PPDC Comments on May 2007 Issue Papers 

Table of Contents 

AAPCO Worker Protection Committee State Lead Agency Comments (C&T)....................... 2 

AAPCO Worker Protection Committee State Lead Agency Comments (WPS)....................... 17 

AAPSE C&T and WPS Response ................................................................... ........ 29 

AAPSE Member Comments .................................................................................. 35 

Pesticide Policy Coalition Comments ....................................................................... 42 

Crop Life America and Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment Comments ................. 50 

Crop Life America WPS Comments ......................................................................... 52 

Cotton Council WPS Comments ............................................................................ 57 

Consumer Specialty Products Association Comments ..................................................... 79 

Farmworker Association of Florida Comments .................................................... ......... 80 

Farmworker Justice, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Legal Aid Services of Oregon 

 and Migrant Clinicians Network Comments .................................................... 85 

Idaho Community Action Network Comments ............................................................ 95 

Joanne Kick-Raack Adult Educator Comments ............................................................ 98 

Matthew Keifer MD MPH Comments ....................................................................... 100 

National Association of Independent Crop Consultants and Association of Crop Consultants 

Comments ............................................................................................... 103 

Chemical Producers and Distributors Association Comments ............................................ 104 

1 of 113
AAPCO Worker Protection Committee 

State Lead Agency Comments

August 29, 2007 

C&T 1: Expand scope of applicators subject to regulation 

California Comments:

The purpose of proposing a change to federal regulation of certification and training and 

worker protection is to raise the minimum federal standards that many states have already 

moved beyond. Certifying occupational “for-hire” and “not-for-hire” pesticide users as 

described in Option 1, goes far beyond raising the baseline standard and moves to a level 

of pesticide use certification that is more of an ideal goal. Setting interim objectives or 

standards seems more achievable and more appropriate in setting minimum federal 

standards. C&T 1 would also be more compelling if it included illness or exposure 

statistics to help justify the need to establish competency requirements for occupational 

“for-hire” and “not-for-hire” pesticide users. Implementing Option 3 “Review state 

regulations and certification plans for applicators and consider their approaches as a 

model for a national baseline.” may be the best approach because it provides working 

examples of standards that are being implemented and can work today. 

Certifying occupational “for-hire” and “not-for-hire” pesticide users as described in 

Option 1 would likely result in a program requiring a significant increase in resources 

currently devoted to C&T. For example, California certifies approximately 24,000 

commercial applicators operating in agricultural and landscape environments (non 

structural) and oversees certification of private applicators at the local level that number 

slightly less than 20,000. All pest control businesses must have a certified applicator 

whether they apply restricted or general use pesticides and the applicator may supervise 

non-certified applicators in the use of RUPs. California also requires employers to have a 

written training program for all employees handling any pesticide (exceptions include 

users of certain vertebrate pest control baits, antimicrobials and pool chemicals who must 

comply with a set of industrial safety regulations enforced by a different agency). 

Currently, the population of pesticide users that include private applicators doesn’t 

require certification when using general use pesticides. Although private applicators are 

required to maintain the written training program described above for any employees, 

there is no exam as a competency gauge for using general use pesticides. Establishing a 

competency requirement, such as an exam for all production and non-production 

agricultural users (owners or operators of property) would be a significant improvement 

in establishing competency of pesticide users. The exam would test for competency of 

general pesticide safety and label comprehension. This would allow the competent 

pesticide user (owner or operator) to supervise others involved in pest control just as 

certification does. Even this step would require significant resource commitment and 

would likely increase the tested applicators significantly. This expansion of competency 

testing in combination with the requirement for a training program is a significant 

improvement and does not require measuring competency at the “hose level” with an 

2 of 113
exam. Effectiveness of the training program would be determined through State and 

local enforcement programs. 

California has taken the training and outreach approach into the urban pesticide use arena 

as well. The School IPM program is reaching out statewide to school district 

maintenance representatives through workshops that describe and demonstrate reduced 

risk and pest prevention practices. A similar effort is underway to train social services 

workers that interface with child day care facilities in basic pest prevention and safe 

pesticide use practices. 

Indiana Comments:

Indiana believes the agency can’t rely on “industry and private sources” for training 

materials, exams or other competency gauges. Several industry sectors may not be 

prepared to develop such items. 

While some additional expansion may be warranted, I do not believe there is data to 

support the assumption that ALL occupational users need certification. 

Support item 4 (page 12): Improve pesticide labeling to address risks from occupational 

users. 

Page 13, Other questions for consideration: 

A- Indiana has difficulty in reconciling the fact that the agency was dissuaded by states 

that were concerned handlers could not pass an exam and the fact the agency wants to 

certify occupational users. While being able to pass an exam and competency do not 

always go hand in hand, the inability to pass an exam is reason enough not accept 

someone as being minimally competent. 

B-Easy is better. Indiana is opposed to requiring the occupational user be fully certified 

to the standard they have for “for hire’ applications. 

North Carolina Comments:

Option 4 Improve pesticide labeling to address risks from occupational users 

EPA must consider revisions to 40 CFR 171 to reflect the widened scope of current 

programs. EPA should provide an official recognition of the need to ensure that all 

persons who apply pesticides (not just RUP’s) as part of their occupational 

responsibilities or activities have received pesticide education and safety training. 

EPA’s label improvement program is the cornerstone for educating the non-RUP user 

homeowners, and other non-traditional C&T program persons and should be utilized to 

this end. State resources are limited. Program expansion to include the non-traditional 

C&T program person would diminish our already strained program capabilities to meet 

EPA goals due to limited resources. 

3 of 113
Option 7 Emphasize Hazard Communication training 

Again Hazard communication training can also be provided on the labeling of products. 

In occupational situations, the owner generally provides application, equipment training, 

and other safety training required by DOL OSH. Educational and training programs 

should be conducted by the employer. 

Florida Comments:

Other questions for consideration: 

A. Should agricultural handlers be required to demonstrate competency? The 

Agency considered this option, but were dissuaded by concerns raised by the 

states for their ability to pass an exam. The same states felt that the handlers were 

competent. 

In Florida with a Hispanic Trainer doing a bilingual review of the exam material 

prior to the Handlers taking the exam we have approximately a 25% success rate of 

Hispanic Handlers taking exams (based on 95 exams taken within the last 12 months 

given by Cesar Asuaje who is coordinating this training program). 

Considering those results, it would appear that the time and expense that an 

Employer would have to spend on a Handler, that may or may not be a permanent 

employee, would be a huge burden. Based on violation rates, it would appear that 

Handlers are competent. (That is based on possible violations that would involve an 

incompetent handler, including reported exposures to other workers by 

misapplication, etc.) If it was documented that Handlers are not competent then, 

reviewing the training material, the amount of required training, and frequency of 

training versus demonstrating competency through exams might be a more realistic 

approach. 

B. How to best identify occupational pesticide applications that have the potential to 

impact sensitive populations or environments? 

For sensitive environments, one source of information to determine what would be 

considered sensitive would be the Endangered Species Act; another source would be 

the EPA Clean Water Act. So all surface water could be considered sensitive, and 

Natural areas where Endangered Species are listed would be another possibility. In 

those situations, using the Primary Categories, categories that would include 

applications to either surface water or areas most likely to have endangered species 

such as the Aquatic Category, or the Natural Areas Weed Management category 

would be obvious choices for consideration. Other areas that would be impacted by 

the Endangered Species or the Clean Water Act such as Right-of-Way and Private 

Applicators would be dependent on the location of the applications and the labeled 

products they are using. 

4 of 113
At this time there are no Restricted Use Pesticides registered for aquatic application 

sites in Florida. However, because of the Aquatic Industry’s initiative we have 

approximately 2200 applicators licensed in the Aquatic category. It would appear 

that to have some type of license, whether a certified RUP applicator or a 

credentialed applicator for GUP applications would be extremely cost prohibitive 

for the state lead agencies as well as the Extension offices that assist with the 

training and in some cases exam proctoring. This would appear, at least for the 

aquatic applicators, to be unnecessary. Providing funding to assist the industries, 

such as the aquatic applicators, to increase training would be a more useful use of 

funds. Other industries in Florida that might be impacted by the environmental 

sensitive areas, such as Natural Areas Weed Management and Right of Way would 

also benefit with a partnership promoting industry initiatives in training and 

licensing. Currently Florida has 1858 certified Right of Way Applicators and 680 

certified Natural Areas Weed Management, with the Natural Areas Weed 

Management being the fastest growing category in Florida. 

For Sensitive Human Populations, pest control applications would be an obvious 

choice. In Florida, all persons making applications to or around homes or businesses 

are already licensed through competency demonstration. Therefore, this would be a 

redundant regulation in Florida. 

C&T 2: Protect human health and the environment by ensuring that occupational 

applicators of potentially harmful pesticides pass a reliable certification exam that 

determines their competency to use pesticides safely 

California Comments:

Option 3 comes closest to an appropriate baseline standard. However, a program that 

tests and certifies private or commercial supervisory or responsible- level staff and 

requires an enforceable training program for all handlers should be considered adequate. 

If there is evidence of failure of the training program and the program can’t be improved, 

testing would be one option to consider. Testing of all for hire applicators would pose a 

significant resource burden, notwithstanding the statement made in the issue paper’s cost 

analysis. It would likely triple the demands on DPR’s Licensing and Certification unit. 

Indiana Comments:

Agree that written exams are our best method for determining competency. However, I 

am not convinced that all applicators need full certification. Additionally I am 

unconvinced that the agency can adequately define sensitive versus non-sensitive sites. 

North Carolina Comments:

Matrix Option 2 ensures that a level of pesticide safety training will be provided for 

applicators of pesticides. This option takes into consideration the wide variety of job 

assignments which dictates the risk exposure potential. 

While it is apparent that testing the “not for hire applicator to non-sensitive sites” 

(handlers) would not demonstrate competency, EPA should consider a pre- and post5 of 113
evaluation instrument that to be used by the handler’s employer to better assess 

information retention and material acceptability similar to the private applicator option. 

Consideration here should be given to the fact that a handler has a higher probability of 

pesticide exposure based upon a given job assignment. 

By EPA’s measure, approx. 78% of states require competency exams for the private 

applicator. Consideration by EPA to support and strengthen SLA’s efforts by 

“implementing control elements such as a minimum time devoted to each competency 

standard, etc.” falls short of several existing SLA certification/recertification programs 

for private applicators. And, with the testing limitations set by FIFRA, EPA should 

consider addressing additional resources to the states for program expansion. 

Florida Comments:

Additional Questions for Consideration: 

1. Are there other gauges of competency in addition to written or practical 

examinations? If so, please provide examples, data on how they might be 

administered, anticipated burden and any other relevant information. 

I have no suggestions for additional gauges of competency. I do feel that time in 

class room can be a substitute in some situations for determination of competency. 

For example recertification of licensure, in that they have already demonstrated 

competency. 

2. Should different (more specific) CORE exams be developed for certain segments 

of applicators, such as not for-hire in sensitive sites and for-hire technicians? 

No, I believe that having one basic CORE for all exams sets the base of the gauge of 

competency. It is also simpler and more stream line, and therefore minimizing 

confusion and mistakes. 

If for these new categories you chose to include additional questions, not specifically 

a separate exam, but additional questions that could be included for the credential 

applicators with information specific to their applications that would be more 

appropriate then having more then one CORE exam. 

Suggested adjustments to be made to CORE exams would be appropriate along the 

lines of developing the Nation Pesticide Applicator Certification CORE Manual and 

Exam. Because pesticide applications are not the same across the 50 states and the 

holdings, and based on the requirements mandated to use the National CORE and 

Manual, Florida has opted not to use the National CORE Manual or Exam for our 

certification program. However, in updating our CORE exam and manual we did 

use the National Model as a resource. 

However, without significant additional funding for training, exams (preparation, 

printing and resources to provide/proctor the exams), and licensing, Florida would 

6 of 113
be unable to handle the additional applicators. Also in Florida part of this 

regulation would be redundant with our Entomology and Pest Control Program. 

3. Do you see any benefits or drawbacks to allowing all for-hire users of pesticides 

to be able to purchase, use and supervise the use of RUPs after they have 

demonstrated competency? Why? 

By requiring everyone who uses a pesticide (GUP or RUP) to be licensed would be 

the most cost effective, simplistic version that would ensure that everyone 

purchasing a pesticide (GUP or RUP) be competent. 

However, without significant additional funding for training, exams (preparation, 

printing and resources to provide/proctor the exams), and licensing, Florida would 

be unable to handle the additional applicators. Also in Florida part of this 

regulation would be redundant with our Entomology and Pest Control Program. 

C&T 3 Improve standards for the use of restricted use pesticides by uncertified 

applicators working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator 

Indiana Comments:

Not opposed to option 3, as IN currently requires examination and that supervisors 

provide specific information to the applicator (technician). 

Have strong reservations about creating “levels of supervision”. Disagree strongly with 

“base the required level of supervision o the specific pesticide applied and use the 

pesticide labeling to establish the level of supervision.” The agency has never 

demonstrated the ability to write a label that can be comprehended by the applicator or 

that is enforceable. To use the already poorly written label as a guide to supervision 

would be building one problem upon another problem. The pesticide label is the quick 

sand foundation of the agency. Do not build upon it. 

Having levels of supervision compounds the difficulty in trying to interpret and enforce a 

regulation. To have any chance of success, a regulation must be simple. 

North Carolina Comments:

Minimum training requirements for the uncertified applicator working under the direct 

supervision must be established. Training for this individual to at least the WPS handler 

level lessens the possibility of pesticide exposure. This individual is more likely to be in 

work situations where the certified pesticide applicator (supervisor) is not immediately 

available during an emergency. 

Special training emphasis may need to be placed on certain aspects of training based 

upon the job/tasks, for example drift management and emergency spill cleanup and 

containment procedures. 

7 of 113
Consideration should be given by EPA to design a pre- and post training assessment tool 

to gauge competency based upon job responsibilities, general pesticide safety and 

emergencies procedures. 

Florida Comments:

Questions for review 

1. Private versus commercial applicators 

Some States currently have different “under the supervision” requirements for private and 

commercial applicators. Uncertified applicators in the agricultural setting applying the 

“under the direct supervision: are handlers applying UTS of private applicators. The 

WPS currently requires that handles receive training in 40 CFR 170.230 “Pesticide safety 

training for handlers.” 

Is this adequate? The agency is gathering information from the state plans and 

regulations related to these questions. 

