jacket, long pants, boots

 Activities

• Final weed observation

• Very little contact

 ATVs, walking, etc

• ATV’s and walking

o Late season: >24” tall

 Clothing worn

• Cap or hat, long pants, boots

 Activities

• Mainly insect and late weed observation

• There is contact on the arms, face and clothing, but only until the spray decision is

made, scouting pretty much ends.

• When insects are sprayed monitoring ends, except for a quick look at the field

 ATVs, walking, etc

• Field are walked

Cotton

o Clothing worn (season long)

 Long pants, shirt, boots or shoes, and hat

 Wear rainsuit bottoms and/or tops when dew or rainfall is present

o Scouts are given WPS handler training.

o Early season: Emergence to 1

st

bloom

 Activities

• Touch top leaves with the hands for a few seconds

• Hold stem or make visual observation of foliage

• Examine terminal bud using tools while holding plant with several fingers – new

terminal growth often is too fresh to have insecticide residues present
Monitoring Profiles Report - NAICC 2/17/2005

Page 11

• Move on through field for a few minutes, examine another plant same way.

• Additional monitoring using sweep nets (contact limited to removing 0 – 8 leaves

from the net prior to counting insects)

• Very limited contact while walking.

o Mid-season: 1

st

bloom – late bloom

 Activities

• Go through field

• Examine terminal bud area

• Pull and count squares, blooms, and bolls (20 – 50/field)

• Use sweep net

• Move through field and repeat process.

o Late season: Late bloom – maturity

 Activities

• Go through field

• Examine terminal bud area, blooms, and bolls.

• Pull small fruiting forms from plants

• Move through field and repeat process.

• Limited field activity after node above white flower of 5 + 350 DD-60’s.

• Mostly field observation from turnrow

o Cotton region comparisons and comments

 95 % of cotton in South and Southeast is scouted.

 Cotton in LA and MS generally reaches 48”.

• Cotton in GA/NC seldom as tall as Mid-South cotton.

• Cotton in West Texas seldom reaches knee-high, and insect pressure is

substantially less than that in the Mid-South.

o Overall crop height and density at full development is substantially less

than Mid-south and SE areas, due to lack of soil moisture. Projected

revenues do not justify high inputs, hence fewer pesticides are used.

 Cotton in GA/NC treated much less than cotton in Mid-South due to less insect pressure.

Grapes - California

o Clothing

 Long sleeves and long pants, plastic chemically resistant gloves, cap/hat, boots/shoes and

socks.

o Transportation

 Drive up to the field or vineyard, get out and walk during the observations and get back in

the truck

o Grapes are not scouted as intensively as fruit and vegetables.

 May to August the grapes are scouted on a weekly basis.

 Scouts are in the field 6 hours per day

 Foliage contact – averages less than 1 hour/day.

 Grape being a perennial, May is blooming and fruit matures during the next 4 months

during which the scouting occurs.

 Contact consists of turning leaves over and looking for leafhoppers.

Lettuce - FL

o Clothing

 Long sleeves and long pants, plastic chemically resistant gloves, cap/hat, boots/shoes and

socks.
Monitoring Profiles Report - NAICC 2/17/2005

Page 12

o Transportation

 Drive pick-up or ATV up to field edge and walk into and through and out of field and load

back up.

o Early season: Seedling to pre-cupping (about 10 leaf). Activity is examining a leaf sample for

insects and diseases.

o Mid-season: Cupping stage. Activity is examining a sample of leaves and plants including roots

for insects and diseases.

o Late season: Maturation. Activity is cutting off plants and examining for insects, diseases, and

foreign objects.

o Lettuce is continuously cropped for 8 months. Seeding begins around September 1 and finishes

February 15 with a 3 month overlap of planting and harvesting. The Number of Days for Early is

64 during September and October, for Mid is 80 for November to February (mostly the overlap

period) and Late is March/April for a 64 day period.

Lettuce - NM

o Early season: Planting through thinning

 Clothing worn

• Hat, Boots, long pants, long sleeved shirt

 Activities

• Schedule irrigations

• Monitor stand development

• Monitor insects

 Fields are walked

• Very little foliar contact (foliage is removed with knife blade for inspection)

o Mid-season: Thinning to head development

 Clothing worn

• Hat, Boots, long pants, long sleeved shirt

 Activities

• Schedule irrigations

• Monitor insects

• Monitor diseases

• Monitor weeds

 Fields are walked

• Minimal foliar contact (mainly to hands)

o Late season: Heading to harvest

 Clothing worn

• Hat, boots, long pants, long sleeved shirt, latex gloves

 Activities

• Monitoring crop maturity (scheduling harvest)

• Scheduling irrigations

• Monitoring insects

• Monitoring diseases

 Fields are walked

• Minimal foliar contact (mostly to boots and lower pant legs)

• Latex gloves are used when cutting heads to determine harvest date

o March 2, 2004 comments on Lettuce – “I am currently checking lettuce fields in New Mexico that

will harvest in April and May. These fields were planted from Dec. 7, 2003 through early

February of 2004. As of March 2, 2004, none of the fields I am currently checking have been
Monitoring Profiles Report - NAICC 2/17/2005

Page 13

sprayed with pesticides. There has been no pesticide exposure for over 70 days. This is typical

for lettuce crops grown in this area at this time. Pesticides will only be used when insect

populations reach treatable levels.”

Pecans - Georgia

o Orchards are treated generally every 10 days.

o All treatments before May are automatic

o Scouting starts in May.

o Scouting consists of driving up to a tree and examining leaves, which involves hand contact.

After a few clusters of leaves are inspected, drive to another tree. This process continues until an

orchard is finished.

 Then drive to another farm. Repeat the process. Hands are in contact with leaves l/4 of

day. Three days per week are involved with scouting. This continues until 2 weeks

before harvest begins about 22 – 24 weeks.

Pecans – NM

o Early season: Full dormancy to 50% bud break

 Clothing worn

• Long pants, boots, long sleeved shirt, and hat

 Activities

• Irrigation scheduling

• Foliar fertilizer recommendations (zinc sprays)

• Monitor weed development

• Place moth traps in trees

 Exposure

• Typically, no pesticides are applied at this stage.

o Mid-season: 50% bud break through pollination

 Clothing worn

• Long pants, boots, long sleeved shirt, and hat.

 Activities

• Irrigation scheduling

• Monitor weeds

• Monitor moth traps

• Check nut clusters for Pecan Nut Casebearer activity

 Exposure

• Typically, nut clusters are inspected when trap counts indicate a moth flight.

• No pesticide exposure during this phase.

• If inspection reveals that a treatment is required, a follow-up visit is done 7 days

later.

• 100 nut clusters are inspected.

• Foliar contact is primarily to hands.

o Late season: Pollination to shuck split

 Clothing worn

• Long pants, boots, long sleeved shirt, and hat.

 Activities

• Irrigation scheduling

• Monitor moth traps

• Collect leaf samples
Monitoring Profiles Report - NAICC 2/17/2005

Page 14

• Monitor aphid populations

 Exposure

• Typically, no pesticide treatments are made at this time.

• If threshold levels of Black Pecan Aphids are observed, a treatment will be

scheduled and a follow-up visit will be made 7 days later to evaluate the results.

• Exposure is primarily to the hands.

o Additional comment

 “In 2003, approximately 1/3 of the pecan acres I checked were sprayed with a foliar

pesticide. The rest of the acreage was not treated due to sub-threshold insect

populations.”

Potatoes - Colorado

o The consultant checks them 5 days a week all day and does not do any other crops. He checks

potatoes 100% of the time. His Narrative is as follows.

o Early season: 0 to 10"

 Cap, long sleeve shirt, long pants, jacket, boots.

 Walking the field No ATV.

o Mid-season: 10 to 18"

 Cap, jacket, long pants, rubber boots, chemical resistant chaps, long sleeve shirt.

 Walking the field No ATV

o Late season: 18" thru senescence

 Cap, long sleeve shirt, long pants, rubber boots, chemical resistant chaps.

 Walking the field.

 At this time they us a sweep net when checking for insects.

Potato – Columbia Basin (WA, ID, OR), MI and NY

o Clothing worn:

 short sleeve shirt, long pants, socks and shoes. Mid-calf rubber boots and/or plastic rain

pants or tyvec spray suit when foliage is wet. Many scouts wear latex gloves.

o Generally, only enter potato fields to scout during REI’s when there is late blight in an area and

spraying intervals are reduced to 5 days or less. In the northwest, fields occasionally entered

during a REI after a border mite spray. Most scouting occurs 72-96 hours (more in drier areas)

after spraying.

o Early season: Planting to 10 inch plants--early Vegetative stage. 1-10 visits

 Pre-emergence visit and first post emergence visit on ATV primarily for weed scouting,

emergence and stand assessment.