Yes, it would appear that based on violation rates, pesticide safety training and UTS 

is working. We are not noting significant violations in areas that would 

demonstrate that the Handlers are not receiving appropriate training or supervision 

of applications. Violations that might demonstrate a lack of competency of the 

Handlers or an inadequate supervision would include significant rate of worker 

and/or handler exposure to pesticides or label rate violations. These are not the 

largest percentage of violations being noted in Florida. During a routine or for 

cause inspection in Florida a percentage of workers are interviewed, with all efforts 

being made to interview the workers in their native language. We are not reporting 

workers stating that they have been exposed to pesticide applications. During every 

pesticide use inspection conducted in Florida a minimum of one Handler is 

interviewed, and we are not documenting violations that would demonstrate that 

training or UTS is not working. Rather, it would appear that it is working, 

especially in the areas involving restricted use pesticides, in that the applicator 

understands that they have a level of liability for all RUP applications made under 

their license. 

In Florida the Cooperative Extension Agency in connection with the University of 

Florida and the Florida Department of Agriculture are making efforts through 

hiring a bilingual WPS coordinator (employed by FDACS) to work with the three 

agencies, and UF/IFAS employing bilingual trainers to work with the industries 

assisting in training Workers and Handlers and have a program training Handlers 

in bilingual programs to attempt to increase the Handler’s comprehension of 

English so that they can pass their exams to obtain certification for the application 

of RUPs. In conjunction with the WPS requirement for safety training, this will 

hopefully minimize the need for UTS through education and licensing, as well as 

increasing the number of licensed applicators to be available in situations where 

UTS will be needed. 

8 of 113
At this time we have a low rate of successful passage of these Handlers 

(approximately 25%), however, this program is only a little over a year old at this 

point. However, based on the WPS requirements for training of all Handlers and 

the new bilingual studies we have seen an increase of Handlers attempting to take 

the exams for certification. 

2. Tiered requirements 

Under the 1990 C&T proposed revisions, the proposal to amend “application under direct 

supervision” was for tiered requirements, based on EPA review of the uses and their 

risks. Again, further review of state regulations should inform this option. 

Should experience be considered as a component of competency? For example, an 

applicator with 5 years experience may require less supervision than a new hire. If 

different levels of competency are acknowledged, appropriate levels of supervision could 

be assigned. 

Yes, experience should be considered as a component of competency. A business is 

not going to continue to employ people to work with pesticides that do not continue 

to demonstrate competency. So, the market itself has a self regulating aspect to it. 

In Florida we have a growing number of Handlers that are now working with 

FDACS, UF/IFAS to attend bilingual trainings to prepare to take their RUP license. 

Most of these are Handlers that often have 5 years or more experience (usually 

much more then 5 years). Using experience as one of the tools for a tiered 

requirement for direct supervision would be a useful tool to the agriculture industry 

in that it would assist the owners and licensed applicators to focus more of their 

supervision on those Handlers with the least amount of experience. It would also 

assist in promoting the industry to support those Handlers with 5 or 10 or more 

years of experience to attend trainings to assist to prepare the Handlers in passing 

their exams and becoming licensed applicators, minimizing the need for direct 

supervision. 

Working in conjunction with the agriculture industry in these areas would be a 

more cost effective way to increase safety and bring about compliance versus 

mandating licenses, that at this time, many of our Handlers are unable to pass. To 

attempt to mandate that everyone using a pesticide be licensed would be cost 

prohibitive without significant increase in funding. However, providing a portion of 

that money assisting in funding more programs working with Handlers and other 

unlicensed applicators, especially those with significant experience (5 years or more) 

would be a more cost effective way to achieve compliance. Working with the 

experienced Handlers by giving them an opportunity to increase their knowledge 

along with their experience helps to make them a more valuable employee to the 

owner, which in turn hopefully will promote the industry in supporting their long 

9 of 113
term employees efforts to increase their knowledge and become licensed, which 

should minimize the need for direct supervision. 

C&T 5: Establish a minimum age for occupational pesticide applicators 

California Comments:

Option 1, to establish a minimum age of 18 to purchase, handle or apply pesticides 

occupationally, is the most appropriate option. The issue paper establishes a strong case 

for not allowing minor children to purchase, handle or apply pesticides. Reasons include 

children’s sensitivity to hazardous chemicals, federal labor law that prohibits children 

under 16 working in agriculture from applying Category I or II toxicity pesticides with 

the exception of those working on family farms, and no exception for children under age 

16 involved in non-production agricultural and non- agricultural pesticide applications. 

Children under the age of 18 are not responsible for their actions therefore violations of 

laws and regulations would involve parents or guardians and add a level of complexity to 

enforcement and collection of penalties. 

Indiana Comments:

Have no objection to a minimum age, however I do not want to see multiple ages or 

exemptions for farms, family businesses etc. Again, keep it simple. If an age limit is 

warranted due to toxicological concerns, it is warranted for farms and family businesses. 

If training and testing suffice to assuage concerns regarding exposure, then the age limit 

should be at the lower end of the scale (16), regardless of the chemical. 

North Carolina Comments:

Option 4 provides for the minimum age of 18 to purchase, handle or apply pesticides 

occupationally. It also allows for an exemption allowing private applicators no younger 

than 16 in specific situations. 

The minimum age requirement should be established as a prerequisite for applicator 

certification along with the ability to read and comprehend the English language in 

addition to having related job experiences. Specific guidelines/ definitions for hardship 

exemptions must be clearly stated to assure consistency. 

States must have the ability to develop the exemption process with oversight by EPA and, 

to apply all regulations to the exempted private applicator. 

Florida Comments:

Questions for consideration: 

1. Why would you support or not support an exemption for family farms? 

I would support the exemption for family farms. In most cases it would appear that 

children growing up on the family farm are working in a limited known 

environment. Because they have grown up on the family farm they will most likely 

10 of 113
have experiences in that business that hopefully provides them with more informed 

decision making processes based on that experience. 

Also this will minimize any hardship to the family business, which by definition is 

only made up with immediate family members, and therefore a much smaller pool 

of resources. 

2. Do you have a suggested definition of family farm besides the Fair Labor 

Standards Act definition? 

No, I think keeping the family farm exemption limited to immediate family is the 

best way to ensure that those people who are exempted from certain WPS 

requirements have experience from growing up on the family farm, and would 

therefore the experience, and be in a limited known environment to allow for 

hardships to families, and at the same time provide the most regulation for health 

risks.

3. Should a family exemption extend beyond agricultural use? How would it be 

defined? 

No, by definition this limits pesticide applications to the families own farm 

(property) and would not include for hire applications. Allowing an exemption for 

children to assist in the family farm, takes into account that the child has experience 

working on that establishment and applications will be made in a limited known 

environment. Extending that application to other family businesses that could 

include for hire applications made in all environments would go against the 

documentation for health risks. 

C&T 6: Standard Exam Development and Administration Requirements (Standardize 

exam requirements) 

Indiana Comments:

Supports secure exam requirements (option 1). 

Still maintain that states know what is content relevant, through the process of exam 

development. 

Other questions: 

Support electronic testing, provided adequate security and proctoring is available. 

North Carolina Comments:

Section 11 of FIFRA requires revision to require that competency in the use and handling 

of pesticides will be determined on the basis of a written examination. 

More than 78% of the state programs have testing development and administration 

requirements in place. The agricultural industry and general public have adapted to this 

11 of 113
means of determining competency and credibility to protect human health and the 

environment. If EPA is prepared to standardize exam development and administration 

requirements, then EPA should strongly consider revising the FIFRA to better reflect and 

address the need to meet national competency standards. 

Most states attempt to include the subject matter listed in 40 CFR 171 in the exam. This 

inclusion is not required. Certification exams should reflect, at a minimum, the content 

matter of the CFR. Training should better reflect CFR content subjects. Training 

materials should be developed when new categories are established or additional 

conditions are placed on certain pesticide use and definitely as the technology changes. 

With that stated, training materials and certification exams should be updated 

simultaneously. This would require close coordination between agencies, but it would 

assure that exams accurately test topics that are covered by training manuals and sessions. 

Implementation of this validation process tests knowledge in tasks necessary to perform 

as an applicator. 

Training materials and programs produced by independent organizations must also be 

considered here. EPA should give consideration to develop a process that allows for 

consistent review and oversight of such materials. In doing so, states, pesticide trainers 

and educators would more likely accept the materials. 

Reciprocity agreements would be more readily accepted nationally if the ground rules for 

certification are established with similarities. 

Florida Comments:

Additional Questions for Consideration: 

1. Are there other options to standardize exam development and administration that 

were not considered? 

Another option then the one presented is to allow states to use the National Pesticide 

Applicator Certification Core Manual and Exam as a basis to be adjusted on an as 

needed basis per state to adjust as regulations and pesticide applications vary per 

state. By requiring the National Manual and Exam to be used as is or not at all, 

forced Florida to opt for the not at all. 

2. Why would you support or not support electronic testing at remote sites, such as 

departments or mother vehicles? Are there controls that should be implemented if 

this option is considered? 

I would not support electronic testing at remote sites because of ease of access to the 

applicator. Using a site such as a motor vehicle office would be a great hard ship on 

the applicator, in that they would have to make an appointment to the convenience 

of the motor vehicle office, not the grower. In Florida these offices are already 

beyond maximum capacity, and therefore, even with an appointment, an applicator 

wishing to take an exam would be looking at loosing a complete day to try and get 

12 of 113
an opportunity to take the exam. I can not name any agency in Florida that would 

be able to handle the additional burden of providing computers and staff for testing 

of applicators. 

At this time we are still using paper tests and contract UF/IFAS to proctor the 

exams. Using the Extension Offices, the grower is able to attend training programs 

to review materials to assist with taking the exam as well as follow up training to 

renew their license. They have the resource of the Extension Agent and in most 

cases an extensive library of material related to their industry for assistance in all 

aspects of the applicators business. And finally is a familiar location that is usually 

in the general area as the agriculture establishment. If the extension office had the 

availability of computers, then I would support a choice to growers for a paper 

exam or an electronic exam. However, without significant additional funding for 

computers, software, etc. this would not be feasible. 

C&T 7: Better Protect Human Health and the Environment by Establishing National 

Standards for Recertification that Cover Core Competencies as well as the Changing 

Field of Pesticide Application (Period and gauge for recertification) 

Indiana Comments: 

Disagree that both core and category requirements are necessary for recertification. A 

recent Indiana work group concluded that core material was routinely covered in nearly 

all recertification programs. 

Oppose agency requirements for recertification (class content, number of hours etc.). 

Agree that positive identification should be required for participants. Online certification 

permitted only if identification can be verified (live web casts with proctor, for example). 

Support a 5-year certification cycle. 

North Carolina Comments:

Consideration for revising the 40 CFR 171 to address a recertification period would 

better support EPA’s goal to protect human health and the environment. 

Option 1: Set a federal recertification period... 

Implementing federal standards for recertification would ensure that all pesticide 

applicators meet national competency standards, raise the standards of applicators, 

mitigate exposure risks, and increase the public’s confidence. This standard should 

establish an acceptable range for any national certification period with clearly stated 

recertification options, in order to take into account the disparities among State program 

resources throughout the Nation. At a minimum, prerequisites for recertification could be 

established as suggested below. 

Continuing education program is value added to the competency of applicators by 

allowing them to select courses that specifically target educational needs pertaining to the 

safe use of pesticides, technology, application techniques, and industry networking. 

13 of 113
Applicators would be required to obtain a specific number of category-specific credits 

and core credits to satisfy the requirements of recertification during the recertification 

period. Continuing certification credit cannot roll over into the next period. Failure to 

obtain the appropriate number of credits must retest. 

Another feasible alternative would be to require that any program approved for 

continuing certification credit should cover both “core” and “category specific” 

information. States should be given this as an option.

Florida Comments: 

Questions for Stakeholder Consideration 

1. What do you think is an appropriate recertification period? Why? 

Four years. I also think that the certification period and expiration of the license 

should be the same. Some states certify Applicators for one time period but then 

their licenses expire every 12 months. This is extremely difficult to deal with in the 

cases of reciprocal licenses, so Florida set our policy that a reciprocal license will 

only be good as long as the license expiration date. 

I think 4 years is reasonable length for an applicator to hold a certificate for the use 

of RUPs. Generating licenses once a year could bring in more income to the state, 

but would be an onerous burden on the applicator as well as the certification staff. 

Two years is the same situation. Five years is getting onto the long side if you need 

to take action against an applicator. Four years also seems like a fairly standard 

time period, and also relates well into those states that have cooperative agreements 

with Universities. 

2. Should private & commercial applicators have the same recertification period & 

Requirements? Why or why not? 

Yes, Reasoning behind this, is because we have applicators that may hold more then 

one category in their commercial license. For example, we have many applicators in 

Florida who hold Aquatic, Right of Way, Natural Areas, Forestry and Ornamental 

& Turf Categories. Having different recertification periods for different categories 

would be onerous on both the applicator and the certification staff in trying to 

recertify licenses. I agree that some categories such a fumigation have the potential 

to pose a higher risk to humans, and Aerial, Aquatic or Natural Areas have the 

potential to pose a higher environmental risk, but this is a certification to apply and 

supervise the application of Restricted Use Pesticides, and by holding all applicators 

to the same high standard will help us to assure that we do all we can through 

licensing and education to minimize the potential of human hazard and 

environmental hazards. 

14 of 113
3. Do you support separate requirements for recertification in core competencies 

versus category-specific information? Why or why not? 

No, I feel that testing initially to issue a certification/license allows us to set 

minimum standards for competency. However, once an applicator has 

demonstrated that competency, I believe that promoting an applicator to take CEU 

courses so that they are exposed to the newest and most up-to-date information 

concerning their industry is a better way to protect the applicators, the industry and 

the environment. Technology is a driving force allowing the industry to provide 

safer chemicals, application/mixing equipment and provide quicker feed back on 

potential problems. Through CEU programs it assists the applicators to take the 

time from their business to attend programs and to learn this information. In 

Florida applicators have the choice to renew through re-testing (which is the same 

test they may have taken when they obtained their license) or obtaining CEUs. By 

far the majority of our recertification of applicators is through CEUs. Because this 

is not a perfect world and we are working with industries that are affected greatly 

by natural as well as man made forces, it may not always be possible for an 

applicator to obtain all of the needed CEUs to renew, and in those cases it is 

important that they are able to continue their license and maintain their business by 

retesting. The concept of testing to demonstrate minimum competency in core 

information as well as in category exams should exist for both initial certification as 

well as for recertification. First reaction is to require a different test and a higher 

level of competency for those recertifying, however, everyone who is certified to 

apply RUPs should be able to demonstrate the same high level of competency. 

Because our certification period is 4 years, it is possible that they will be taking a 

new test if they choose to recertify by testing. It is also highly unlikely that because 

they passed the test 4 years earlier, that they would necessarily have any advantage 

in retaking the test, and again. 

4. Should positive identification be required of participants in recertification 

programs? 

Yes, to ensure that the person who is either retesting or attending CEU programs is 

the same person who originally obtained the license. There are many different 

locations in the state where an applicator can attend CEU programs for their 

recertification or to retest, and because of the number of applicators in the state 

every applicator can not be known by the trainers or exam administrators. This 

would assist in minimizing cheating. 

5. Should online recertification programs be permitted? Under what circumstances? 

15 of 113
Yes, because of location, work responsibility, etc., not all applicators have the ability 

to attend enough CEU programs to renew their license with all the categories. Also, 

by allowing online recertification programs, we are allowing our applicators to take 

training to not only recertify their license, but also to promote applicators to keep 

up to date on the latest information in their industry. There are problems with 

online recertification in that there is no way to ensure that the person taking the 

online class is the actual applicator. However, I feel that the benefits of online 

classes outweigh the negative of those who choose to get around the system. 

16 of 113
AAPCO Worker Protection Committee 

State lead Agency Comments 

August 29, 2007 

WPS 1: Protect the Health of Agricultural Pesticide Workers and Handlers by 

Informing Them of Pesticide Hazards 

Issue 1: How should the written pesticide-specific hazard information be conveyed 

to workers and handlers? 

Several State Lead Agencies (SLA) supported Option 1-1 that would require agricultural 

employers to meet the written hazard communication requirement by making pesticide 

hazard fact sheets available to agricultural pesticide workers and handlers. However, 

Several SLA recommended the following options: 

• The proposal should be modified to require these pesticide hazard fact sheets for 

Category I and restricted use pesticides. Consider phasing in Category II, III and IV 

pesticides after feedback is obtained and evaluated for the effectiveness/usefulness of 

the hazard fact sheets. 

• The proposal should be modified to require a general set of fact sheets (classes of 

pesticides) that cover the more specific information about exposure and routes of 

exposure, pesticide hazards (acute and chronic health effects), general symptoms of 

pesticide poisoning, how to protect workers and family members from exposure, 

emergency response/first-aid information, and an 800 number for emergency 

assistance. 

These fact sheets could be used in training handlers and workers. 

Several SLA did not support the use of fact sheets due to the complexity of the 

information and the difficulty to prepare the information (e.g., chronic health effects). 

SLA suggested providing the information verbally and as part of the oral warnings. 

Several SLA did not support the other proposals listed below: 

Option 1-2: Have agricultural employers meet the written hazard communication 

requirement by requiring them to make pesticide crop sheets/booklets available. 

Option 1-3: Have agricultural employers meet the written hazard communication 

requirement by requiring them to make MSDSs available. 

Option 1-4: Have agricultural employers meet the written hazard communication 

requirement by requiring them to make pesticide labeling available. 

Option 1-5: Do not establish a requirement for employers to provide written hazard 

communication information - have employers provide pesticide-specific hazard 

communication orally. 

17 of 113
Option 1-6: Leave requirements for written hazard communication materials flexible, 

establishing criteria for the materials, but leaving it up to states to determine 

requirements. 

Issue 2: How should the written hazard communication information be made 

available to pesticide workers and handlers? 

Several SLA supported Option 2-1 (see below); or Option 2-4 that would require 

agricultural employers to make hazard communication information available to workers 

as in option 2-1 below, but include additional requirements to the provision requiring 

employers to give copies of hazard communication materials to early entry workers for 

those pesticide(s) the worker may be exposed to during early entry activities; and make 

appropriate hazard communication information available to workers at the location of the 

field in which they are working if workers will not have suitable access to the central 

location (such as might be the case with contract laborers on large establishments, etc.). 

Option 2-1: Have agricultural employers make hazard communication information 

available to workers by requiring the materials to be posted at a central location similar to 

the requirements for the pesticide safety poster and application information, such that 

workers do not have to ask employers for the materials. 

Several SLA did not support the other proposals listed below: 

Option 2-2: Have agricultural employers make hazard communication information 

available to workers by requiring copies of materials to be given to workers. 

Option 2-3: Have agricultural employers make hazard communication information 

available to workers by requiring the materials to be made accessible to workers during 

work hours and to be provided to employees when requested (such as is required under 

OSHA's HCS). 

Issue 3: Who should be responsible for developing required hazard communication 

materials? 

Several SLA supported the following Options:

Option 3-1: Have EPA be solely responsible for developing required hazard 

communication materials. 

Option 3-2: Have registrants be responsible for developing required hazard 

communication materials. However, this option should be modified by adding a 

requirement that EPA have oversight by reviewing and approving the fact sheets. 

Option 3-5: Have EPA and registrants share responsibility for developing required hazard 

communication materials. 

Several SLA did not support the other proposals listed below: 

18 of 113
Option 3-3: Have states be responsible for developing required hazard communication 

materials. 

Option 3-4: Have employers be responsible for developing required hazard 

communication materials. 

Issue 4: Should there be separate pesticide-specific hazard communication 

requirements for workers versus handlers? 

Several SLA recommended not to take a position on this issue until a decision has been 

made on the content of fact sheet. EPA is considering the following options: 

 

Option 4-1: Have the same hazard communication requirements for both workers and 

handlers. 

Option 4-2: Have different hazard communication requirements for workers and 

handlers. 

Option 4-3: Have the same hazard communication requirements for both workers and 

handlers as in option 4-1, but strengthen the existing requirements related to handlers 

having access to pesticide labels and being informed of label requirements so they are 

more effective in meeting the additional hazard communication needs of handlers. 

Issue 5: What pesticide hazard information should be conveyed to workers (e.g., 

acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, chemical & physical hazards, etc.)? 

Several SLA did not support the options listed below: 

Option 5-1: The written pesticide hazard information materials should include the 

following content and information: 1) the product name and active ingredient(s) of the 

product; 2) the REI for the product; 3) where the product is applied to (soil, foliar 

application, etc.); 4) acute health effect concerns for dermal/ocular exposure (skin or eye 

irritants), inhalation, ingestion, skin absorption (systemic toxicity), and sensitization; 5) 

chronic health effect concerns (carcinogens, reproductive effects, etc.); and 6) emergency 

response/first-aid information and an 800 number for emergency assistance. 

Option 5-2: The written pesticide hazard information materials should include the 

information outlined in option 5-1 plus additional information (to be determined through 

stakeholder comment and input). 

Product label information (i.e., REI) is different depending on the crop. Listing all of the 

REIs may require a breakout by crop. 

Several SLA recommended one of the following: 

• The proposal should be modified to develop a set of fact sheets that cover the 

pesticide hazards (acute health effects), general symptoms, emergency response/firstaid information, and an 800 number for emergency assistance. 

• Conduct additional surveys to determine the type of information that workers would 

find useful. 

19 of 113
Issue 6: What format should be required for the pesticide hazard communication 

information? 

Several SLA supported Option 6-1 below:

Option 6-1: The pesticide hazard information materials should be in a pictorial, low 

literacy format, should be provided in English and Spanish, should use standardized 

pictograms to convey health, safety and hazard messages, and should use standardized 

terminology for expressing health effects and comparative hazard information (e.g., 

slightly, moderately, or highly toxic, etc.). 

Several SLA did not support the option listed below: 

Option 6-2: The pesticide hazard information materials should include additional format 

requirements not included in option 6-1 above (to be determined through stakeholder 

comment and input). 

WPS 2: Improve Administration of Safety Training to Help Protect Agricultural 

Workers from Pesticide Exposure 

Options for re-training intervals and grace period amendment

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

retraining to ensure that workers have an adequate understanding of risks and 

protective measures. 

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

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

protective measures. 

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

every three years to ensure that workers have an adequate understanding of risks and 

protective measures. 

4. Eliminate the grace period and the option for the brief training; no change to the five 

year re-training interval. 

5. Retain the grace period and the option for brief training; opt for a re-training interval 

of less than 5 years or a refresher training option. 

Several SLA recommended option 1 or 2, although one SLA recommended maintaining 

the grace period if training records were required, and require an training interval of 

every three years. 

20 of 113
Options for Competent Trainers 

1. Require that trainers successfully receive appropriate training by completing an 

approved Train-the-Trainer workshop to enhance their skills in teaching the 

agricultural worker population. 

2. Establish verification of competency for trainers of field worker by requiring 

certification under the pesticide applicator certification regulation at 40 CFR § 171. 

3. Require that trainers successfully receive appropriate training by completing an 

approved Train-the-Trainer workshop; require an exam to ensure competence in 

delivering specifics about WPS requirements 

4. Require a combination of trainer training or education, and on-the-job experience. 

Two SLA disagree that agency “train the trainer” courses make for better trainers. SLA 

felt that requiring trainers to complete an approved TTT workshop is an unnecessary 

burden. Also strongly oppose the idea that trainers need to be tested on their 

competency. SLA felt that the most appropriate method of presenting safety information 

is for EPA to develop and approve training that can be easily presented with the trainer 

responding to questions. Several SLA felt that train the trainer courses improve the 

program, but may take time to implement to ensure trainers are available. Further 

discussion on this option is needed. 

Options for Recordkeeping 

1. Require employers to keep records of workers who receive PST training; retain 

records equivalent to re-training interval. 

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

3. Require employer recordkeeping, and continue to allow states to provide verification 

cards on a voluntary basis. 

4. Require employers to keep and submit training records to state lead agency; trainers 

retain records as well; trained workers receive cards as proof of training. 

5. Establish a national searchable database of trained workers. 

Several SLA recommended Option 1. Inspection of training records and information 

gathered during inspections should be adequate to determine compliance. Option 2 would 

place a tremendous burden on states to process paperwork and track training of 

employees. Option 4 would be burdensome and duplicative. 

21 of 113
WPS 3: Enhance Safety Training to Better Protect Agricultural Workers and Their 

Families 

Options Under Consideration: 

Option 1: Enhance the existing pesticide safety training for agricultural workers by 

including all of the recommendations made by the assessment workgroup, focusing 

on areas such as: 

General Training 

• How to prevent pesticide exposure while working, including the following subpoints: 

1. Following directions and/or signs about keeping out of treated or restricted 

areas. 

2. Washing before eating, drinking, using chewing gum or tobacco, or using the 

toilet. 

3. Wearing work clothing that protects the body from pesticide residues. (Add 

reference to appropriate work clothing – wear clothes that cover the skin.) 

4. Washing/showering with soap and water, shampooing hair, and putting on 

clean clothes after work. 

5. Washing immediately in the nearest clean water if pesticides are spilled or 

sprayed on the body. As soon as possible, shower, shampoo and change into 

clean clothes. 

 

• Subdivide the 11

th 

point into the following requirements: 

1. Entry restrictions (REI) and different types of applications. 

2. Posting of warning signs, oral warnings and the design of the warning sign. 

3. The availability of specific information about applications and where it is 

located within the workplace. 

4. Protection against retaliatory acts. 

5. How to initiate a complaint. 

• Prevention, recognition, and first aid treatment of heat-related illness, based on 

the content in the current training for agricultural handlers 

Protecting Families 

• Populations who may be more sensitive to pesticide exposure – children and 

pregnant women 

• Properly washing clothes that might contain pesticide residues 

• Preventing take-home exposure to pesticide residues 

• Keeping children out of the field to work or play 

Reporting Suspected Pesticide Illnesses 

• Contact Information: 

22 of 113
1. State-specific toll-free telephone number for tips, complaints and questions 

about the WPS. 

2. The National Poison Control number, to allow workers to access more 

information related to the pesticide exposure, to report suspected illnesses and 

to get information on treatment. 

• Recognizing and seeking care for pesticide poisoning 

Hazard Communications Principles 

• To be determined based on results of Hazard Communications decisions. 

Several SLA supported this option. 

Option 2: Amend the regulations at 40 CFR 170 to require employers to restrict 

field access, prohibiting agricultural workers’ children under age 12 from being in 

the field. 

One SLA believes the burden should be placed on the parents of these children, and this 

topic should be covered in training. One SLA supports a regulation to address this, 

although the enforcement of the provision may be more appropriate by agencies 

enforcing other labor laws. 

Option 3: Establish re-entry intervals on labels appropriate to protect farm worker 

children. 

SLA do not support this option. 

Option 4: Establish a separate mandatory training module focused on family and 

children’s health protections. 

SLA support this concept. 

Option 5: Do not list specific training coverage topics but require only EPAapproved training materials. (PREP) 

No comments 

WPS 4: Address miscellaneous regulatory and implementation issues with the 

agricultural worker protection regulation that cause gaps in worker protection. 

Several SLA did not have time to review and comment on these proposed changes. 

Further discussion needed. 

23 of 113
Indiana provided the following comments: 

170.1 Oppose expansion of WPS. 

170.3 Support providing better definitions. 

170.7 support addressing the issues with unenforceable language. 

170.103 support clarification 

170.104 support clarification 

170.110 support making the requirements the SAME for workers. 

170.112 opposed to having signs every 100 feet. Believe that the majority of the 

considerations are adequately addressed in the current central location rule. The option 

would basically make each field a “central location”. 

Support having the time the REI ends as part of the application information. 

170.135 Agree that the poster and central location should be at the location that the 

worker is most likely to see it. Opposed to having a poster at every field or at the 

decontamination water. 

170.150 do not support or oppose having an area to change into work/clean clothes. 

Definitions must be clear, and exacting, if such an area is required. 

\ 

170.150 emergency assistance Support the concept, but would rather see that information 

from the application records be suffice (in the event that labels or msds are not available). 

170.240 PPE support theory. 

Cholinesterase monitoring; opposed to requiring employers to monitor medical data and 

opposed to having SLA’s submit more data to the agency. 

North Carolina provided the following comments: 

We would like to see the provisions and definitions in their final version. In the present 

form, it is difficult to have a thorough understanding of the changes. There are 

provisions and definition changes that we think need to be addressed. 

24 of 113
170.1 Scope of Purpose 

We do see where there may be a need to expand WPS to the landscape and lawn 

maintenance sectors (if that is what is implied by maintenance). These sectors are using 

products with the same active ingredients and are making more applications than the 

majority of agricultural sectors. We are a not convinced that WPS needs to be expanded 

into the livestock sectors at this time. If WPS does expand, our major concern is that 

with dwindling financial support from State and Federal budgets, we will not have an 

adequate presence for the original “plant production agriculture” sector. As the WPS 

expands, targeting schemes become broadened, the numbers of inspections have a 

decreased, and our regulatory presence is diminished. With the expansion, there is an 

increased need for outreach, publications, and added training for the added sectors, all 

funded by strained budgets. 