 Next 2-3 visits check 5 plants/area for signs/symptoms of insects and diseases.

 Dig 1 plant in each area sampled to assess root health and monitor soil moisture.

 Sweep net and mid-plant leaf sampling begins for potato leafhoppers and aphids late in

this stage. Minimal foliage contact occurs.

o Mid-season: 10-18 inches--Rapid vegetative growth prior to full canopy. 2-6 visits

 Plant and leaf sampling continues for disease and insect assessments.

 Petiole sampling for nitrate or complete tissue analysis begins.

 Soil moisture assessments for irrigation scheduling begin.

o Late season: Full canopy-senescence. 6-20 visits.

 Plant, leaf, petiole and soil moisture sampling continues.

 Check 3-10 sample sites per field. In each sample site check 5 plants or shake/beat vines

onto a beet sheet, check 10-20 leaves and do 25 sweeps of a sweep net. Dig 3-5 plants per

field.
Monitoring Profiles Report - NAICC 2/17/2005

Page 15

 Petiole sampling: remove newest fully expanded leaf and strip leaflets off petioles (30-

50/field). If only doing petioles takes about 20 minutes when walking about 300 feet in

the field.

 Leaf sampling: pick 80-100 or more mid-lower plant leaves/field and count aphids, mites

and leafhoppers.

 Whole plant samples: move/shake plant leaves and stems to count insects and rate disease

symptoms.

 Soil moisture assessments: using a shovel, dig in root zone and squeeze a handful of soil

from different depths to see if it balls or ribbons. Check soil moisture sensors often

requires only walking 300 feet in the field or take soil cores for gravimetric analysis.

Potatoes – MN/ND

o Early season: Emerging-ankle high

 Mostly ATV

• Little contact

o Mid-season: Ankle high-full canopy

 1⁄2 ATV

 1⁄2 Walking

o Late season: Full canopy

 Usually walking in the field

Soybean - MN/IA

o Early season: 0-5”

 Clothing worn

• Cap or hat, jacket, gloves, long pants or coveralls, boots

 Activities

• Stand counts

• Weed observation

• Very little contact

 ATVs, walking, etc

• ATV’s are mainly used

o Mid-season: 6-15”

 Clothing worn

• Cap or hat, possibly jacket, long pants, boots

 Activities

• Final weed observation

• Very little contact

 ATVs, walking, etc

• ATV’s and walking

o Late season: 15+ “

 Clothing worn

• Cap or hat, long pants, boots

 Activities

• Mainly insect and late weed observation

• Most contact is on the pants and boots

 ATVs, walking, etc

• Field are walked

 Soybeans are scouted heavily during full canopy, but once field is sprayed, scouting pretty

much ends.
Monitoring Profiles Report - NAICC 2/17/2005

Page 16

Strawberries - California and Florida

o Clothing

 Long sleeves and long pants, plastic chemically resistant gloves, cap/hat, boots/shoes and

socks.

o Transportation

 Drive pick-up or ATV up to field edge and walk into and through and out of field and load

back up.

o Foliage (leaf undersides) is examined for mites and canopy observed for diseases.

o Scouts are in the crop 5 hours per day and 5 days per week.

o Early season: Pre-bloom (about Sept to Nov, depending on southern or northern CA)

 The next stage is harvesting from Nov-June (again depending on S or N CA)

Succulent Peas - NY

o Early season: 0-4 nodes

 Clothing worn

• Short sleeved shirts, long pants, shoes, rubber boots and/or plastic rain pants when

foliage is wet.

 Activities

• Stand inspection

• Weed inspection

• Minimal crop contact

• 95% of peas have NO pesticide applied prior to this stage.

 Most fields scouted with ATV

o Mid-season: 5 node to blossom

 Clothing worn

• Short sleeved shirts, long pants, shoes, rubber boots and/or plastic rain pants when

foliage is wet.

 Activities

• Assessment of herbicide efficacy

• Disease observation

• 100% of time in contact with crop

• All fields walked

o Late season: Blossom to harvest

 Clothing worn

• Short sleeved shirts, long pants, shoes, rubber boots and/or plastic rain pants when

foliage is wet.

 Activities

• Examination of foliage for pest infestation

• Disease observation

• 100% of time in contact with crop

• All fields walked

Sweet Corn - FL

o Clothing

 Long of short sleeves and long pants, plastic chemically resistant gloves worn by some,

cap/hat, boots/shoes and socks. From mid-late stages water-proof aprons or pants are

worn.

o Transportation
Monitoring Profiles Report - NAICC 2/17/2005

Page 17

 Drive pick-up or ATV up to field or grove edge and walk into and through and out of field

and load back up.

o Early season: 2 to 3 leaf (about 2 weeks post-emerge). Activity is observing for weeds, taking

stand counts and looking for worms.

o Mid-season: Whorl stage to tassel-push. Activity is looking for worms and diseases.

o Late season: Silking and harvesting. Activity is slightly opening the silks and closely examining

for worms.

o Most sweet corn in FL is continuously cropped for a 6 or 7 month cropping period.

o The Number of Days

 Early occurs around November/December and is 56

 Mid is 70 at January/February

 Late is 90 during March/April/May.

Sweet Corn - NY

o Early season: 0-4 leaf

 Clothing worn

• Short sleeved shirts, long pants, shoes, rubber boots and/or plastic rain pants when

foliage is wet.

 Activities

• Stand inspection

• Weed inspection

• Minimal crop contact

• All fields scouted with ATV

o Mid-season: 5 leaf to tassel

 Clothing worn

• Short sleeved shirts, long pants, shoes, rubber boots and/or plastic rain pants when

foliage is wet.

 Activities

• Assessment of herbicide efficacy

• Disease observation

• Moderate crop contact

• Most fields walked

o Late season: Tassel to harvest

 Clothing worn

• Hat, long sleeved shirts, long pants, shoes, rubber boots and/or rain suits when

foliage is wet.

 Activities

• Examination of foliage for pest infestation

• Disease observation

• 100% of time in contact with crop

• All fields walked

Sweet Corn – Pacific NW

o Clothing for scouts

 Long sleeve shirts

 Rain wear if fields are wet

 Scarf, cap or bandana if individual does not want corn pollen in hair

 Sturdy shoes, long pants, rubber boots, if field is wet

 Masks and safety glasses are used according to preference
Monitoring Profiles Report - NAICC 2/17/2005

Page 18

o Early season: Planting to late whorl stage

 50-60 days after planting

 Limited crop exposure prior to late whorl

 At late whorl, walk the field for % tassel emergence 2-3 times per week

o Mid-season: Silking stage (late whorl to 100% silk)

 Scouts visit field every 1-2 days until 1

st

app is made (at 1-10% silk)

 After 1

st

app, fields are visited the day prior to the next scheduled spray (every 4-6 days)

• This continues until field maturity is reached or pest pressure declines

o Late season: Dry silk to harvest

 Field would be checked 2-3 times for application success

o General

 Field checks are usually completed in about 15-20 minutes per 140 acre center pivot field

 Actual time in the field varies, but usually only 3-5 minutes of crop exposure is required at

each sampling point, with 4 sampling points per field the norm

 Due to humidity, pollen and temps, field work is typically finished by noon

Sugarbeets - Minnesota

o Early season: 0-6 leaf

 Clothing worn

• Cap or hat, jacket, gloves, long pants or coveralls, boots

 Activities

• Stand counts

• Weed observation

• Very little contact

 ATVs, walking, etc

• Scouting is done on an ATV early season, with very little contact.

o Mid-season: 6-8 leaf

 Clothing worn

• Cap or hat, possibly jacket, long pants, boots

 Activities

• Final weed observation

• Very little contact

 ATVs, walking, etc

• ATV’s and walking

• Scouting is done on an ATV early season, with very little contact.

o Late season: 10+ leaf

 Clothing worn

• Cap or hat, long pants, boots

 Activities

• Insect and disease observation

• Most contact is on the pants and boots

• Scouting is done weekly or bi-weekly between fungicide applications.

 ATVs, walking, etc

• Field are walked

Tomatoes - FL

o Clothing

 Long sleeves and long pants, plastic chemically resistant gloves, cap/hat, boots/shoes and

socks.
Monitoring Profiles Report - NAICC 2/17/2005

Page 19

o Transportation

 Drive pick-up or ATV up to field or grove edge and walk into and through and out of field

and load back up.

o Early season: Transplant (about a 2 wk interval). Activity is turning over leaves and looking for

insects and examining foliage for diseases.

o Mid-season: Fruit setting (about week 3 to 8). Activity is picking 10 leaves per 10 acre stop and

examining for leafminers and whiteflies. Also some foliage contact in turning over leaves for

worm presence.

o Late season: Fruit maturation and harvest (week 9 to about 14).

o The Number of Days of Scouting refers to tomato crops that are planted every week starting in

September 1 and finishing in December 31.

o These crops begin harvesting around December 1 and finish harvesting April 30.

o The Number of Days for potential contact is 60 for September and October, 80 for November to

February and 50 for March and April.
Monitoring Profiles Report - NAICC 2/17/2005

Page 20

NAICC Policy Statement

Concerning Employees of

Certified Agricultural Professionals

Regarding the EPA Worker Protection Standard (WPS), The National Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants

(NAICC) believes the exemption to certain portions of the WPS, which was granted by EPA in 1995 to qualified

crop consultants, and their direct employees places responsibility on all exempted certified consultants to:

Pursue additional continuing education on all matters relating to pesticide safety procedures

Routinely conduct pesticide safety training for all employees covered by the NAICC WPS exemption

Consider that such training should include information regarding appropriate personal protective

equipments (PPE), appropriate clothing and the care and handling of same.

Closely evaluate what are appropriate ages of current and prospective employees who will be engaging in

tasks covered by the WPS exemption, such that these employees are able to bring sufficient knowledge

and awareness to their respective duties.

Refrain from directing employees into tasks that differ substantially, temporally or spatially from that of

the consultant so as to avoid any inadvertent reduction in safety-related practices or procedures.

The NAICC encourages all qualified consultants to adhere to these practices. Further, NAICC pledges to

work with EPA to disseminate informational materials to consultant members through electronic media

and printed materials.

Summary

There will certainly be “gaps” in the Monitor Profiles crop data that we collect....

However, Consultants need to keep their WPS exemption!

Consultants and employees do not enter the fields during an REI very often, but we need to reserve the right to

enter the field, according to our WPS exemption, in order to efficiently carry out our IPM duties.

NAICC welcomes EPA to use us as a resource and sounding board for their decisions.

NAICC hopes that this report will help EPA make better decisions by understanding what Consultants do in the

field.
Monitoring Profiles Report - NAICC 2/17/2005

Page 21

Appendix
Monitoring Profiles Report - NAICC 2/17/2005

Page 22

SPRING WHEAT MONITORING

PROFILE (sample)

prepared by

CENTROL, Inc.

Twin Valley, MN

Wheat acres estimated at 30% of the acres in area. Average consultant covers 25,000 acres of crop, so average wheat acres per consultant is 7,500 acres.

Growth Stage % of

Working

Week

Duratio

n in

Weeks

Field

Visits

per

Week

Total

Field

Visits

per Day

% Time

Crop

Contact

Activities Hours/

Day in

Field

Hours/Day in

Fields With

REI

Minutes/Day Crop

Contact In Fields

With REI

Minutes

Conta

W

Planting -

Sprouting

20 2 0.5 25 0.1 Not in field much 2.4 0.0 0.0 

Walk into field and dig up a few seeds checking for seed depth

Emergence - 2

Leaf

50 2 1 50 0.1 ride ATV across field, dig up and examine roots 6.0 0.0 0.0 

no contact via walkingLook for weedsOften wear coveralls and gloves

3rd - 5th Leaf 50 3 1 50 0.1 ride ATV over field, dig up and examine roots 6.0 0.9 5.6 

no contact via walkingOften wear coveralls and gloves

5th - 6th Leaf 50 2 0.5 50 0.1 walk field and examine weed control and pests 6.0 0.9 5.6 

Jointing - Boot 20 3 1 40 0.1 check for leaf disease, 2.4 0.4 2.2 

limited contact via walking, personnel wear boots and pantsRain pants worn if it is wet and wheat is over boot height

Heading -

Maturity

10 3 0.5 35 0.1 spot check for disease and insects 1.2 0.2 1.1 

limited contact via walking, personnel wear boots and pantsRain pants worn if it is wet

Persons doing monitoring work an average of 50 - 70 hours/week. All employees wear pants and boots. Hands are washed before eating. Training usually includes Pest Scouting School at NDSU, Safety training video, and personal training by consultantScout works in same general area as consultant, meeting with others 10-12 times per day, and carry 2-way radios and cell phones. Average work

day =

12 hours 
Monitoring Profiles Report - NAICC 2/17/2005

Page 23

COTTON MONITORING PROFILE

as prepared byRoger Carter, Tim White, & Walter MyersAgricultural Management Services, Inc.Clayton, LA

GROWTH % OF TIME FREQUENCY PLANTS/FIELD DESCRIPTION TIME TIME/DAY 

PERSONNEL PER DAY IN FIELDS P

STAGE WORKING 40-400 acres IN FIELD WITHIN REI CRO

emergence - 3rd node 10 2.5 weeks 1X/wk 20 - 50 hold stem and make visual observation of foliage 4 - 8 hrs <1.0 hr 

no contact via walking

4th - 7th node 15 2 weeks 1X/wk 20 - 40 pull plants via stem, count nodes by touching petioles 4 - 8 hrs < 1.0 hr 

40 - 80 examine terminal bud area using tools while holding

plant with several fingers - new terminal growth often

is too fresh to have insecticides on it.

no contact via walking

8th - 12th node or 65 3 weeks 1X/wk 20 - 40 pull plants via stem, count nodes by touching petioles 6 - 8 hrs <1.0 hr 

1st bloom 20 - 80 examine terminal bud area using tools while holding <1.0 hr 

plant with several fingers - new terminal growth often

is too fresh to have insecticides on it.

additional monitoring using sweep nets - contact limited to <1.0 hr 

removing 0 - 8 leaves from the sweep net prior to counting

insects.

limited contact via walking, personnel wear rubber sole boots -

12 - 16", all personnel wear long blue jeans or khakis; bottom

slicker suits worn if it is wet and cotton is over boot height

1st bloom - late bloom 85 7 weeks 1X/4-5 days 20 - 80 examine terminal bud area using tools while holding 6 - 8 hrs <1.0 hr 

40 - 200 fruit pull and examine for damage & insects <1.0 hr 

limited contact via walking, personnel wear rubber sole boots -

12 - 16", all personnel wear long blue jeans or khakis; bottom

slicker suits worn if it is wet and cotton is over boot height

late bloom - maturity 15 3 -4 weeks 1X/wk 20 - 40 same as above except less time to examine terminal buds,4 - 8 hrs <1.0 hr 

20 - 100 fruimt ore time to examine small bolls (less insecticide present <1.0 hr 

on fruit lower on the stalk)

rainsuits same as above

Persons doing monitoring work an average of 60 - 70 hours/week.
Monitoring Profiles Report - NAICC 2/17/2005

Page 24

Tomato Monitoring Profile

The impact of WPS regulations on IPM in tomatoes – by Glades Crop Care

To determine the impact of WPS restricted-entry regulations on an IPM program in a typical fall tomato planting

in south Florida two hypothetical spray programs was constructed. The number of applications of each pesticide

was based on GCC’s experience with this crop. The fall season was chosen because of typically high insect

disease pressure brought on by high temperatures and abundant rainfall. These spray programs are presented in

Tables 1 and 2. In the first scenario, it was assumed that scouts could scout the unsprayed portion of a planting

on the day of application, and that entry would be restricted following application in all parts of the planting for

the time period specified on the product label. The grower chose pesticides based on their efficacy and the

frequency of application was based on the need to control pests, especially diseases during the rainy season.

Insecticide applications in Table 1 reflect the use of reduced risk pesticides wherever possible. Due to their

relatively high cost and narrow spectrum of activity, these pesticides require high information input from

competent scouts. In Table 2, fungicide use is again based on the same rainy weather scenario. However, in

Table 2, the choice of insecticides is made in the absence of scouting reports on key dates. In this scenario,

scouts do not have the ability to enter fields before the restricted entry period has passed.

The impact on a program of scouting visits scheduled for twice each week beginning at planting and extending

through the end of harvesting activities is summarized in Table 3. Interestingly, the difference in the impact of

the pesticide program on scouting activities is negligible. In both scenarios, the major impact on scouting comes

from the long restricted entry intervals for the fungicides, Bravo, Mancozeb and copper hydroxide. In the

absence of effective controls alternatives for the most destructive Florida tomato diseases, bacterial spot and

target spot, this situation is not likely to change in the near future!

Twenty two percent of the scouting visits to this representative field would be barred because of the restricted

entry requirements. On 44% of the scheduled visits, scouting would only be allowed in the unsprayed portion of

the planting. The remaining 34% of scouting visits would be unrestricted by the restricted entry interval. This

situation is clearly unacceptable. To make things even worse, during periods when rainfall requires shortening

the interval between fungicide applications, the planting could potentially be scouted only in part or not at all for

periods of up to 12 days!