170.3 Definitions 

We do believe that some of the definitions need clarification. We believe the WPS 

Interpretative Guidance document would be the best source for clarification. 

Clarification is needed to distinguish between commercial use, research purposes, and 

“own use” scenarios. 

170.7 General Duties and Prohibited Act 

We have long believed the retaliation provision was weak and unenforceable. We would 

suggest following DOL/OSHA guidance for this provision. 

170.103 Exceptions 

In NC, we have had no concerns with these exceptions or their interpretation. We believe 

the WPS Interpretative Guidance document offers appropriate clarification. 

170.104 Exemptions 

In NC, we have had no concerns with these exemptions or their interpretation. We 

believe the WPS Interpretative Guidance document offers appropriate clarification. 

170.110 Restrictions Associated with Pesticide Applications 

In NC, we have not had complaints in reference to this section of WPS. We do see where 

there may be a need to add extended “keep-out zones” to certain types of applications on 

farms. Applications delivered by air, or from airblast and fumigant equipment should be 

considered. We do not believe that restrictions should be based on specific products. We 

also believe that the current greenhouse restrictions offer adequate protections to workers 

if followed. 

170.112 Notice of Applications 

We believe that the current notification provisions are adequate. There are other 

references in the paper that states that workers readily recognize the stern face with the 

outstretched hand, it seems that it would be counterproductive to change this provision. 

Also posting at all usual points of entry to the field is appropriate, but posting every 100 

feet appears to be excessive and it may not be feasible to all fields based on size and 

25 of 113
accessibility to the field. In some cases, there is only one point of entry to the fields, so 

there would be no benefit for the extended posting requirements. 

170.122 Providing Specific Information about Applications 

To better enable our inspectors to properly determine compliance, this is an area that 

definitely needs revision. The current provision “the time and date the pesticide is to be 

applied” does not provide legally defensible information to determine compliance with 

REI’s. EPA should at least require that records include the time that application was 

completed; this would assist in proper documentation of compliance or violation with 

REI’s as well as pre-harvest intervals. 

170.135 Posted Pesticide Safety Information 

This proposed option would be beneficial if there is no usual point where workers gather 

at the agricultural establishment. In that case, having the safety poster at the 

decontamination site would be appropriate, similar to the forestry provision. We would 

like to see it as an option, depending on the farms general practices concerning where the 

workers gather. In some cases, (nursery and greenhouses) there is usually a central site 

for information such as DOL’s notifications that would be more appropriate than having 

a safety poster at each decontamination site. These posters fade quickly and are not 

easily read after a period of time outdoors. 

170.150 Decontamination 

We believe that this provision has some benefit for workers required to wear PPE (earlyentry workers). Again for nursery and greenhouse operations this situation could easily 

be offered. However, for farm operations, the period of time the workers would be 

required to stay in their work clothes could be extended due to travel time back to the 

farm site where their could be a site for changing clothes. Changing clothes at these sites 

may cause even more workers to be exposed to the contaminated clothing and could even 

contaminate the clean clothes if not properly handled. We see no problem requiring 

water, soap and towels (not single use) at these sites. 

170.160 Emergency Assistance 

We feel that the current provisions with the terms “prompt transportation” and “promptly 

upon request” provide adequate protection and quicker transportation and information 

transfer than the “within two business days” statement. 

In the instances where worker’s families and bystanders are exposed to pesticides, we 

would favor changing the provisions to ensure that agricultural owners provide pesticide 

information to health care providers. We will provide further comments when the final 

version of these exceptions is made available Personal Protective Equipment. 

170.240 Personal Protective Equipment 

The current provision at 170.240 (e) states that the “handler employer shall assure that 

personal protective equipment is used correctly for its intended purpose and is used 

according to the manufacturer’s instructions.” We do realize the importance of wearing 

26 of 113
the PPE correctly, and we do believe that all applicators should be instructed on the 

proper manner to conduct a fit-test. However, we further believe that the current 

provision is an adequate requirement for the use of PPE on agricultural establishments, 

since respirators are sold with instructions for proper fit testing. We also feel that added 

training and especially cholinesterase monitoring are cost prohibitive and not feasible, 

due to the many different pesticides that may be used. The cholinesterase only screens 

for exposure from a limited group of chemicals. 

WPS 5: Ensure protection of employees of certified crop advisors. 

Options under Consideration: 

Option 1: Retain the current exemption under the WPS for certified crop advisors as is 

without any changes. 

Option 2: Retain the current exemption under the WPS for certified crop advisors but 

modify the terms of the exemption. The terms of the exemption would be modified so 

that employees of certified crop advisors would be prohibited from entering treated areas 

during the REI to conduct crop advisor activities unless they received all applicable WPS 

protections required for other handlers under the rule such as personal protective 

equipment (PPE) and decontamination supplies, etc. In order to address situations of 

incidental entry or cases where very limited access was needed to make critical 

observations or assess the situation in a given field, a short, time-limited exception to the 

prohibition on entry during the REI would be allowed for the employees of certified crop 

advisors so they could enter treated areas during the REI. The exception would allow no 

more than ten minutes of entry during the REI unless full PPE and other applicable 

protections are provided. 

Several SLA supported Option 2. 

WPS 6:Ensure that exceptions to treated area entry restrictions are clear, enforceable 

and adequately protective of workers. 

Options Under Consideration 

Option 1: Only make regulatory revisions to the current WPS REI exceptions to clarify 

vague language and address issues raised by stakeholders concerning poorly defined, 

unenforceable sections of the exception provisions. 

Option 2: Make regulatory revisions to the current WPS REI exceptions to clarify vague 

language and address issues raised by stakeholders concerning poorly defined, unenforceable 

sections of the exception provisions. In addition, incorporate the two administrative 

exceptions for irrigation and limited contact activities that were granted in 1995 into the WPS 

as permanent exceptions (include all of the terms and conditions for the exception so the 

complete exception and requirements appear in the 40 CFR 170 regulation text), and address 

issues or problems identified by stakeholders concerning these two exceptions. 

Option 3: Make regulatory revisions to the current WPS REI exceptions to clarify vague 

language and address issues raised by stakeholders concerning poorly defined, unenforceable 

sections of the exception provisions. In addition, repeal the two administrative REI 

exceptions for irrigation and limited contact activities that were granted in 1995, eliminate 

27 of 113
the existing “no contact” exception provision in the WPS, and impose additional restrictions 

on the other existing WPS REI exceptions to provide better protection for workers. 

Option 4: Make no changes to the WPS to clarify the existing exceptions to the entry 

restrictions or to address the existing regulatory problems with these provisions. 

Several SLA supported option 2, and one SLA recommended option 3.

28 of 113
Kathy Davis, US EPA 

worker_safety_regulation_change@epa.gov 

Pesticide Worker Safety Program Enhancement 

June 7, 2007 

The American Association of Pesticide Safety Educators (AAPSE) is committed to the establishment of 

the highest standards in pesticide certification and safety education, the promotion of practical and 

enforceable pesticide certification/education policies, and the implementation of safe and effective 

pesticide-use practices. AAPSE supports pesticide risk reduction programs and practices to protect 

human health and the environment and provides a collective voice for cooperative extension services and 

state, provincial, tribal and federal agencies and industry educators to work cooperatively on Certification 

and Training (C&T) needs, policies, and strategies. The Board has had the opportunity to review issue 

papers C&T 1, 2, 3 and 5, and Worker Protection Standard (WPS) 1 & 2 and provides the following 

comments for the Pesticide Worker Safety Program Enhancement. The Board did not have time to 

review all of the other issues. In a separate letter, AAPSE representatives will submit individual 

comments provided by its members. 

Overall Comments on C&T Issue Papers 

1. AAPSE recognizes changes would be national in scope and that states can still be more restrictive 

than the national standards. 

2. AAPSE’s comments are restricted to conventional pesticides and do not pertain to the application 

and handling of antimicrobials. 

3. AAPSE recognizes that changes to both certification programs and safety education programs 

will be very significant, especially for states that do not already regulate at the level being 

proposed. 

a. EPA must consider how practical and enforceable the proposed changes are. If 

regulations are in place without an enforcement program, the goal of the regulation is not 

realized – regulations must be feasible to manage and enforce. Enforcement costs must 

be calculated along with certification and education costs. 

i. Consider the complexity of understanding the breadth of the regulatory changes. 

Keep the proposed changes simple and relatively easy to explain, such as no 

more than two tiers: certified applicator and technician/handler. States with 

complex certification systems have a real challenge in explaining the different 

types and tiers of those who purchase, supervise, handle, and apply products. 

This can also lead to enforcement issues. 

ii. The number of new “regulated” applicator/technician individuals could be 

immense depending on limitation/expansiveness of the final scope. In states with 

large urban areas, where current regulations do not require certification or 

training of non-restricted use pesticides (NRUP), the numbers could be 

staggering for landscape/residential and public agency pesticide applications. 

AAPSE suggests that EPA contact those states that do and do not currently meet 

the proposed certification/training standard to assess potential impacts. 

b. In order to meet the demands of an expanded scope of applicator certification, resources 

(FTEs, operational dollars) must be provided to support the SLA certification 

infrastructure and Extension education programs in order to develop training resources 

and credential new people as certified applicators and technicians. 

Page 1 of 6 

29 of 113
i. The Agency needs to consider the cost of ramping up certification and education 

programs: training/examination infrastructure, training curricula and materials, 

exams, and databases. 

ii. The Agency needs to consider the ongoing maintenance of programs: numbers of 

verified/monitored trainings, numbers of exams/retakes, database 

management/tracking, training material revisions, everyday client 

communication. 

4. There is also some concern that states that currently regulate beyond an expanded scope might get 

pressure to reduce their current level of regulation. 

5. AAPSE agrees that changes to 40 CFR 171 are needed, but requests that EPA assess mechanisms 

of labeling that could regulate certification level (competency gauge) by product use-restriction 

labeling (e.g., add definitions to rules and change language of RUP statement, and/or or the 

option to make certain occupationally-applied products RUP, due to breadth of use patterns and 

the potential exposure to the public/environment through misuse). 

C&T Issue Paper 1: Expand the Scope of Applicators Subject to Regulation 

1. AAPSE strongly suggests that EPA consider no more than two tiers: tier one for the 

purchaser/supervisor (who can also apply) and tier two for the mixer/loader/applicator employee. 

a. AAPSE cautions EPA to clearly delineate the allowed duties for each tier 

(purchase/supervise versus mix/load/apply). 

2. The AAPSE Board was unanimous in its consensus for requiring any business that applies any 

conventional (i.e., non-antimicrobial) pesticide for hire to have a Certified Pest Control For-Hire 

Applicator in their employ. This individual could purchase and supervise the use of general or 

restricted use pesticides (the credential would also allow them to apply). The scope would include 

any owner, manager, lead-applicator employee who supervises any pesticide applied onto 

properties owned by another for non-wage/salary monetary compensation. This Certified Pest 

Control For-Hire Applicator could supervise a technician(s). This would include any business 

that charges a fee for service to apply pesticides in homes, businesses, landscape maintenance, 

aquatic weeds/fish, forestry, agriculture, schools, right of way, etc. 

a. AAPSE supports that any person working under the supervision of a Certified Pest 

Control For-Hire Applicator (or Certified RUP Commercial or Private Applicator) must 

be credentialed by either a participating in a verifiable, mandatory training or passing a 

content-relevant core exam. 

b. Achieving this expansion to a two-tier scope approach will mitigate human health and 

environmental exposures by ensuring the supervisor and supervisee have met minimum 

competency gauges. 

c. AAPSE philosophically agrees with the premise that any person who applies pesticides to 

the properties of others for a fee (non-wage) should be a certified applicator who has 

passed a core and category exam; however, the impact for some states could be very 

significant since that definition would include high school teenagers or other individuals 

that hire themselves out for summer lawn mowing and make infrequent and limited 

applications of NRUP lawn and garden pesticides. 

3. Regarding certification of applicators (occupational not-for-hire) who as part of their employment 

apply NRUPs on their employers’ properties (public or private property), AAPSE discussed the 

tactic of regulating on “sensitive sites” and found some merit with it since many states already 

regulate this way, but AAPSE also discussed problems with defining what falls within or is 

exempted out of the definition. AAPSE also discussed government employees who apply NRUPs 

to public properties and found some merit in regulating these applicators since some states 

Page 2 of 6 

30 of 113
regulate this way, but found problems as well. AAPSE did not have a majority or minority 

opinion for “occupational not-for-hire” pest control applicators. 

4. AAPSE also discussed the possibility of EPA regulating certification level (competency gauge – 

two tiers: certified applicator or technician-WPS handler) by product use-restriction labeling and 

new definitions in 40CFR171 (e.g., For retail sale to and use only by certified applicators. This 

product may be applied only by the certified applicator or by an EPA-approved trained technician 

or WPS handler under the supervision of a certified applicator and only for those uses covered by 

the certified applicator’s certification.) 

5. AAPSE does not support C&T Issue Paper 1 options 2, 5, or 6. 

6. AAPSE would like to have had more time and more details in order to provide more substantial 

comments to EPA on this scope-defining issue. 

7. For EPA to assess costs and impacts, AAPSE suggests that EPA contact states that have already 

implemented similar regulations to assess new applicator/technician numbers and what 

infrastructure would be required to manage the increase. The Agency should also contact states 

that will be impacted to assess their needs. 

C&T Issue Paper 2: Expand Scope of Applicators Subject to Testing and Training 

1. Given an expanded scope of two tiers, AAPSE suggests the following competency gauges for 

each tier (old and expanded scope). 

a. Tier I - Certified Applicator 

i. RUP Private - state-verified content relevant training program with specific 

training criteria (control elements) or optional content relevant exam 

ii. RUP Commercial – content-relevant core and category exams 

iii. Pest Control for Hire (NRUP or RUP) – content-relevant core and category 

exams

b. Tier II - Supervised Employee

i. Technician– This group would include any non-certified person working under 

the supervision of a RUP Commercial Applicator, Pest Control For-Hire 

Applicator, or RUP Private Applicator (who is exempted from WPS – non farm, 

forest, nursery, greenhouse) who has the appropriate category. AAPSE supports 

a competency gauge with dual-options (per the choice of the technician): (1) 

state-verified content-relevant training program with specific training criteria 

similar to WPS with possible expansion of environmental topics and take home 

pesticides or (2) a content-relevant core exam. Technicians could not purchase 

or supervise others. Since ag handlers must at a minimum have training, then 

non-ag employees who apply RUPs or Certified Pest Control For Hire Applicator 

employees applying NRUPs must meet the same measure. 

ii. WPS Handler – This group would include any non-certified person working 

under the supervision of a certified Private Applicator. The competency gauge

would have dual-options: state-verified content-relevant training program with 

specific training criteria or content-relevant core exam. WPS Handlers could not 

purchase or supervise others. 

2. The AAPSE Board strongly supports that EPA require any examination used to demonstrate 

competency be a proctored, written, closed-book, content-relevant examination (definition from 

CTAG issue paper 2003). AAPSE recognizes that closed-book exams can include proctorprovided labels, resource manuals, specimens for identification, etc. In such cases, the exam 

candidate brings no reference materials into the examination room and no reference materials 

leave the examination room. 

Page 3 of 6 

31 of 113
C&T Issue Paper 3: Redefine “under the direct supervision” 

1. AAPSE supports the requirement that anyone who applies pesticides under the supervision of a 

certified applicator (RUP Private or Commercial Certified Applicator or Certified Pest Control 

for Hire Applicator) must be trained in the safe and effective use of RUPs and NRUPs. 

a. AAPSE fully supports a two-tier system and if the two-tier system is implemented, 

supervision becomes moot. Supervision is very complex since it differs between states 

and even within states between certification types. Each state has very different reasons 

for their supervision definitions. Having a second tier of technicians/handlers who 

mix/load/apply who have met a minimum competency gauge protects the environment, 

the public, and the workforce. AAPSE supports a dual-option approach to meet a 

competency gauge. The candidate has the choice of either participating in a verifiable 

content-relevant training program or passing a content-relevant exam (core exam). 

AAPSE supports requiring retraining, which could also be by training program or exam. 

b. If the certification regulation’s scope is not expanded, EPA must address the supervision 

issue to ensure that supervised applicators can safely handle and apply the product. This 

could possibly be achieved by altering the use-restricted statement on RUP products. 

Example language might be similar to “For retail sale to and use only by certified 

applicators. This product may be applied only by the certified applicator or by an EPAapproved trained technician or WPS handler under the supervision of a certified 

applicator and only for those uses covered by the certified applicator’s certification.” 

C&T Issue Paper 5: Establish a Minimum Age for Certified Applicators 

1. AAPSE members were confused by this paper since it seemed to require a minimum age for any 

person that might apply a pesticide even while under the supervision of a certified applicator. 

AAPSE strongly suggests EPA clarify the duties for which a minimum age might be enacted 

(purchase/supervise versus mix/load/apply). 

2. AAPSE members have very divergent beliefs as they pertain to minimum age and the Board 

could not achieve a consensus nor a majority or minority opinion. Discussion by the Board 

included the following points. 

a. Members who support a national minimum age only support a minimum age requirement 

for someone who becomes a Certified Applicator (RUP Private, RUP Commercial, Pest 

Control-for-Hire), defined as a person who can purchase and supervise the use of a 

product. These same members did not support a minimum age for a non-certified person 

working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. Thus, a 15-year old son or 

daughter on a farm could apply an RUP as long as the application was made under the 

supervision of a certified applicator. 

b. Members who do not support a national minimum age maintain this is a state’s issue and 

federal labor law issue. 

3. As stated earlier, regardless of age, AAPSE supports that any individual who purchases and 

supervises the use of pesticides should understand how to safely handle and use pesticides in 

order to protect human health and the environment. Any person who applies under someone’s 

supervision should also know and understand safe handling procedures and the importance of 

complying with the pesticide label. 

Page 4 of 6 

32 of 113
WPS Issue Paper 1: Protect the Health of Agricultural Pesticide Workers and Handlers by 

Informing them of Pesticide Hazards 

AAPSE strongly supports the concept that everyone is entitled to information about hazards they are 

exposed to in the workplace. However, experience in teaching pesticide safety over many years has 

taught us that personal safety is best protected through using best practices all the time as opposed to 

altering one’s practices for specific exposures. We believe it will be most effective to create a culture of 

safety through teaching workers basic principles as well as methods to reduce or minimize exposure of 

themselves, their homes, and their families at all times. 

Providing hazcom information, although an important right, is a separate issue and not necessarily 

contributory to a culture of safe use practices. We disagree with the statement in the rationale for this 

proposed change regarding provision of hazard communication materials that “[t]his lack of knowledge 

[i.e., lack of hazcom information] may prevent [agricultural pesticide workers and handlers] from taking 

appropriate steps to protect themselves, increasing their risk for occupational injuries or illness” (last 

paragraph, p.1). In fact, providing too much very specific information can lead workers to disregard 

certain safety practices when exposed to residues they might consider less “risky” than others. 

The key to proactive implementation of measures to protect personal safety is education. Workers cannot 

be expected to understand even information presented primarily pictorially without proper education as to 

the meaning of pictograms. For instance, a pictogram currently under consideration in GHS to indicate 

the potential for certain health effects (a person with a star-shaped image radiating from the chest) is 

meant to depict any of the following: the potential for carcinogenicity, respiratory effects, target organ 

toxicity, reproductive toxicity, or mutagenicity. Aside from the fact that the individual viewing the 

pictogram will be extremely unlikely to know the meaning(s) a priori, what should the individual do 

specifically to protect himself and his family from this pesticide as opposed to a pesticide that does not 

carry this pictogram? In fact, instituting universal precautions, rather than picking and choosing 

appropriate safety practices for each residue to which one is exposed, will better ensure exposure 

minimization. Training workers on the meaning of the various pictorial images and how to interpret them 

would take time and resources away from training that currently focuses on teaching workers how and 

why to protect themselves and their families. 

On the other hand, if hazcom information is maintained as a right-to-know issue, it would properly be 

made available to both the worker and his/her health care provider in the event of an overexposure or for 

questions from the worker about personal health. The Agency’s rationale for this proposed change states 

that “[those who] respond to reports of pesticide illnesses among migrant workers...should have access to 

pesticide-specific hazard information for pesticides they may be exposed to in the workplace so these 

workers can...receive appropriate medical care in the event of a pesticide exposure incident or illness (first 

full paragraph, p.4).” AAPSE strongly agrees with this argument, but rejects the phrase indicating that 

pesticide-specific information would help workers “reduce their chance for pesticide exposure, injury, and 

illness.” Again, we believe it is counterproductive to expect workers to decide on how best to protect 

themselves on the basis of specific products, especially when exposed merely to the residues; rather, they 

should institute best practices at all times, regardless of the product. 

AAPSE supports access to hazcom information solely as a right-to-know issue. Current requirements for 

notification and central posting of products used satisfy this need. AAPSE believes that if hazcom 

materials are to be distributed or made available in written and pictorial form (even primarily pictogram 

form requires some text) with a goal of improving workers’ safety practices, it changes the goal of rightto-know to one of education, which is already adequately covered under current WP standards plus other 

proposed changes to improve training. Providing such written materials in English and Spanish only 

seems to contradict the spirit of the original WPS which requires that training be conducted in a language 

Page 5 of 6 

33 of 113
understandable by the trainee. In such case, the materials ought properly to be provided in every 

language spoken by any of the workers (which would be a logistic nightmare for employers, SLAs, and 

registrants) or provided in English only. AAPSE recommends that EPA check with OSHA to determine 

if other industries are required to translate right-to-know information into languages spoken by 

employees. 

In summary, AAPSE urges that hazcom materials should be considered an important right-to-know issue 

that serves a separate purpose. Personal protection is best achieved through instituting universal 

precautions regardless of individual product. 

WPS Issue Paper 2: Improve Administration of Safety Training to Help Protect Agricultural 

Workers from Pesticide Exposure 

AAPSE supports eliminating the grace period and requiring periodic training within at least every three 

years. We believe it is important for workers to know and understand any potential risks, as well as how 

to protect themselves and their families, prior to entering treated fields. From our experience with 

pesticide education in both WP and C&T, we believe repeating basic safety messages increases adoption 

of improved safety practices. 

AAPSE supports the concept of knowledgeable, effective trainers. Ideally, trainers should be well-versed 

in both the subject matter and effective educational delivery methods. However, the realities of field 

situations may favor simply the availability of trainers who can deliver the subject matter using proven 

training materials. We believe this is particularly true for trainers of workers as opposed to trainers of 

handlers. In general, the handler population is more stable, and access to trainers within a very short time 

period is less of a problem than for workers. If certified applicators can no longer serve as trainers 

without completing a Train-the-Trainer course, it may adversely affect the availability of trainers, 

especially in large rural expanses. Since a workshop-trained trainer may not be available before the 

worker needs to start in the field, this would compromise the ability to eliminate the grace period. 

AAPSE urges EPA to lengthen the timeline for consideration of the issue of who should be able to serve 

as a trainer of handlers and workers. We believe this is necessary in order to develop a feasible approach 

that will ensure availability of knowledgeable and effective trainers while not increasing the burden on 

employers to the point where noncompliance is enticing. 

Submitted by: 

Ples Spradley 

Chairman of the Issues and Evaluation Committee, 

American Association of Pesticide Safety Educators 

Page 6 of 6 

34 of 113
June 13, 2007 

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

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

Workgroup on proposed changes to C&T and WPS 

RE: Input from AAPSE members 

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

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

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

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

comment by the requested June 15 deadline. 

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

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

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

AAPSE Board of Directors. 

C&T 1 – Expand the Scope 

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

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

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

taken.

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

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

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

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

altogether. 

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

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

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

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

they felt was important. 

C&T 2 

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

prior SLA review and approval.

35 of 113
C&T 3 

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

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

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

C&T 6 – Standard Exams 

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

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

or to take exams home. 

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

assess competency of state issues. 

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

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

be used when taking a category exam. 

C&T 7 – Recertification 

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

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

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

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

retraining in any category. 

WPS 3 – Enhance Safety Training 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

people who are largely illegal aliens is another impossible chore. 

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

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

all practicality is an applicator going to be in compliance with this, especially a custom 

36 of 113
applicator? This sounds very nice if the applicator is the same one who owns the land and 

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

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

scale and further erode the authority of the label. 

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

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

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

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

training. 

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

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

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

training materials for WPS in a timely fashion. 

WPS 4 - Miscellaneous options 

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

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

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

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

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

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

trained. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

be provided. 

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

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

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

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

systems; would this be considered spraying and require the entire greenhouse to be 

37 of 113
vacated? EPA did not describe how the ventilation criteria would be changed; therefore, 

members cannot comment. 

 170.112 – 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or nursery crops in 30 days? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

location”. Many growers find it practical. Another member said for large growers this 

38 of 113
will be impractical and overreaction. EPA should consider allowing two or more central 

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

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

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

not being informed of a pesticide application. 

 170.150 (Decontamination) – 

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

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

mobile changing areas. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

maintenance workers this could include entire office building employees or everyone 

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

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

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

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

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

related to a “suspected” medical situation. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

regulation. 

 170.3 

• One member supports. 

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

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

readily available to the applicator community. 

 170.7 

39 of 113
• One member supports, as long as the view of retaliation lines up with that of OSHA 

and the states that have their own regulations. 

• Another member questioned the supporting documentation of problems with this 

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

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

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

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

respirator. Most pesticides do not require their use. 

 Cholinesterase monitoring – 

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

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

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

exposures. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

clearly understand. 

WPS 5 – Crop Advisor Issues 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WPS 6 – Clarify REI Exceptions 

40 of 113
 One member supports especially due to the irrigation water scheduling. When water is 

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

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

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

exceptions needed, which will likely create more unclear wording. 

41 of 113
www.pesticidepolicy.org

August 31, 2007

Kathy Davis

Certification and Worker Protection Branch

Field and External Affairs Division

Office of Pesticide Programs

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

Washington, DC 20460

RE: Comments on Position Papers Relating to Worker Protection Standards (WPS)

Dear Ms. Davis:

The Pesticide Policy Coalition (PPC or “the Coalition”) appreciates the opportunity to provide 

input to the deliberations of the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) related to 

proposed regulatory amendments to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS, 40 C.F.R. 170) 

and Certification of Pesticide Applicators (40 C.F.R. 171).

The PPC represents food, agriculture, pest management and related organizations that 

support transparent, fair and science-based regulation of pest management. The PPC 

members include: nationwide and regional farm, commodity, specialty crop, and silviculture 

organizations, cooperatives, food processors and marketers, pesticide manufacturers, 

distributors, formulators, pest- and vector-control operators, research organizations, and 

other interested parties. The PPC serves as a forum for the review, discussion, development 

and advocacy of pest management policies and issues important to our members.

The comments provided below represent areas of “common ground” among the members of 

the Coalition. Individual members may be providing the Agency with additional or more 

specific information on any or all specific topics available for comment. 

Standards for use of RUPs by uncertified applicators (C&T 3)

The PPC believes that by enactment of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA), Congress intended uncertified applicators applying restricted use pesticides 

(RUPs) to be competent persons working under the supervision of a certified applicator. In 

addition, by making such a categorical distinction of applicators in the statute, Congress 

42 of 113
PPC Comments on C&T and WPS proposals, 8/31/2007 Page 2 of 8

2

clearly envisioned different levels of competency between certified and uncertified 

applicators.

The PPC believes that setting some reasonable standards may improve protections. Some 

basic training for the supervised applicator may be appropriate, but this should be flexible and 

risk-based. The PPC supports the Agency’s proposal that experience should be considered 

a component of competency and that this may be acknowledged in differing levels of 

supervision. However, the Coalition does not support any requirements that a certified 

applicator be on-site or at a maximum distance from the person being supervised. We

believe that the person being supervised should be required to have the ability to immediately 

communicate with the certified applicator.

Minimum Age for Pesticide Applicators (C&T 5)

EPA should only be considering this issue in the context of RUPs. PPC supports

consideration of establishing a minimum age of 18 to purchase, handle or apply RUPs 

occupationally, or a minimum age of 16 to purchase, handle, or apply RUPs on a family farm 

or family owned business.

Recertification Requirements (C&T 7)

Aside from section 11 of FIFRA, which prohibits EPA from requiring a written exam to gauge 

competency of private applicators, Congress granted EPA the authority to set parameters for 

certification of applicators. Under 40 CFR §171.11, EPA sets requirements for certification of 

applicators in States without federally approved plans. Under this provision, federal private 

certifications expire after four years and commercial certifications after three years.

1

The 

current regulations, therefore, already address EPA’s question regarding frequency of 

recertification. We urge the Agency to avoid more frequent recertification requirements. 