The grower is virtually forced to abandon the use of reduced risk pesticides in favor of the broad-spectrum

insecticides, Lannate, Monitor and Thiodan. The more frequent use of these pesticides entails adding the product,

Trigard, for control of leafminers, since the beneficial insect complex that would normally have brought about

leafminer control in the latter part of the crop have been killed by the broad spectrum insecticides. Such a

change, i.e., the use of relatively inexpensive broad-spectrum pesticides, would probably not change the overall

cost of this grower’s spray program. However, two of these are carbamate and organophosphate insecticides,

which may potentially be eliminated by FQPA activities. Should this occur, the grower would be faced with the

expensive proposition of making more frequent applications of relatively expensive materials such as Applaud,

Knack, Spintor and confirm to manage silverleaf whiteflies and armyworms. The revocation of exemption from

restricted entry regulations for crop advisors would thus have several undesirable outcomes:

• Growers would receive only partial crop and pest information from their scouts.

• Pesticide applications (especially insecticides) would revert to a calendar approach using the least expensive

alternatives in the absence of timely pest evaluations needed to make best use of reduced risk pesticides. In

this scenario, the economic damage to the grower is negligible.

• In the event FQPA reregistration activities make carbamates and organophosphates unavailable, the grower

could potentially lose $150-200 per acre due to having to make more frequent applications of more expensive

products.

• The latter scenario is made even more unattractive because of the increased risks of pests developing

resistance to the powerful, but highly specific reduced risk pesticides.
Monitoring Profiles Report - NAICC 2/17/2005

Page 25

To conclude, IPM in Florida tomatoes would be affected in a seriously negative way by the revocation of the

early re-entry provisions for crop advisors (scouts). Under the current regulations, scouts who are properly attired

for their work can proceed safely through nearly all their assigned acreage in a day. Exceptions occur when a

freshly sprayed field is encountered. >From experience, this results in less than 5% of fields being skipped on a

given visit. This pales in comparison with the scenario outlined in this exercise.
Monitoring Profiles Report - NAICC 2/17/2005

Page 26

Table 1. A hypothetical spray program and its effects on scouting activities for a typical fall tomato planting in south Florid

pesticide indicate the restricted entry interval following application. In the no entry column s= entry only in the unsprayed p

day of application, x= no entry. Scouting begins on the day of planting and is scheduled twice a week, i.e., on 3- and 4-day 

Day Scheduled scouting

visit

No entry Bravo Copper

hydroxide

Manzate Methyl

bromide/chloropicrin

Gramoxone Sencor Admire Agrimek Applaud Asana Bt Confirm 

1 s 482 x3 x4567 s 24 128 x9

101112131415161718192021 0.5 s 1222 s 24 24 423 x24 x25 s 24 24 426 x2728 x29 s 24 24 24 430 x31 0.5 s 24 24 432 x33 s 24 24 434 x35 0.5 s 24 24 36 x3738 0.5 s 24 24 439 x404142 0.5 s 24 24 443 x44 s 24 24 445 0 x46 s 24 24 47 x
M

o

nitorin

g

Profiles R

e

p

ort - N

AIC

C

2/17/2

0

0

5

P

a

g

e

2

7

4849 x50 s 24 24 451 x52 x5354 s 24 24 455 x56 x5758 s 24 24 459 0 x6061 s 24 24 462 x63 x64 s 48 12 465 x66 0 x67 s 24 24 468 x6970 0.5 s 48 4 71 x72 x73 0.5 s 24 24 474 x757677 0.5 s 48 478 x79 x80 0.5 s 24 24 12 481 x82 s 24 24 483 x84 0.5 s 48 1285 x86 x87 0.5 s 24 24 488 x899091 0.5 s 48 492 x93 x94 0.5 s 24 24 495 x9697 s 48 4 98 0 x99 s 24 24 4

100 x101 0.5 s 48 
Monitoring Profiles Report - NAICC 2/17/2005

Page 28

102 x103 x104 s 48 4 105 0 x106 x107 s 12108 x109110 s 24 24 4111 x112 x113114 s 48 4 115 0 x116 x117118119 x120121 s 24 24 4122 0 x123124125126 x127128129 x130

Table 2. A hypothetical spray program for a typical fall tomato planting in south Florida as affected by the lack of scouting 

revocation of the exemption from restricted entry requirements of the WPS. Figures below each pesticide indicate the restri

application. In the no entry column s= entry only in the unsprayed portion of the planting on the day of application, x= no e

day of planting and is scheduled twice a week, i.e., on 3- and 4-day intervals.

Day Scheduled scouting

visit

No entry Bravo Copper

hydroxide

Manzate Methyl

bromide/chloropicrin

Gramoxone Sencor Admire Agrimek Asana Bt Lannate Monitor S

1 s 482 x3 x4567 s 24 128 x
Monitoring Profiles Report - NAICC 2/17/2005

Page 29

9101112131415161718192021 x s 1222 s 24 24 423 x24 x25 s 24 24 426 x2728 x29 s 24 24 24 430 x31 x s 24 24 4832 x33 x 24 24 434 x35 x s 24 24 4836 x37 x38 x s 24 24 439 x404142 x s 24 24 4843 x44 x 24 24 4
M

o

nitorin

g

Profiles R

e

p

ort - N

AIC

C

2/17/2

0

0

5

P

a

g

e

3

0

45 x x46 x 24 24 4847 x48 x49 x50 s 24 24 451 x52 x5354 s 24 24 455 x56 x5758 s 24 24 459 x x6061 s 24 24 462 x63 x64 s 48 12 4865 x66 x x67 s 24 24 468 x6970 x s 48 12 4 4871 x72 x73 x s 24 24 474 x757677 x s 48 4 78 x79 x80 x s 24 24 4 
M

o

nitorin

g

Profiles R

e

p

ort - N

AIC

C

2/17/2

0

0

5

P

a

g

e

31

81 x82 s 24 24 483 x84 x s 48 4885 x86 x87 x s 24 2488 x899091 x s 48 492 x93 x94 x s 24 24 12 495 x9697 s 48 4898 x x99 x 24 24 4100 x101 x s 48 48102 x103 x104 s 48 4 4105 x x106 x107 s 12108 x109110 s 24 24 4111 x112 X113114 s 48 4 4115 X x116 x
Monitoring Profiles Report - NAICC 2/17/2005

Page 32

117118119 X120121 s 24 24 4122 X x123124125126 X127128129 X130Table 3. The impact of WPS restricted entry regulations on scheduled scouting activities for a typical fall tomato planting in 

Impact of spray program and restricted entry intervals on scouting

activities

Number of scheduled scouting visits

affected

No Scout Entry 7Scouting in unsprayed part of planting only 14Unrestricted scouting 11
Monitoring Profiles Report - NAICC 2/17/2005

Page 33

Participants

Task Force Members E-mail Phone

Allison Jones – TN JonesNAICC@aol.com (901) 861-0511

Al Averit – NC aaveritt@earthlink.net (901) 858-3740

Charlie Mellinger – FL cmellinger@igc.org (561) 746-3740

Dennis Berglund – MN dennisb@tvutel.com 218-584-5107

Harold Lambert – LA hlambert@startelco.net (225) 492-2790

Loarn Bucl – KS bucl@pld.com (316) 675-8439

Phil Cochran – IL phil@cochranagronomics.com (217) 465-5282

Ray Young – LA rdyoung@3g.quik.com (318) 724-6287

Robin Spitko – MA nefcon@aol.com (413) 367-9578

Ron Stinner – NC cipm@ncsu.edu (919) 515-1648

Roger Carter – LA AMSRoger@aol.com (318) 389-4411

EPA Participants

Don Eckerman Eckerman.Donald@epamail.epa.gov

Jeff Dawson Dawson.Jeff@epamail.epa.gov

Jeff Evans evans.jeff@epamail.epa.gov

Kathy Davis davis.kathy@epa.gov

Kevin Keaney Keaney.Kevin@epamail.epa.gov

Rich Dumas dumas.richard@epa.gov

Steve Nako Nako.Steve@epamail.epa.gov

Susan Hanley hanley.susan@epamail.epa.gov

Additional attendees at the EPA Meeting in DC

Bill Peele – NC Bill@impactagronomics.com (252) 975-6687

Bruce Neiderhauser – NC bruce@impactagronomics.com (252) 975-6687

Chris Patrick – NY cpatrick@acsoffice.com 585) 473-1100

Mark Otto – MI maotto@ameritech.net (517) 482-7506

Rick Trudel – MN Trudel1962@aol.com (218) 498-0248

Ron Britt – WA ronbritt@transedge.com (509) 966-9681

Numerous other consultants helped with data collection, but will not be acknowledged.

Thanks to everyone for all their good work!
Monitoring Profiles Report - NAICC 2/17/2005

Page 34

Other things that we talked about providing, but did not....

1. Verbiage that today’s scouting times (in cotton) are less than what they were 10 years ago (Ray Young’s

Boll Weevil example)

2. Number of days after application (or days into REI) the field inspections are performed

3. How many acres each consultant on this task force consults on

4. What % of each crop is professionally consulted on

5. Timeline of crop development as it relates to pesticide use

6. Typical pests at each crop stage

7. Weather data, which affects residue

8. Data sheet on scouts, including clothing, age, education level, experience, training

9. Video of actual scouting procedures at various stages of crop development
"Rod Elmstrand" 

<elmst002@umn.edu>

10/08/2008 02:59 PM

To Caryn Muellerleile/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

bcc

Subject RE:comments on EPA rules' small business impacts due 

Thurs 10/9

I read through the attachments that you sent me, WPS is a problem on small 

farms, as is pointed out in the attachments 98% farms may be considered small. 

Here are some comments.

1. Is there a way for us to differentiate or define small farms. What may be 

a small farm in California will likely be a very large farm in Minnesota.

I would suggest that family farms where the family puts in 75% of the labor 

and management should have a different set of rules than farms that are 

managed and staffed with hired labor. 

2. Training short term workers is a time financial burden for small farmers. 

If growers are producing a crop were there is no RUP spray applications needed 

during harvest, then I would recommend that these short term employees not be 

trained. The crew supervisor should be trained to properly supervise the 

harvesting operation. 

3. Verbal notification of applications should be all that is needed with small 

farms where the labor force is less than 10 non-family persons per farm and in 

places where workers are not involved in the direct application/handling of 

the pesticides.

Rod Elmstrand

Subject: reminder: comments on EPA rules' small business impacts due Thurs 

10/9

Dear Small Entity Representative:

Thank you for your participation in the September 25 outreach meeting on

Worker Protection Standards for Agricultural Pesticides & Certification

of Pesticide Applicators. If you have not yet had the opportunity to do

so, we are accepting written comments on impacts the potential

rulemakings may have on your small business until close of business

Thursday, October 9. We are happy to accept your written comments even

if you were unable to participate in the teleconference meeting.

Please send your written comments to me and I will distribute them to

all Panel members.

Caryn Muellerleile

Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (1806A)

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: (202) 564-2855

Fax: (202) 564-0965

muellerleile.caryn@epa.gov
Joe Hogue/DC/USEPA/US

10/02/2008 11:53 AM

To Caryn Muellerleile/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

bcc

Subject Fw: Comments from September 25 meeting

Caryn -

I just received the 1st written comment since the panel outreach meeting. You may want to forward it to 

SBA & OMB before today's meeting, in case they could use it.

Thanks,

Joe Hogue

EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs

FEAD/PRSB (7506C)

phone: Tues, Wed, Thurs > (703) 308-9072

 Mon. & Fri. > (804) 448-8027

----- Forwarded by Joe Hogue/DC/USEPA/US on 10/02/2008 11:51 AM -----

"John Hester" 

<jhester@nicholsag.com>

10/02/2008 12:10 PM

To Joe Hogue/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject Comments from September 25 meeting

Joe, I’m not very good with a computer and have the wrong date in the title, however, you will see that

the comments are from the power point presentation from our last meeting. Call me if you have any

questions.

John F. Hester

Owner/Manager

Nichols Ag

319-723-4221

319-631-1969

jhester@nicholsag.com
Small Business Advocacy Review Panel

Outreach meeting – September 25,2008

Comments from John Hester, Owner‐ Nichols Agriservice, Nichols, Iowa

General Overview and Perspective

My perspective is from over 35 years of recommending, selling, applying

and training private and commercial applicators in Iowa where almost all activity

is in corn and soybean production. Over 80% of all pesticide applications are done

by commercial applicators like my company and the only people involved or close

to the field are my applicators and the farmer. It should also be noted that

because the Iowa economy is based on ag , rules and regulations concerning

safety and proper application have been utilized for many years.

In reading your documentation for the need for more regulation, it appears

that most of the input came from states that are involved in many specialty, high

maintenance crops requiring more in‐filed activity by non‐family farmers or

commercial applicators.

Certification of Pesticide Applicators

There is a large difference between the skill and training of the commercial

and private applicator. Since commercial applicators apply a large percentage of

pesticides, their business success requires experienced and safe applicators and

constant training. The term “under supervision” does not apply since the licensed

applicator is the person in the field doing all the spraying. “Under supervision

does become important to the family farmer who may ask a family member to

apply pesticides and occasionally there are mistakes made due to a lack of

experience and training. I do not believe that anyone under the age of 18 should

be allowed to handle or apply pesticides even though 30% of my pesticide sales

are applied by family farmers and I am aware that the 16 year old son or daughter

may actually be the loader/mixer and applicator. These products are too

expensive and too complicated for a young person to fully comprehend.

1
Field Posting

It is common practice for a commercial applicator to place a copy of WPS

guidelines at the field entrance after an application. My family farmers do not do

this since they will likely be the only worker of any kind in the field during the REI

period and the practical use of  posting by the commercial applicator is to signify

to the family farmer that the intended application is complete and the next

planned field activity can occur. Over 80% of the fields where pesticide

applications occur have 1 or 2 field entrances and they are both on the road side

of the field. Posting 4 corners of someone’s yard or lawn may be appropriate

since they are open on most sides but posting all 4 corners of a farmer’s field

would be a complete waste of time since there are no entrances to the field other

than the 1 or 2 that everyone utilizes. Not only would 4 corners posting be a

wasted activity, it would add as much as 20% time to that field activity and would

require traveling over and possibly damaging portions of the planted field to

complete the process.  

I can see a need for posting 1 common side of the field with WPS posting if

the field will require non‐family workers such as de‐tasselers or hand pickers in

the fruit and vegetable parts of the country

It has been difficult for me to get my applicators to leave these WPS sheets

at the field entrance since most of my customers never read them, but we could

do better.

Decontamination Supplies

Eyewash stations are only practical at permanent mix sites due to winter

freezing and the large amount of very small fields and tremendous cost of the

piping that would be required. We have found that giving an applicator a water

bottle that fits into the shirt product works much better and is adequate in

irrigating eyes until the effected person can move to a family farmer’s home or

commercial  applicator’s facility.

Emergency showers seem to be popular at commercial mixing stations but are

almost never used.  I have personally helped 2 different employees use one of

2
these showers and the shock of the cold water was much worse than the

chemical on the skin. Regular shower stalls should be available at the mixing site

and are common at over 99% of these sites in the mid‐west.

Cholinesterase Testing

Less than 2% of the applications of pesticides used in corn or beans involve

insecticides that are Cholinesterase. Inhibitors and even though I have had 1

employee become ill back years ago when these products were popular, the

chlor. Test revealed little since there was no background test performed before

the incident. We have found little need for these types of products since safer and

more efficacious products are more plentiful today and are less expensive.

Charcoal Filtered Cabs

All of my application equipment have charcoal filters. These spray rigs cost

about $200,000 and have very good, air conditioned cabs and with regular

replacement of filters, are very effective in keeping out vapors or bad air or any

chemical. There is a huge difference between these rigs and the open tractors

that I see operating in the warmer climates where fruit and vegetables are grown.

Size Exemptions

Sheer number of people entering any field at any one time or in a seasonal

total can differentiate in the need for some regulation. Almost 100% of corn,

soybean, wheat and other commodity grown fields are never entered during an

REI period or any other time other than 1 or 2 commercial applicators or 2‐3

family farmer members. However, seed production fields in the mid‐west and

specialty, high‐maintenance crop fields usually have more than 10 workers in a

field at any one time and care is needed to insure that fields are posted on 1 side

for the REI period  

Conclusion

It should be noted that persons with a vested interest in proper and safe

applications are inherently better suited in compliance and overall stewardship. A

farmer will not likely ask one of his children to do something that may harm that

3
4

person or the environment where they live, so too with the commercial applicator

who makes a living at doing things like spraying and recommending pesticide

practices.

Thank You

John Hester
REEDFLY@aol.com

10/09/2008 07:34 PM

To Caryn Muellerleile/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

bcc

Subject Re: reminder: comments on EPA rules' small business 

impacts due Thurs 10/9

Thank you, Caryn. I have attached my comments as a Word document to this e-mail.

Rick

New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & 

more. Try it out!
October 9, 2008

Alexander Cristofaro

c/o Caryn Muellerleile

1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

MC 1806A

Washington, DC 20460

muellerleile.caryn@epa.gov

Dear Mr. Cristofaro:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the forthcoming regulatory proposals.  I shall keep my

comments brief.

Applicator Certification Rule (Restricted Use Pesticides)

1. Illinois requires testing in specific categories every 3 years for commercial applicators.    I

personally take 7 different tests every tree years to remain qualified to do my job.  In states that

do not require repetitive testing, but rely upon Continuing Education programs, I anticipate that

the certification categories you suggest would be taught and tested as part on their ongoing

program.

2. The applicator minimum age proposal will not adversely affect those businesses who employ

commercial applicators because my industry uses aircraft for our applications.  We already have

minimum age requirements for obtaining a commercial pilot’s license.