With respect to other more specific aspects of certification core competencies versus 

category specific requirements and online recertification, we encourage EPA to support the 

least burdensome, most flexible requirements possible. If EPA, with support of State 

regulatory authorities, decides to refine some of these specific elements, we urge the Agency 

to allow for appropriate transition periods so changes can be implemented with as little 

disruption as possible. 

Information on Pesticide Hazards (WPS 1)

The WPS and reregistration process has resulted in major risk reductions for agricultural 

workers. The reregistration process has resulted in the cancellation of a number of 

pesticides, the classification of some pesticides as RUPs, reductions in application rates and 

frequencies, longer retreatment intervals, more stringent PPE requirements, use of 

mandatory closed application systems, and longer reentry intervals. The information EPA 

cites to support the need for revisions to regulation predates these important changes under 

reregistration. 

1

40 C.F.R. § 171.11(c)(4), (d)(2)

43 of 113
PPC Comments on C&T and WPS proposals, 8/31/2007 Page 3 of 8

3

Other data cited, such as the North Carolina study by Das et. al. (2001), demonstrates

enforcement challenges. Imposing additional requirements will not correct this situation. 

EPA must instead be committed to better enforcement of existing regulations.

We do not agree that workers face significant risks because they do not have access to 

adequate hazard information for specific pesticides. Moreover, the Agency has not 

demonstrated how creation of additional information materials will enhance worker 

protections. Pesticide labels and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) are readily available 

and provide workers with all of the information needed. Employers could maintain MSDS 

material at the centralized location with other WPS materials (pesticide safety poster and 

application information). Creation of additional pesticide hazard information is costly,

burdensome, and potentially confusing to workers. Moreover, adding additional hazard 

information to the labeling or MSDS (e.g., the Global Harmonization System (GHS) effort) will 

require further education and training for all, placing a large burden on the already limited 

resources of those who must implement such training. To the extent that the Agency insists 

on development of additional materials, EPA should coordinate with USDA to ensure 

responsible production, distribution and maintenance of such materials. Involving the 

registrants, as EPA proposes, will likely result in cost shifts to employers and other end users.

Regarding EPA’s concern about potential “intimidation”, the PPC would be supportive of the 

Agency establishing a toll-free telephone line specifically for pesticide concerns. Such an 

approach could also be used by EPA to assess the magnitude and nature of real world

issues prior to proposing regulations based on intuition.

Workers should learn the meaning of particular symbols through proper education and 

training. We believe use of illustrations, such as skull and crossbones, is inappropriate, as

such symbols may be confused with the symbol’s use in other settings. 

Training Administration Issues (WPS 2)

Options for re-training intervals and grace period amendment

With respect to options for re-training intervals, the PPC supports reducing the retraining 

interval to three years. In many sectors, agriculture workers already receive more frequent 

training simply as a function of their mobile employment. However, we do not see the need 

for retraining at shorter intervals (e.g., annual), since it would be burdensome and may be so 

repetitive that it becomes ineffective. A refresher training option may be a viable alternative 

to annual retraining.

The PPC does not support the elimination of the grace period. Elimination of the grace 

period is impracticable for small farmers as they may need to employ outside resources to 

conduct training on the first day workers arrive.

Options for competent trainers

Video-based training must remain an option. While training by a competent instructor may be 

more effective than a video alone, professionally produced videos guarantee a consistent and 

high quality presentation. The use of videos is the most cost-effective and practical way to 

44 of 113
PPC Comments on C&T and WPS proposals, 8/31/2007 Page 4 of 8

4

assure topics are properly and consistently covered. Trainer availability and language 

barriers are significant challenges for agricultural employers. There simply may not be a 

large enough pool of trainers with the knowledge and language skills to meet the demand. 

Trainer education should be encouraged, and EPA should work with States to ensure 

availability of materials to support such programs, but a regulatory requirement will only 

exacerbate the shortage of available trainers. Finally, advances in information technology, 

such high speed internet access and streaming video, will only increase the value of 

leveraging these technologies to provide cost effective training programs. 

Options for recordkeeping

The PPC supports recordkeeping requirements for pesticide safety training (PST) for a period 

of up to two years. We do not support requirements to submit PST records to State lead 

agencies. 

Expanded Safety Training Content (WPS 3)

The PPC believes parents should be informed of measures to protect their families and 

children from pesticide exposure, but does not agree that this information should be added to 

the current WPS occupational training material.

EPA could develop this information which could then be made into brochures for parents to 

take and read at home. PPC believes that science-based, helpful information should be 

made generally available to all pesticide users as take-home materials.

Miscellaneous WPS Issues (WPS 4)

Expansion of WPS to cover dairy, livestock, landscape, and maintenance workers using 

pesticides

The PPC encourages the EPA to consider realistic potential risks and refrain from imposing 

complex regulations to any one sector when distinct uses or concerns do not exist. For 

example, agricultural style reentry restrictions are not realistic for lawn, landscape and

structural pest control applications. Products in these areas are regulated to reduce reentry 

exposure through applicable requirements for registration.

Development of regulatory definitions for closed system, enclosed cab, greenhouse, and 

commercial purposes

The PPC supports the development of definitions for the terms stated above to clarify issues, 

but encourages EPA to ensure that these definitions are widely accepted by other agencies,

knowledgeable professionals, and other government regulations associated with the terms.

Anti-retaliation provisions

The PPC is concerned that EPA is going beyond its authority by addressing anti-retaliation 

regulations. This is clearly the purview of other federal authorities.

45 of 113
PPC Comments on C&T and WPS proposals, 8/31/2007 Page 5 of 8

5

Clarifications related to the exceptions for “wide-area public pest control” and “in a manner 

not directly related to the production of agricultural plants”

The PPC supports EPA’s interest in clarifying the language as long as the original intent of 

the rule remains unchanged.

Clarification of the owner exemption and the concerns related to the immediate family 

definition

EPA should clarify what is meant by “and the concerns related to the immediate family.”

Does the Agency intend to change the rule, clarify the exemption, or both? If the Agency 

intends to change the rule to address “concerns related to the immediate family”, the PPC 

believes that EPA must provide a clear rationale for proposing the change.

Expansion of restricted areas to “buffer zones”

The PPC opposes expansion of restricted areas to “buffer zones” because EPA has not 

provided any data or assessments justifying this change in the regulations. The need for and 

establishment of “buffer zones” is dealt with appropriately during risk assessment and reviewrelated processes for each pesticide.

Entry Restrictions

The WPS already contains requirements for field posting and notification that is sensible and 

protective of worker health base on REIs. Existing point-of-entry requirements provide clear 

and understandable information for workers. The PPC strongly opposes the proposal of 

posting signs every 100 feet. This proposal is overly burdensome and will provide no 

additional benefits.

The PPC also strongly opposes the use of the skull and crossbones symbol to replace the 

man with the upraised hand. The use of the skull and crossbones will only serves to suggest 

to the public that the agricultural operation itself or the crop being grown there is unsafe. 

Additionally, the skull and cross bones caption has long been used specifically to identify 

Category I toxicity products and will result in confusion.

Point-of-entry signs should contain only the most critical information of immediate 

importance. Replicating general information at every point of entry undermines efforts by 

employers to stress the importance of reliance on the central location as the primary location 

for the most up-to-date information on a variety of issues.

Require that posted application information contains the time the application was completed 

and the start and end times 

The PPC opposes this proposal. The pertinent information for the worker is the expiration 

time of the REI. It is not clear how EPA proposes that such information be provided. This

information is already available at the centralized location with other records. EPA should not 

pursue a requirement to add this information to point-of-entry signs.

Posted pesticide safety information

46 of 113
PPC Comments on C&T and WPS proposals, 8/31/2007 Page 6 of 8

6

The PPC disagrees with EPA’s assertion that “many workers do not have an easy access to 

the ‘central location’.” The PPC believes that access to information at a central location is in 

the best interest of workers.

If workers do not have meaningful access to required information, then the location selected 

does not meet the necessary criteria. Employers should select locations that are in fact 

“central” and reasonably accessible to workers. Again, concerns regarding worker 

accessibility are likely enforcement issues. Workers must be encouraged to use appropriate 

central locations as a source for meaningful information. EPA’s proposal will undermine such 

efforts.

Point-of-entry signs should contain only the most critical information of immediate 

importance. Replicating general information at every point–of-entry undermines efforts by 

employers to stress the importance of reliance on the central location as the primary location 

for the most up-to-date information on a variety of issues.

Additionally, EPA’s assumption that workers are more likely to read a poster that is placed at 

a field entrance is highly questionable. The field entrance is most often an open area, 

exposed to full sun and climatic conditions. The temperature may not be favorable to 

encourage workers to read a poster. The poster could deteriorate rapidly due to 

environmental conditions. Consequently, the PPC opposes this proposal.

Require all farms to have an area where workers can change into work clothes and store 

clean clothing. Hand washing water, soap and towels must also be available at these sites.

The PPC opposes this proposal as it would be overly burdensome, and, in many cases, not 

feasible. Compliance would require construction of new facilities at most production farms. 

Construction creates difficulties for small farming operations that rent farmland. Some 

agricultural operations are not farms in the traditional sense of the word (e.g., forestry 

operations), so providing elaborate “nearby” facilities is not feasible.

In addition, it is unclear what the Agency means by “change into work clothing and store 

clean clothing”. Is the Agency suggesting that the employer should provide work clothing 

(uniforms) or launder clothes at the site? Many farms exist in remote areas without access to 

uniform providers/laundering services, or needed utilities. Again, this provision is cost 

prohibitive to employers.

No valid scientific data has been provided to justify amending the regulations and imposing 

additional these significant infrastructure costs on employers.

Education of workers is the key to prevent the potential take-home exposures the Agency is 

trying to avoid.

Require employers, in cases of suspected pesticide exposure to a worker, a worker’s family 

member or bystander, to provide pesticide application information and a copy of the label(s) 

and MSDS or information sheets to the affected person, his/her representative or a health 

care professional, upon request, within two business days or within one hour in the event of 

medical emergency.

47 of 113
PPC Comments on C&T and WPS proposals, 8/31/2007 Page 7 of 8

7

The PPC supports clarification of the term “promptly” contained in the regulations, but the 

proposal goes too far by including “family”, “bystander” and “his/her representative”. EPA 

should limit changes to clarification of “promptly”.

The regulation should also make it clear to MSDS and pesticide labels are readily available 

via the internet and this should be reinforced in education and training.

Require respirator fit-testing, training, and medical monitoring and cholinesterase testing

The PPC believes WPS training adequately provides training for handlers to fit-test their 

respirators. Adding a questionnaire (OSHA medical monitoring) produces additional forms 

and time. Who will maintain the forms? What do they accomplish in providing a safe work 

environment? Who will have access to the forms? This proposal appears to be more 

appropriate for risk assessment discussion, and does not appear to enhance worker 

protection.

Requiring medical monitoring is very problematic. Medical monitoring raises legal issues 

associated with personal privacy and the protection of medical information. Who would bear 

the costs of such activities? Additionally, many activities and exposures unrelated to 

pesticides can significantly impact cholinesterase levels, and current measurement

technology cannot distinguish between pesticide and non-pesticide exposures. Monitoring 

currently being done in California and Washington has not demonstrated that there are 

significant problems that justify this very expensive undertaking being implemented 

nationwide. Public and private dollars are better spent on training workers to follow the label 

directions and responsible use activities. The recommendations related to medical 

monitoring would be cost prohibitive for both employers and States, and would provide little if 

any measurable public health benefit. 

Available data demonstrate that elevated cholinesterase incidents typically involve failure of 

workers to follow label directions. Consequently, this issue is more appropriately addressed 

through improvements in training. The PPC opposes mandatory medical monitoring being

included in WPS.

Crop Advisor Issues (WPS 5)

The PPC supports maintaining current exemptions for crop advisors under the WPS. 

Further, the PPC supports the reasonable changes noted under Option #2, which would allow 

employees to enter a field for “no more than ten minutes ... during the REI unless full PPE 

and other applicable protections are provided.”

Clarify REI Exceptions (WPS 6)

Growers and users need maximum flexibility to reenter fields to perform tasks in a timely 

manner. Clarifications which enable their reentry in a timely manner are strongly supported. 

The Agricultural Reentry Task Force has developed data that show which activities should be 

classified as “no” and “low” contact activities and do not jeopardize worker health. PPC 

supports exceptions in 40 CFR §170.112 that allow critical activities during the restricted 

48 of 113
PPC Comments on C&T and WPS proposals, 8/31/2007 Page 8 of 8

8

entry interval. If clarification of vague language is necessary, we encourage EPA to ensure 

that revisions do not jeopardize these critical exemptions.

Thank you for considering our comments, and we look forward to further dialogue with EPA 

and other stakeholders on future WPS revisions.

Sincerely, 

Rebeckah Freeman Adcock Ray McAllister/Angus Kelly

Chair, Pesticide Policy Coalition Co-Chairs, PPC Technical Committee 

49 of 113
z Representing the Plant Science Industry z

1156 15th St. N.W. z Washington, D.C. 20005 z 202.296.1585 z 202.463.0474 fax z www.croplifeamerica.org 

June 15, 2007 

Kathy Davis 

Office of Pesticide Programs 

Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

RE: Proposals for Revision of the Worker Protection Standard 

Dear Kathy: 

CropLife America (CLA) is the nation’s largest trade organization for agriculture and pest 

management. We represent more than 80 developers, manufacturers, formulators and 

distributors of virtually all the crop protection products used by American farmers and growers. 

We are the voice of the industry that ensures the safe and responsible use of pesticides in order to 

provide a safe, affordable and abundant food supply. RISE (Responsible Industry for a Sound 

Environment)® is the national association representing the manufacturers, formulators, 

distributors, and other industry leaders with specialty pesticide and fertilizer products used in 

turf, ornamental, pest control, aquatic and terrestrial vegetation management and other nonfood/fiber applications. 

CLA and RISE appreciate the opportunity to provide comments concerning possible revisions to 

the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Worker Protection Standard (WPS; 40 CFR 

Part 170). However, we must respectfully note that given the large number of issues and 

complexity of appropriately responding to the wide variety of suggestions that have been put 

forward by various interests, much more time is needed to comment adequately. The more 

recent set of issue papers and documents leaves us somewhat confused about exactly what 

revisions were made to earlier documents that we commented on. A concise enumeration of the 

changes would assist all stakeholders in commenting on the current proposals. 