3. We are not required to pay a fee (in Illinois) for taking the required tests, all of which are closed

book, and proctored.    Expense incurred in traveling to an exam site is really impossible to

categorize and estimate for everyone involved.   

Worker Protection Standard (Workers and handlers in plant agriculture)  

1. The suggestion that requirements for additional posting of REI are being considered is truly

interesting.    I understand the rationale is to make sure “everyone” is adequately warned if a

field has been treated.  Realistically, the only individuals who are supposed to be entering that

field are legal workers who have been instructed to enter at “the usual point of entry.”  Other

individuals who might choose to enter the field from any direction are, in my opinion,

trespassing.    The WPS were written to protect workers and not trespassers.    Other specific

comments are:

i) I doubt the rationale that trespassers would only choose to enter a field at the corners.

ii) If the corners of a field are inaccessible by road, path, etc. would the posting still be

required?   

iii) Time for posting would be considerable.  For example a typical 160 acre square field with 4

distinct corners would necessitate a walk of 2 miles to place the signs.  Some of the fields

personally treat are considerable larger than that.   The 15 minutes assumed by EPA is based

on what?   
iv) Consider the posting of very small fields of fruits and/or vegetables i.e. 1‐2 acres.  Posting

the signs would take considerably less time than large fields, but to what advantage?  You

could stand in one place and be within 100 feet of every sign posted.   

v) Some fields have considerably more than 4 corners and some don’t have any corners at all.  

Where do you propose posting additional signs on a round, center pivot irrigated field?

vi) The requirement would be extremely time

2. The requirement of a no‐entry zone of any distance would have no effect because applications

are prohibited if any personnel, workers or otherwise, are present at the site of application.

3. It would not be a burden to maintain a pesticide MSDS file because we are already required to

have MSDS information available.    Adding a requirement that MSDS sheets be posted for

viewing is possible but futile.  They would simply never be utilized.  The pertinent information a

worker may be interested in is found on the EPA approved label that accompanies every product

applied.   

4. The proposed requirement to force the wearing of a respirator in a closed, sealed cab is without

foundation, would cause undue hardship and discomfort, and possibly magnify the potential for

inadvertent contamination.  I have to question the motive here.  During the teleconference, I

heard that research has shown an enclosed cab’s filtration system is less effective than a well

designed, correctly fitted, clean respirator.  I’m not surprised by that. I also have no doubt that a

full decontamination suit, complete with bottled breathing air and a full face airtight helmet

provides greater protection than the simple respirator.  What exactly is the problem we’re trying

to fix?    I propose that the enclosed cabs in use today are sufficient protection.   Do we have

statistics that show workers are becoming ill while making an application from an enclosed cab?  

If so, than the circumstances of that exposure should be studied and then remedied.   

Respectfully,

Rick Reed

Reed’s Fly‐On Farming
"webbfarm@netzero.net" 

<webbfarm@netzero.net>

10/03/2008 03:08 PM

To Caryn Muellerleile/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

bcc

Subject Re: Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides 

and Certifi cation of Pesticide Applicators - Small 

Business Advocacy Review Panel Outreach Meeting 

Invitation and Materials for Small Entity Representa

tives

Mr. Cristofaro,

I apologize for my abscence from the Sept 25 teleconference. I have reviewed the materials sent 

out and I feel that my original comments from the June meeting sufficiently outline my positions 

on these proposals. I am resending those comments as an attachment for reference. I hope that is 

adequate participation on my behalf to aid in this panel's conclusions. Again, I apologize for the 

conflict in schedules and offer my continued support and assistance on these issues.

Clint Webb
Clint J. Webb 

Webb Farms 

6430 Dixie-Barwick Rd. 

Boston, GA 31626 

Family farm: cotton, peanuts, corn, hay 

Commercial Applicator personal use only 

One employee 

June 30, 2008 Potential SER Outreach Meeting Follow up 

Adding certification categories for commercial applicators: 

Here in Georgia we already take two tests to become certified commercial applicators; 

one is general pesticide safety and worker protection standards and the other is specific to 

one of over 16 subcategories. The tests are proctored, closed book and only given at 

approved locations and times around the state. This can sometimes limit when a person 

may get certified, but it seems to be working fine today. I think this is the appropriate 

way to do it and any standardization on the national level would be an improvement. 

Applicator minimum age: 

I am not comfortable with the EPA establishing a generic minimum age for applicators. I 

personally know forty year old men that are not capable of applying RUPs and also 

twelve year olds that are fully capable and mature enough for the job. I personally started 

applying RUPs as early as 12 or 13, and I know some around that will use guys 16 or 

possibly younger. Speaking as a small family farm, we regularly use family labor that 

may be young for such jobs. They have been familiar with such tasks and are supervised 

by a licensed adult. Without the option for such labor, we would either have to rely only 

on the certified applicators to do the work or be forced to hire additional help of an older 

age. Both scenarios would add unnecessary expense to the operation and/or delay 

pesticide applications which will result in yield reductions. I think the certified applicator 

should be competent enough to determine if an individual is capable of safely applying 

the chemical. 

I also feel there should be no minimum age on who can receive a pesticide license; 

whether private or commercial. The test should be of the caliber to address that concern. 

If one is capable of learning and understanding the concepts on the written test then they 

should be given the rights that come with that knowledge. If I am working a 12 or 15 or 

25 year old employee, I would much rather they go take the private applicator test and be 

certified than they simply be under my supervision just because they have not crossed 

some arbitrary age threshold. I feel that in preparing for that test they will undoubtedly 

pick up important information on how to react to a situation that I may have overlooked 

because it is second nature to me as an experienced applicator. 
 Applying RUPs under the supervision of Certified Applicators: 

I have one employee that is not a certified applicator. He works under my supervision and 

that of my dad, who is a private applicator. This employee has been with us for 23 years 

and is perhaps more familiar with pesticides that many recently passing the test. There 

are many farmers in the area that have applicators working under supervision. These 

employees are trained typically by the supervising applicator. I think there is no reason a 

licensed applicator cannot do the training. I do not have a problem with a more specific 

training program. It would be good to have a clear set of criteria that should be covered 

when doing employee training, but it should be done in house. I do not feel that it is 

necessary to carry employees off farm or bring in additional staff for training. That again 

adds expense to the operation. 

 Supervisors often range from being in the field with the applicator, perhaps on 

another piece of equipment, to being in the area, often checking in regularly as they 

manage multiple workers in different area. Having a means of instant communications is 

a great idea. Those that have two-way radios and cell phones certainly have an advantage, 

but it seems to be an overreach to require such devices. Such issues that may come up 

and need communications should be handled in the training. I understand that things 

happen, but a well trained employee should have been told ahead how to deal with 

situations like spills or contamination. We have some cell phones and some radios, but 

we are not covered in all areas at all times. I like to be in communication with my help, 

but there are times and equipment that is not currently possible. To make it so would be 

an added expense of several hundred if not thousands of dollars in equipment and future 

subscriptions. 

Worker Protection Standard

Training: 

Properly training employees is very important to both their safety as well the functioning 

of the company. It is important that they be trained thoroughly and promptly. However, 

the current grace period is essential to allow time for new employee training. I find it 

basically impossible to verify training so any new employee undergoes training, but it 

really helps to have the flexibility to know it can be worked around our busy schedules 

rather than having to stop some vital task to perform the training. That is especially true 

since I do my own training. As I said earlier, I think the training criteria should be 

clarified and would even like to see a consistent, concise training manual so that I know I 

have covered everything necessary. 

 I do not agree with shortening the retraining interval. In Georgia, my license has 

to be renewed every 5 years. If that is enough for a commercial applicators license then it 

is enough for worker training. We have no turn over, I know several that have very low if 

any turnover; I would hate to see regulation geared toward high turnover operations that 

simply puts us going over the same ground time after time. Each employer will have to 

do new training as his labor situation demands, but to retrain current employees more 

often than 5 years is simply unnecessary. 
Restricted Entry Intervals (REI): 

Here in Georgia we currently have to post a warning sign after applying RUPs. The sign 

is a standard written and pictorial sign issuing a warning of danger to stay out. They are 

to be posted for the duration of the REI. Putting the signs up as you leave the field is not 

a great burden, however, keeping track of different fields and times so they are not left up 

unnecessarily can be time consuming. We only have to place the signs at the entry to the 

field. Currently dealing only with RUPs, for crops like cotton or peanuts we will typically 

have to post a field five times a year. Proposals to require posting on all pesticides having 

an REI would dramatically increase that number to as much as 30 or 40 for crops like 

cotton. The task of keeping up with posting time and expiration times would be 

tremendous. For our small operation, only about 500 acres in cotton, it could take one 

person up to one hour each day just riding and updating posting signs. Add to that the 

cost of the gas and the vehicle and you just spent $25 a day in added costs all the while 

that worker is not doing some other important task. 

 There are two concerns with having to add the chemical name and REI expiration 

to the sign. One, the signs become consumable rather than reusable because the 

chemicals and times change with each posting. Two, with the chemical name present, you 

open the sigh to interpretation by employees rather than it standing alone as clearly “do 

not enter”. 

 The signs we currently use display a red octagon and a man with a hand 

indicating stop. These symbols work to convey the information of restricted access. Other 

suggestions such as the skull and crossbones would be much less effective as they do not 

simply say stay out but rather convey a message of impending danger; which is not the 

case with these pesticides so long as the REI is honored. 

 We discussed guidelines for posting signs in fields. I firmly believe it is only 

necessary to post such signs at logical points of entry. There is no reason to have to place 

signs along perimeters or other configurations around a field. The signs are there to 

inform authorized personnel and chance entrants of the dangers in the field; we are not 

trying to barricade the field with them. Postings in general, but especially any such 

regulation would have added effect on small farmers. Typically as farm size decreases 

average field size decreases. Under either scenario, the small farmer will have to put out 

more signs and spend more time per acre than a larger farm. 

 For example, on 500 acres with average field size of 30 acres, I would have to 

post 17 signs just at entrances. Add perimeter signage and you can increase that number 

by 10 to 100 fold. By comparison, take a farmer with 5000 acres of cotton with an 

average field size of 250 acres, he will post 20 signs, but each sign will cover three times 

as many acres as the small farmer. Also, in the case of perimeter postings, the larger the 

field, the fewer perimeter feet per acre equaling fewer signs per treated acre. It just begins 

to spiral into unbearable demands of time and manpower. 

 We rarely need to send in workers earlier than the labeled REI. Under such 

situations it is important to communicate with the workers that they understand the 

proper protections to take. There is no reason such communications must be in writing. 

The workers should be verbally informed about the restrictions and dangers posed by 

entry. Careful records should be kept of workers entering those areas in the event of 

adverse effects from exposure. 
Application entry restricted area: 

We currently have a policy of not applying pesticides with people in the immediate area 

of the application. There are times that it is necessary for a worker to be in the area. We 

have several fields with residential homes around them. We maintain a good working 

relationship with these people and inform them of the dangers of the pesticide we use. 

With that said, I feel that a no-entry zone for fields and forests is not possible like that of 

a contained structure like say a greenhouse. It is not practical for farmers or homeowners 

to force their yard into a no entry zone for an extended period of time. As for workers, it 

is important that they stay out of harms way during pesticide applications. 

Hazard Communication: 

We discuss proper PPE use and cleanup regularly with staff. We monitor their use of 

such equipment both visually and verbally to ensure their safety. We make every effort to 

provide adequate eye flush water and rinse water at mixing sites. The problem with many 

farms is that we have to be mobile. There may be one central shop or office, but for a 

farm to be productive the workers are rarely there and even fewer pesticides are used 

from there. Decontamination equipment such as soap, towels, and eye flush is kept in the 

mix wagon for applicators, but is not efficient or necessary to have an excessive amount 

of it or to mandate a shower system for every operation. 

 I feel a restriction on the amount of time handlers are allowed to work with OP 

and Carbamates is unnecessary. Following approved label PPE should adequately protect 

workers for these compounds. If that is not enough protections then the label should be 

altered so that it will. If there is a limit imposed we could run into a situation of having to 

delay pesticide applications that could reduce crop yields. On the same line, if a label 

establishes that an enclosed cab will replace a respirator then let it. If the enclosed cab is 

not adequate protection, then why were we allowed to use them in the first place? Such 

enclosed cabs should be maintained and routinely inspected with appropriate 

recordkeeping, just as respirators or any other piece of PPE should be. I firmly support 

safety, but there is no need to have duplication. 

 Requiring that MSDS be kept for all chemicals used will add many hours of time 

spent finding and printing sheets just to be placed in a file. You will have the added space 

necessary to keep the file. I would much rather have a database online where anyone 

could go at anytime to look up MSDS by chemical name. That way everyone will have 

them readily accessible without having to devote time and space to keeping up with them 

on every farm. 
"Tyler Wegmeyer" 

<tylerw@fb.org>

10/09/2008 12:03 PM

To Caryn Muellerleile/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

bcc

Subject RE: reminder: comments on EPA rules' small business 

impacts due Thurs 10/9

Caryn,

Please find my attached comments.

Thanks,

Tyler

Tyler Wegmeyer

American Farm Bureau Federation(r)

600 Maryland Avenue, S.W., STE 1000W

Washington, DC. 20024

202-406-3663

202-445-9630 Cell

tylerw@fb.org

-----Original Message-----

From: Muellerleile.Caryn@epamail.epa.gov

[mailto:Muellerleile.Caryn@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 1:21 PM

To: cvh@centralvalleyheli.com; reedfly@aol.com; jhester@nicholsag.com;

bilihun@spraytec.com; aaveritt@earthlink.net; dennisb@tvutel.com;

cfemling@aol.com; elmst002@umn.edu; webbfarm@netzero.net;

rmatoian@westernpistachio.org; dasherfarm@alltel.net;

rmetzler@pearsonrealty.com; whjjr30@aol.com; Tyler Wegmeyer;

richard@arbor-nomics.com; kcrenshaw@herbi-systems.com;

lonniealonso@ColumbusPestControlinc.com; anne@royalpest.com;

bruce@csipest.com; jackmarlowe@edenpest.com; mwright@woodpreservers.com

Cc: Hogue.Joe@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: reminder: comments on EPA rules' small business impacts due

Thurs 10/9

Dear Small Entity Representative:

Thank you for your participation in the September 25 outreach meeting on

Worker Protection Standards for Agricultural Pesticides & Certification

of Pesticide Applicators. If you have not yet had the opportunity to do

so, we are accepting written comments on impacts the potential

rulemakings may have on your small business until close of business

Thursday, October 9. We are happy to accept your written comments even

if you were unable to participate in the teleconference meeting.

Please send your written comments to me and I will distribute them to

all Panel members.

Caryn Muellerleile

Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (1806A)

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: (202) 564-2855

Fax: (202) 564-0965
muellerleile.caryn@epa.gov
October 9, 2008 

Mr. Alexander Cristofaro 

Small Business Advocacy Chair 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

MC 1806A 

Washington, DC 20460 

RE: U.S. EPA’s Small Business Advocacy Review Panel Comments 

Dear Mr. Cristofaro: 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to EPA’s Small Business Advocacy 

Review (SBAR) Panel regarding future proposed rules on the Worker Protection 

Standard (WPS) for Agricultural Pesticides and Certification of Pesticide Applicators 

(CPA). As the nation’s largest general farm and ranch organization, American Farm 

Bureau Federation (AFBF) represents individuals and families engaged in all aspects of 

production agriculture throughout the 50 States and Puerto Rico. We believe these 

comments are representative of the different regions and states across the country. 

General: 

1. Flexibility is critically important for this type of regulation, primarily due to the 

diversity of producers that will be affected. For instance, a 40-acre vegetable 

farm is considered quite large while a 200-acre row crop farm is considered small. 

The 40-acre vegetable farm might well have a full-time employee who did 

record- and bookkeeping, maintained permit records, etc. in an administrative 

capacity. The 200-acre row crop farm, by contrast, would most likely be operated 

either by a single producer, or as a family farm where the owner/operator would 

work another job off-farm; stringent record keeping in such circumstances is 

extremely stressful and time consuming and be inordinately burdensome for 

family members. 

2. In order to be successful, “small entity” would need to be defined for each 

different type of farm or producer. It would need to be flexible. Based on the 

different types of operations involved, the number of employees would come 

closest to determining size of operations. Any regulation of farms with five (5) or 

fewer employees would be problematic for record keeping and implementation. 

Certification of Pesticide Applicators

Adding Certification Categories for Commercial Applicators 
Certification categories vary state by state. In Iowa, for example the M44 device and 

compound 1080 for controlling livestock predators have not been considered for use. If 

there were demand for these types of predator controls where they could be used safely it 

would be considered. We would hope that EPA’s new rule would not require states to 

develop a category if they have no use for these controls at this time. A state should have 

the option and flexibility to decide whether they need to develop the category or not and 

if the need arises in the future then the state could move forward to develop the category 

according to EPA’s guidelines. 

In addition, requiring states to develop additional categories would be a “raising of the 

bar” with regard to curriculum and protocols. Growers are concerned that it would make 

it considerably more difficult to pass the tests, maintain the license and require substantial 

more time studying and training to get and maintain a license. This would also 

unnecessarily require more resources by state agencies to develop study guides and 

training by staff. 