The Agency’s most recent communication on the matter indicates a willingness to consider 

comments as they are submitted. However, given the importance of these issues we continue to 

suggest that the Agency should affirmatively and officially keep the record open for all 

stakeholders to have adequate time to respond. Given that the Agency has suggested a target 

date of December 2008 for issuance of a proposed rule that may contain changes to the current 

requirements, it is unclear why there is a “very tight” schedule for developing any proposal. 

To reiterate some of the main points in the letter of May 25, 2007 that we signed with a number 

of other national trade organizations, we believe: 

50 of 113
CLA & RISE Comments, WPS Proposals; 6/15/2007 Page 2 of 2 

1. The level of outreach and notification to potentially impacted stakeholders is far from 

adequate; 

2. The potential scope and complexity of the Agency’s proposals have expanded far beyond 

the ability of the regulated communities to properly respond in a short time frame; and 

3. Notwithstanding our continued participation in all publicly available opportunities for 

developing and discussing these issues, we are not certain we understand the full scope and 

details of the current proposals. 

As we are able, CLA and RISE will continue to provide comments on the issues and suggestions 

indicated in EPA’s revised issue papers which are to be the basis of any possible changes to the 

current regulations. Comments submitted separately by the Pesticide Policy Coalition (PPC) 

enumerate a list (not necessarily exhaustive) of issues and topics to which we plan to contribute. 

At the same time, we repeat our basic perspectives, which we believe are central to any current 

or possible changes to requirements under WPS: 

1. worker protection requirements must be proportionate to the risks established for the 

pesticide products in question; 

2. the pesticide label cannot be used to address labor and other concerns outside the scope of 

FIFRA; 

3. EPA/FIFRA requirements should respect (and minimize) the overlapping jurisdiction of 

Federal agencies involved with worker safety; 

4. a one-size-fits-all approach to pesticide worker protection requirements will not reflect 

adequately the diversity of use situations, growing conditions, and types of pesticides that 

characterize current pesticide use and agricultural production; 

5. the costs and impacts in this arena are large and are borne primarily by agricultural 

producers, many of whom are small businesses and less able to absorb increased regulatory 

costs and reporting burdens; and 

6. the WPS program, like any FIFRA requirement, needs to recognize the long-standing, 

Congressionally-mandated primacy of state enforcement programs. 

We look forward to a continuing dialog with the Agency as WPS improvements are considered. 

Sincerely, 

Ray S. McAllister, Ph.D. 

Regulatory Science & Policy Leader 

CropLife America 

cc: Kevin Keaney 

Frank Gasperini, CAE 

Director of State Issues 

RISE 

<<signed>> 

51 of 113
z Representing the Plant Science Industry z

1156 15th St. N.W. z Washington, D.C. 20005 z 202.296.1585 z 202.463.0474 fax z www.croplifeamerica.org 

September 7, 2007 

Kathy Davis 

Certification and Worker Protection Branch 

Field and External Affairs Division 

Office of Pesticide Programs 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

RE: CLA COMMENTS ON WPS OPTIONS 

Dear Ms. Davis: 

CropLife America (CLA) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on possible revisions 

to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Worker Protection Standard (WPS). CLA 

has been part of the ongoing discussions of WPS in the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee 

since their inception, and will continue to take an active interest in ensuring that pesticide labels 

and use instructions ensure that they can be and are used safely. 

CLA notes that innovation in the kinds of products introduced into the marketplace as well as 

pesticide application technology continue to lower the risks to pesticide applicators and others 

who work in or around pesticide-treated areas. EPA’s own budget documents and other public 

pronouncements cite much of this progress. A recent review of Poison Control Center data 

documents a significant decline in reported incidents of pesticide poisoning, both occupational 

and non-occupational, over the 10-year period from 1995 through 2004.1

 In addition, the 

pesticide reregistration program has significantly enhanced safety requirements for pesticide 

registration and removed numerous specific pesticide end-use formulations from the market 

based on concerns about occupational risks. 

CLA fully supports the comments submitted by the Pesticide Policy Coalition, the National 

Cotton Council, and the American Farm Bureau (among others). These groups include the 

primary users of pesticide formulations produced by CLA member companies, and their 

perspectives on the practical on-farm impacts of possible WPS changes should be given great 

deference. 

CLA, along with other groups, has already commented on numerous occasions about specific 

proposals put forth by EPA and other interested parties. CLA reiterates here some fundamental 

points that are central to any current or possible changes to requirements under WPS. 

 

1

 Blondell, J. (2007) Decline in pesticide poisonings in the United States from 1995 to 2004. Clinical Toxicology 

45:589. 

52 of 113
WPS Proposals; CLA Comments; 9/7/2007 Page 2 of 5 

• Requirements and use limitations must be proportionate to established risks of the pesticide 

products in question. The scope and complexity of any requirements will vary with the 

established toxicity of the pesticide and the potential for exposure to workers, which in many 

cases are best handled through appropriate label language tailored to the particular pesticide 

product. 

• Any one-size-fits-all approach to pesticide requirements will not adequately reflect the 

diversity of use situations, growing conditions, and pesticides products that characterize 

current pesticide use and agricultural production. 

• The WPS program, like any FIFRA requirement, must recognize the long-standing 

Congressionally-mandated primacy of state enforcement programs. 

• Some recent suggestions for modifying the WPS would require changes to FIFRA and could 

not be imposed under current law. The pesticide label cannot be used to address concerns 

outside the scope of FIFRA and its requirements, regardless of good intentions or perceived 

desirability. 

Any regulations should be appropriate and proportionate to the level of risk: 

Before EPA considers any significant revisions to the WPS, it should address the fundamental 

question of what areas of the current framework, if any, need significant overhaul or 

improvement. This is a fundamentally sound starting point for any programmatic initiative, and 

is required by FIFRA’s standard of risk-benefit balancing in order to justify additional regulatory 

burdens. As comments from other groups have illustrated, some of the ideas contemplated as 

changes to the current WPS do not appear to meet the FIFRA risk-benefit standard. 

As noted, reregistration (under FIFRA §4) and the introduction of newer pest control 

technologies have significantly reduced the potential risks of pesticides to workers, consumers, 

and the environment. Remaining risks are being reduced appropriately by ongoing EPA review 

and industry innovation (e.g., closed-system mixing and loading technology). At the same time, 

EPA is considering significant expansions of requirements for notifying field workers of 

pesticide applications, and considering expanding training requirements to encompass all 

occupational users of pesticides (even janitors and landscape technicians). As noted in 

comments by some grower groups, a “simple” revision requiring additional posting of signs 

around treated fields raises questions about maintaining the signage, updating the appropriate 

information, and liability, and adds hundreds of dollars in operating costs, even if most of a 

treated field borders on areas where no human entry points are likely (e.g., a river). Some 

revisions, while appearing simple or straightforward, may impose new or significantly greater 

costs without demonstrably reducing risks. 

Similar concerns have been raised about many elements of the revisions under consideration – 

what real risks are being addressed, and do the revisions justify the likely additional regulatory 

costs? CLA urges EPA to carefully consider whether any changes are likely to result in real risk 

reduction and therefore justify increased regulatory compliance costs. 

53 of 113
WPS Proposals; CLA Comments; 9/7/2007 Page 3 of 5 

Avoid one size fits all: 

It is in particularized settings on individual agricultural operations, where workers are subject to 

the possible hazards of pesticide use and can benefit from any strategies to prevent these hazards. 

However, given the broad variation in pesticide application scenarios, from confined greenhouse 

applications to aerial applications of wide open pastures and rangelands, one-size-fits-all 

pronouncements requiring across the board changes may be inappropriate for some large 

proportion of the impacted community. Most risk mitigation has historically been tailored to the 

particular pesticide active ingredient by appropriate label instructions on the individual pesticide 

products. This is where specific mitigation of possible risks will likely be most effective. 

For example, ensuring that label instructions are the most current, appropriately precise, clear, 

and consistent across virtually identical products is a more targeted approach and may provide 

greater reductions in possible risk than significantly expanded requirements for additional central 

posting of general information. 

Some broad requirements are appropriate, but requirements need to acknowledge the wide range 

of demography, farming operation size, geographic conditions, etc. that characterize modern 

agricultural production systems. 

Another unintended consequence of broad centralized requirements to be avoided is possible 

failure to take into account the communications capabilities and flexibility afforded by modern 

digital technology. Given the rise of the internet and other elements of the digital era, training 

materials, supplemental label material, and much other information can be quickly revised to 

meet evolving use conditions or regulatory findings, and disseminated rapidly and efficiently to 

parties with a need to know. EPA should avoid requirements or approaches which otherwise 

might preclude or hamper taking advantage of opportunities for flexibility and adaptability that 

were not even contemplated when WPS was first devised. 

Role of States 

Another element of flexibility that should remain a cornerstone of WPS and other FIFRA 

requirements is the appropriate deference to the States and their long-standing importance in 

carrying out effective pesticide regulatory programs. The individual states are and should 

continue to be given wide latitude in exercising their primary responsibility for pesticide use in 

their respective jurisdictions. FIFRA §26 grants primary enforcement authority to the States, and 

pesticide registrations need also to be granted under individual State authority (FIFRA §24). At 

the same time, however, some of the proposals contemplated as revisions to WPS seem to want 

to skirt this historic role of the States. Some have suggested, for example, that the current 

FIFRA prohibition on a federally required exam [FIFRA §11(a)(1)] should be removed. But 

Congress contemplated that if an individual State decided a written exam is appropriate, then that 

State would impose such a requirement. Revisions to WPS cannot undo this statutory 

determination of a State prerogative. If that is a desirable idea, it should be pursued by 

amendments to the statute. 

54 of 113
WPS Proposals; CLA Comments; 9/7/2007 Page 4 of 5 

Scope of Certification & Training Requirements 

Regarding the previous point pertaining to fundamental respect for the current statutory 

construction of FIFRA, CLA is especially concerned that FIFRA does not provide the basis for 

proposed changes that would expand training requirements to include all occupational users of 

pesticides (including, for example, janitors and landscape technicians) or impose a mandatory 

examination. The Agency has not substantiated the rationale for expanding the scope of the 

regulations to cover all “occupational users.” Importantly, the Agency’s proposal appears to 

circumvent the regulatory framework established by Congress under FIFRA. 

In report language accompanying the 1972 Amendments to FIFRA, the Senate Agriculture and 

Forestry Committee2

 described how provisions of Sections 2, 3, and 12 of the Act are intended to 

work together to ensure that pesticide products are used safely: 

Restrictions on use.― Section 12(a)(2)(G) prohibits the use of any pesticide in a manner 

inconsistent with its labeling. Section 2(q) designates a pesticide as misbranded in 

certain circumstances, one being that when used in accordance with its label or 

commonly recognized practice it causes any injury to man or any substantial adverse 

effects on environmental values, taking into account the public interest, including benefits 

from the use of the pesticide. Section 3(d)(1)(C) provides that if the pesticide, when used 

in accordance with its label or commonly recognized practice, may cause, without 

additional regulatory restrictions, any injury to man or any substantial adverse effects on 

environmental values, taking into account the public interest, including benefits from the 

use of the pesticide, it shall be classified for restricted use and subjected to additional 

restriction. 

Congress also understood that, from time to time, EPA would upgrade its health and safety 

standards in support of a registration, resulting in additional pesticides being placed in the 

restricted-use category. The same Senate Report states: “The effect of classification for 

restricted use therefore is to provide for additional regulatory restrictions, additional to those on 

the label, which will make the pesticide safe to use.”. This was the mechanism Congress 

intended EPA to use to protect human health and the environment. Congress did not intend for 

the Agency to subject non-restricted use products to additional regulatory burdens simply 

because, as the Agency attempts to argue, “Pesticides can pose risks if used incorrectly.” 

On the contrary, the Committee stated: 

The provisions of the bill requiring compliance with the labeling, providing for 

classifying pesticides for restricted use, in some cases requiring that they be applied by 

or under the supervision of a certified applicator, and in other cases requiring them to be 

subject to different regulatory restrictions are the key new authorities of the bill. Such 

provisions enable the Environmental Protection Agency to impose a variety of 

restrictions as the nature and used of the pesticide warrant in order to protect persons 

and the environment, while U.S. agriculture continues to derive the benefits of pesticides 

use. 

 

2

 S.92-838, 92d Congress, 2d Session, 1972 

55 of 113
WPS Proposals; CLA Comments; 9/7/2007 Page 5 of 5 

The Agency has not explained why this statutory construct does not provide it with sufficient 

authority to protect human health and the environment. If the Agency can demonstrate that the 

existing statutory framework is not sufficiently protective, it would seem more appropriate to 

bring such concerns before Congress and amend the underlying statute. Until such time, 

proposals to expand the scope of regulation that would otherwise conflict with the underlying 

statute should be abandoned. 

We look forward to a continuing dialog with the Agency and other stakeholders in the worker 

protection issues. 

Sincerely, 

Ray S, McAllister, Ph.D. 

Regulatory Science & Policy Leader 

56 of 113
1

June 15, 2007

Kathy Davis

Certification and Worker Protection Branch

Field and External Affairs Division

Office of Pesticide Programs

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20460

Re: Worker Protection Standards

Dear Ms. Davis:

The National Cotton Council (NCC) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Pesticide Worker Protection Standards position papers

that outline EPA’s considerations regarding modifications to Worker Protection Standards

(WPS). Although this letter does not completely address all issues raised by the EPA position

papers, it provides feedback to some of the issues while we continue to study and compile

information on other issues, which we intend to comment on in a letter to follow.

The NCC represents producers who cultivate over 14 million acres of farmland. Annual cotton

production of approximately 21 million, 480 lb bales is valued at more than $5 billion at the farm

gate, the point at which the producer sells. While a majority of the industry is concentrated in

the 17 cotton-producing states, the downstream manufacturers of cotton apparel and homefurnishings are located in virtually every state.

The industry and its suppliers, together with the cotton product manufacturers, account for more

than 230,000 jobs in the U.S. In addition to the cotton fiber, cottonseed products are used for

livestock feed, and cottonseed oil is used for food products ranging from margarine to salad

dressing. While cotton’s farm-gate value is significant, a more meaningful measure of cotton’s

value to the U.S. economy is its retail value. Taken collectively, the annual business revenue

generated by cotton and its products in the U.S. economy is estimated to be in excess of $100

billion based on retail values of U.S. Agriculture Commodities.