Applicator Minimum Age: 

1. In some states there are minimum age requirements for the application of RUP’s 

and in other states there is not. Proposed 16 or 18 minimum ages should not have 

an impact on commercial applicators. However, there could be an impact on 

private applicators in family farm operations. We think a person that is 16 should 

be allowed to be certified as a private applicator if needed. 

2. The minimum age requirement would primarily affect family farms with sons or 

daughters who work on the farm. Most family farms trust their own children 

more than hired labor because they have been raised on the farm, been taught for 

years by their parents how to treat chemicals and equipment, and have a respect 

and sense of responsibility that hired labor might not possess. 

3. The family farm that is required to replace a family member would face all the 

costs associated with hired labor or outsourced commercial applicators. Hired 

labor requires a salary, unemployment taxes and worker compensation taxes. 

There is also the cost associated with reliability and the assumption that a certified 

worker will show up when needed. 

Applying RUP’s under the Supervision of Certified Applicator 

1. Many states do not require certification to apply RUPs as long as they are under 

the supervision of a certified applicator. Some states do require certification but 

allow a certain grace period under supervision before getting certified. 

2. The number of non-certified applicators applying RUPs under supervision will 

vary based on the type and size of farm. 

3. Requirements vary state by state by state, farm by farm. For example, for large 

row crop farms, the supervisor will generally be within five miles of the 

application site. For smaller farms, the supervisor would be much closer, 

anywhere from a couple of hundred yards to two (2) miles. 

Instant communication would be conducted by cell phone, two-way radio or other 

device. Estimated costs of providing communication devices would be in the 

hundreds of dollars per person. 
In general, we have the following concerns: Requiring supervisors and applicators to 

have “instant” communication would put the applicator at risk of pesticide exposure 

when trying to use the cell phone, two-way radio, or other device. Decontaminating first 

would prevent the ability for it to be “instant”. Also, carrying the label on their person 

during application does not increase their safety because they are not going to refer to the 

label during the actual application. They would look at the label pre- or post- application 

to prevent pesticide contamination. 

Exam Administration for Commercial Applicators 

Exams vary state by state. In Iowa for example, their law requires that both commercial 

applicators and private applicators pass a written exam for initial certification. Iowa’s 

rules also permit an oral exam for private applicators on a case by case basis. All exams 

are proctored, closed book exams. An applicator is permitted to review a failed exam 

with the correct answers under supervision of an exam proctor. They require all persons 

taking exams to provide a photo ID. 

We believe the states should continue to have the flexibility to decide what type of exam 

is required. Positive identification should be required. 

Worker Protection Standard (Workers and handlers in plant agriculture) 

Training 

1. The two (2) day grace period is unacceptable. Many of the RUP’s are pre-plant 

herbicides, and planting is the most crucial and time-sensitive period of year. 

Employee hiring, or start dates, are held off as long as possible to reduce input 

cost. If the grace period were reduced, or eliminated, it would require the earlier 

hiring of employees and increase input costs $100-$200 per hire. 

2. The retraining frequency of every 5 years has been effective in worker safety 

while not being an unusual burden for agricultural employers. While most 

workers are trained every year because of turnover and consistency issues, we do 

not support the training interval being reduced. 

3. Currently, most producers probably do not check for training history at the time of 

employment. It is important to remember that 1) farmers are not recruiting on 

college campuses 2) farming is hard work and labor turnover is substantial 3) 

most farm labor does not give two week notice when they leave; they just don’t 

show up 4) labor is hired just-in-time, therefore the person you hire today was 

probably unemployed yesterday. 

It is extremely difficult for farmers to find good labor in a timely manner and to get them 

the proper training as soon as they are hired. Flexibility is needed. Smaller farmers with 

fewer than 5 employees are tremendously busy as each person has tasks that need to be 

completed in a timely manner with no extra person around to fill in the gaps. Training 

requirements that cause a severe burden and that do not allow important tasks to be 
completed before training is done impose unacceptable costs without identifiable 

benefits. We estimate that in general, training sessions for workers will require 30+ 

minutes and for handlers 45+ minutes. 

Restricted Use Intervals (REI) 

WPS warning signs are only needed when the pesticide label indicates that areas need to 

be posted as well as oral warning for workers. Some agricultural sites are posted in lieu 

of the oral warnings, as provided for on the pesticide labels. The requirement for both 

oral warnings and postings are specific to pesticide products that pose a threat to workers 

health. Workers are taught to read the label and the information on REI should be 

located there. If more information should be needed, the label could direct you to the 

WPS. 

Central posting of information with either oral or written notice should work adequately. 

Farms post on a dry erase or chalk board at a central location which fields have been 

sprayed and when. This is a common sense approach that works well. Workers frequent 

the common area to get the required information. Additional requirements would be time 

consuming and costly, and it should be noted that the time that it takes to place signs by 

an employee is time lost to productive activity elsewhere, thus greatly increasing input 

cost to the farmer. It does not make any sense to require that each corner of the field be 

posted. Were that the case, it might serve just as well to rope off the entire field – an 

approach which is totally impractical. 

It is very time consuming to put up signs. If you have the signs in the spray rig or tractor, 

a conservative estimate is that it would take 10 minutes per sign. You have to count the 

time from when the machine stops, until you are back in the seat. That includes attaching 

a stake, and hammering it into the ground. Again, 10 minutes per sign should be used as 

a conservative estimate. If the signs are not in the spray rig or tractor, but are put out by 

another supervisor or employee, it would take an estimated 30-45 minutes per sign. It is 

important to note that some large fields would take 45 minutes or more just to drive 

around without placing the signs. In the case of aerial applications, the time placing signs 

is an additional employee that could be productive elsewhere and greatly increases input 

cost. 

Flexibility is essential to allow the farmer to do what makes the most sense in their 

operation to inform workers on REI without compromising worker safety. Smaller 

operations have central meeting places where all types of information exist. Having REI 

information at this central spot is adequate. 

Application Entry Restricted Area 

We are adamantly opposed to a requirement of a no-entry zone around fields. A no-entry 

zone would be completely arbitrary and not based on science. Smaller vegetable farms 

with small fields would be severely impacted. Not being able to be 100 feet from a field 

being sprayed would eliminate potentially being able to be in several adjacent fields. 

Significant economic loss from this could occur as a result of work stoppages and loss of 

labor. We do not believe that lack of such a requirement would jeopardize worker safety. 
Hazard Communication 

Pesticide labels have the correct PPE for handlers and early entry workers. No other 

document should be needed. 

Decontamination 

Flexibility is needed to address decontamination. Requiring a shower for handlers at 

every farm would be a financial burden for many agricultural employers and are simply 

not necessary. All farms using pesticides have flush water available. Portable 

decontamination showers cost between $5000 and $6000, plus water which would create 

an exceptional economic burden for many farms. A better requirement to protect workers 

and their family would be to require that workers remove early entry clothing including 

foot wear and do not take it home with them. 

In summary, we oppose any curtailment of the safe and proper use of agricultural 

chemicals unless research and scientific data determine that injury to health and wellbeing would result. EPA contends that it is difficult to fully meet that standard under 

current regulations because there are gaps in protection resulting in unreasonable adverse 

health effects for workers and their families and gaps that allow potential for 

environmental damage. We do not concur with that assertion. Any new future 

requirements should allow state flexibility to address issues and concerns based on 

individual state data that pertain to their crop management systems. Federal rules should 

not be driven by regional needs or deficiencies in other state’s programs. 

AFBF appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments and looks forward to 

continuing discussions with EPA on all matters relating to WPS and CPA. 

Sincerely, 

Tyler Wegmeyer 

Director 

Congressional Relations 

. 
"Morgan Wright" 

<MWright@woodpreservers.c

om>

10/07/2008 12:25 PM

To Caryn Muellerleile/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

bcc

Subject Written Comments for Alexander Cristofaro in Reference to 

09/25/08 Small Business Review Panel Meeting

Mr. Cristofaro,

I would like to submit the following written comments with respect to the Small Business Review Panel

Meeting that was held via conference call on September 25, 2008.

1‐      I feel that wood preservatives are not within the scope of the agricultural worker

protection standard (40CFR170), and therefore all of the issues related to 40CFR170 are not

applicable to wood preservatives.

2‐      One issue being look at by this panel, that I feel is relevant to wood preservatives, is the

certification of applicators of restricted use pesticides, rule (40CFR171). In developing a standard

it would be nice to have the re‐certification classes be based on subject matter that is relevant

to the use of wood preservatives. In some states wood preservative applicators sit through

classes that are geared toward the use of agriculture pesticides. The application of wood

preservatives in a closed loop system has many differences from the application of agriculture

pesticides in the field.

Thank you for the opportunity participate as a SER.

Morgan Wright

Wood Preservers, Inc.

P.O. Box 158

15939 Historyland Highway

Warsaw, VA 22572

Ph: 804-333-4022

Fax: 804-333-9269