The NCC appreciates the opportunity to engage in advanced dialog with the Agency regarding

the proposed modifications to WPS. The NCC has worked with the Agency in previous

extensive developments and modifications to WPS, and subsequently developed in-house

materials to educate our membership in order for their compliance with Worker Protection
2

Standards. The NCC supports efforts to enhance safety in the agricultural work environment; it

is not only the morally correct position of our society, but it is the work environment for most of

the NCC producer membership. However, there are times that rules and regulations with

positive intent create adverse complexity with negative results. The NCC encourages the

Agency to work toward safety in the workplace without adding excessive measures, however

well intentioned, that may actually detract from real safety issues.

The following comments address specific proposition papers produced by EPA. It is our

understanding that these comments will be considered in the development of the proposed rule

and an additional comment period will be allowed upon the publication of the proposed rule.

Likewise, it is our understanding the Agency desires to have meaningful comments. With this in

mind and understanding the time constraints, the NCC is providing these initial comments for a

portion of the issues. The NCC continues to consider and study the remaining issues more

carefully and anticipates submission of additional issue responses by the end of June.

WPS 1

Title: Protecting the Health of Agricultural Pesticide Workers and Handlers by Informing Them

of Pesticide Hazards

Our understanding of this material indicates that it reflects identical ideas of the Agency’s 1992

Proposed Rules published in the Federal Register (Vol. 57, No. 163, pp. 38167-38174). It

appears the Agency is asking the same questions now as it was asking in 1992. However, it is

clearly understood that the FQPA re-registration process recently completed by the Agency has

eliminated the most hazardous pesticide products while mitigating lower rates of others. It is

unclear why the Agency has resurrected this Hazardous Communication Standard (HCS)

proposal with the same questions after fifteen years, especially considering the recent completion

of re-registration. However, relevant information desired as Hazardous Communication material

exists, as the Agency has noted, in the form of MSDS sheets. The NCC does not believe

agricultural workers are any less intelligent than employees covered by the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration’s (OSHA) HCS, the standard repeatedly emphasized by the agency

that affords higher protection for non-agricultural employees.

The Agency’s proposal of pesticide-specific fact sheets with simplistic terminology and

pictograms may provide a more user friendly document. However, the concept of fact sheet

booklets can be superfluous and problematic. Concerns of costs associated with debating the

best simplification of terminology, best interpreted pictograms, creation and distribution of

documents, training employees how to interpret documents, and loss of time and productivity

should be evaluated along with costs of utilizing material already present and providing a

training example for employees to obtain the information needed. Additionally, the use of

MSDS to convey hazard communication information could be implemented without tremendous

impacts on current WPS compliant farms. Employers could obtain MSDS material to be

maintained at the centralized location with other WPS materials (pesticide safety poster and

application information). Those interested in potential or possible exposure could examine

application records and MSDS at one location, reducing risk of confusion regarding the pesticide

in question. Fact sheet booklets provided to each employee would likely result in storage off-site
3

and could result in confusion regarding the pesticide in question once the employee returned to a

booklet. While it is recognized the MSDS contains more information than needed by the

employee, similar statements could be made with regards to pesticide labels. However, users

interested in information that applies to their specific need are capable of learning how to locate

relevant information. Regarding the proposed requirement that the material be provided in

Spanish, the NCC recognizes that the agricultural work force is comprised of employees with

multiple non-English language backgrounds. Regulations providing special accommodations for

one sector without providing similar accommodations for others raises concern for equal

treatment. Costs associated with translation into all languages would seem cost prohibitive. The

NCC believes Federal Regulations should be reflective of National standard procedure and

thereby English should suffice in addition to the universal language of pictograms.

The NCC encourages the Agency to recognize that pesticide products used during a production

year are not necessarily planned in advance. Biological and environmental variations can

dramatically alter product use decisions. Likewise, price fluctuations and new products can

rapidly alter product use decisions within the season. Thus, the use of fact sheet booklets seems

to be problematic. Fact sheet booklets would require multiple additions and deletions to

maintain applicable information. Insuring that booklets are properly updated and the information

is provided in a timely manner, adds an additional unnecessary burden on producers.

Similarly, crop sheets would vary between years and between producers because not all

producers are faced with similar pest challenges. The NCC encourages the Agency not to

embrace crop sheets since some states have tried crop sheets and discontinued their use. The

NCC believes pesticide specific fact sheets provided to each worker will produce similar results.

The NCC believes that compliance is best evaluated by requiring material to be present at a

central location in the form of MSDS.

The NCC agrees with the employee’s “right-to-know” of the potential hazards at the workplace.

The NCC recognizes the tremendous value healthy employees provide to the industry, as well as

the costly expense of accidents and illness. It is without question that a safe working

environment is in the best interest of cotton producers, employees, and the industry as a whole.

It is additionally recognized that costs are associated with additional regulation attempting to

improve safety at the workplace. If those costs result in increased safety, they are well received

and justified. Alternatively, employees must share the burden of workplace safety in order for

the benefits to be realized. It must be recognized that safety information, training, and

knowledge are a benefit only if individuals actively adhere to and practice safety measures.

WPS 2

Title: Improving Administration of Safety Training to Help Protect Agricultural Workers from

Pesticide Exposure

The NCC recognizes the Agency’s wish to increase the frequency of training and does not debate

the point that more frequent training improves retention. However, repeating the same material

numerous times will eventually result in maximum retention and wasted time thereafter. The

costs of developing new materials on an annual basis to prevent loss of attention would be large.

One estimate for the development of video training material for one category of certification
4

exceeded $15,000 according to information shared with the NCC by a state agency. The

estimate does not include the trainer’s time spent conducting the program, travel costs, cost of

booklets, etc. Funds assisting states with costs of WPS training have dramatically declined since

1992 in terms of unadjusted dollars. Some states are reporting funds provided by EPA to cover

WPS regulations training have decreased by 64%, and that these funds are restricted to ensure no

funds are directed at wages. The NCC believes EPA should restore state funding for current

programs prior to increasing the burden on states with additional regulations.

If EPA were able to restore state funding assistance to the 1992 level and increased the amount

to cover new regulations, the NCC suggests consideration be given to a tiered frequency of

training never to exceed 5 years between training intervals. Annual training could be provided

for the first three years, followed by a three year interval, and then training once every 5 years.

This schedule would take into consideration that close intervals provide more retention at first

but may not be needed later. This would reduce costs three years into the process.

Train-the-trainer

The NCC believes video presentations provide avenues to train workers for employment with

little conflict between compliance with WPS and performance of employment duties. If workers

must be trained prior to entry into fields, then a method of training must be readily available at

the farm. Dependence on extension programs or other personnel to provide the training will

result in delay of employment and loss of productivity. The NCC believes video training

developed by or approved by EPA provides reasonable flexibility for compliance with minimum

loss of employment and/or productivity.

Record keeping

The process to compile a national database of trained workers would create many difficulties and

questions about when workers can begin to perform employment duties. Would the Agency

require that employees be listed in the database prior to being able to perform employment

duties? If not, then what benefit is the database? Is it enhancing the system or just a costly set of

information? The NCC believes verification records should be maintained by the trainer and

employer for a period equal to retraining intervals.

WPS 3

Title: Enhance Safety Training to Better Protect Agricultural Workers and Their Families

The NCC believes parents should be informed of measures to protect their family and children,

but does not agree that this information should be added to the current WPS training material.

This type of information can be developed into brochures for parents to read at home. The

lengthier the training material becomes, the less trainees will pay attention resulting in less

retention of information. While NCC fully agrees that protecting children is of the utmost

importance, WPS has greater application to employees at work.

NCC would like clarification with regard to the option all children 12 or under should be

restricted under all circumstances from entering fields. Would this prohibit a child from riding in
5

a closed cab, air conditioned tractor with their parents? If these concerns are directed to children

of workers involved in produce production, perhaps specific restrictions are more appropriate.

The NCC urges EPA to recognize that not all crops and all pesticides are equal. Studies based

on workers in crops requiring high amounts of contact with the crop do not reflect crops that

employees seldom come in contact with because of equipment used. Additionally, the

applicability of studies cited by the Agency would today seem questionable with the recent

completion of the FQPA mandated re-registration that removed or abated risks of the more toxic

pesticides.

WPS 4

WPS 4 is currently being studied with comments to be submitted at a later date.

WPS 5

Title: Ensure protection of employees of certified crop advisors

WPS 5 is currently being studied with comments to be submitted at a later date.

WPS 6

Title: Ensure that exceptions to treated area entry restrictions are clear, enforceable and

adequately protective of workers.

The NCC agrees with the agency regarding the critical need for the exception granted. The NCC

worked with the Agency in the mid 1990’s to address these issues and to stress the critical need

for these exemptions for agriculture. The NCC continues to support the need for these

exemptions. The NCC recognizes that clarification of vague language is sometime necessary,

but encourages EPA to ensure revisions do not jeopardize these critical exemptions. NCC

believes the Agency carefully evaluated these exemptions in the mid 1990’s and found them to

be sufficiently justified and safe. Again, with re-registration requirements, clearly they present

less risk now as compared to the mid 1990’s.

Certification and Training

C&T 1 along with C&T 2 require additional study at this time.

C&T 3

NCC recommends clarifying options for private applicators and commercial applicators. “Under

the supervision” applications are critical to the function of modern agriculture. NCC does not

support establishment of a time or distance between the supervisor and the uncertified applicator

because the certified applicator supervising the application of multiple employees requires

flexibility to return to the farm headquarters for operations required to ensure that the calibration

of equipment and mixing of materials is correct. Employees making applications under certified

applicator supervision are given specific instructions of speed, pressure, and monitoring of

equipment. Difficulties result in a shut-down until the supervisor returns.
6

Additional papers are currently being studied.

The NCC appreciates this opportunity to comment on this important matter and commends the

agency for seeking effective, common sense solutions from stakeholders for improving

agricultural worker safety. The NCC continues examination of such solutions, and will submit

further data and evaluation in a timely manner.

Sincerely,

Bill M. Norman, D. Engr.

Vice President, Technical Services
1

August 18, 2007

Kathy Davis

Certification and Worker Protection Branch

Field and External Affairs Division

Office of Pesticide Programs

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20460

Re: Worker Protection Standards

Dear Ms. Davis:

The National Cotton Council (NCC) appreciates the opportunity to provide this letter as a

follow-up to our June 15 comments on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Pesticide

Worker Protection Standards position papers that outline EPA’s considerations regarding

modifications to Worker Protection Standards (WPS). The comments contained in this letter

address several position papers not included in our previous letter due to time constraints that did

not allow adequate study of all position papers. The NCC appreciates the Agency’s

understanding of the time constraints as well as the Agency’s willingness to allow partial

comments on June 15 with additional comments to follow.

The NCC represents producers who cultivate over 14 million acres of farmland. Annual cotton

production of approximately 21 million, 480 lb bales is valued at more than $5 billion at the farm

gate, the point at which the producer sells. While a majority of the industry is concentrated in

the 17 cotton-producing states, the downstream manufacturers of cotton apparel and homefurnishings are located in virtually every state.

The industry and its suppliers, together with the cotton product manufacturers, account for more

than 230,000 jobs in the U.S. In addition to the cotton fiber, cottonseed products are used for

livestock feed, and cottonseed oil is used for food products ranging from margarine to salad

dressing. While cotton’s farm-gate value is significant, a more meaningful measure of cotton’s

value to the U.S. economy is its retail value. Taken collectively, the annual business revenue

generated by cotton and its products in the U.S. economy is estimated to be in excess of $100

billion based on retail values of U.S. Agriculture Commodities.

As stated in comments submitted July 15, 2007, NCC supports efforts to enhance safety in the

agricultural work environment; it is not only the morally correct position of our society, but it is
2

the work environment of most of the NCC membership. NCC will continue to work with the

Agency with regards to developments and modifications to WPS. The NCC developed in-house

materials to educate membership with regards to complying with current Worker Protection

Standards. However, there are times that rules and regulations with positive intent create adverse

complexity with negative results. The NCC encourages the Agency to work toward safety in the

workplace without adding excessive measures directed at speculated beliefs that detract from real

safety issues. The NCC believes WPS regulations should result in a safer work environment for

all (owner, employees, and visitors) and should be reasonable, applicable, adoptable, and based

on scientific merit. With these characteristics in mind, the NCC provides the following

comments.

WPS4

Title: Address miscellaneous regulatory and implementation issues with the agricultural worker

protection regulations that cause gaps in worker protection.

Section 170.1

Consideration of the Agency: EPA is considering a proposed option for the WPS to be

expanded to cover dairy, livestock, landscape, and maintenance workers using pesticides.

The NCC believes WPS should apply to all segments to ensure safety of workers. The NCC

recognizes that some occupations and certain activities within some occupations may result in an

increased potential contact with the treated article (plant, area, etc.). The NCC encourages the

EPA to consider these potential risks and refrain from adding complex rules to all occupational

workers of agriculture when the risk activities can be identified as related to a specific

occupational or activity. One size does not fit all.

Section 170.3

Consideration of the Agency: The EPA intends to develop regulatory definitions for the

following terms: closed systems; enclosed cab; greenhouse; and commercial purposes.

The NCC encourages the agency to develop definitions for the terms stated above to clarify

issues, but encourages the EPA to ensure definitions are widely accepted by other agencies,

scientists, and professionals engaged in activities associated with the terms. The lack of

consistency with other agencies can lead to misinterpretation and an increase in worker risks.

Section 170.7

Consideration of the Agency: EPA intends to better define its view of retaliation under the WPS

and provide examples of retaliatory acts in the rule using DOL/OSHA regulations for guidance

related to retaliation provisions. EPA intends worker training to address the anti-retaliation

provisions with examples for clarity.

The NCC agrees that retaliation should not be allowed in cases of WPS violations. However, the

NCC believes retaliation issues should be the responsibility of the Department of Labor and

therefore has strong reservations about the EPA involvement. The idea seems duplicative and

not necessary. Additionally, including concise training and examples in worker training will
3

increase training program time and could result in less attention to material. Material related to

direct protection of worker health should be maintained as the focal message with very few

distractions induced by other issues. The NCC asks the Agency to keep material clear and brief.

The NCC believes the no agency should interfere with employers cleared of accused violations.

Business decisions regarding workers should not be regulated unless the reported violation was

proven. Otherwise, the regulation creates means for unhappy employees to disrupt the business

operation in a costly manner while finding shelter under the rules of a government agency.

Section 170.103 Exceptions

Describes exceptions to the WPS and the situation where the rule does not apply to certain

pesticide applications.

Consideration of the Agency: EPA intends to clarify the existing exceptions in the WPS to

address the interpretive guidance workgroup (IGW) issues that have been raised related to the

exceptions for “wide-area public pest control” and “in a manner not directly related to the

production of agricultural plants.” The language would be based on existing IGW policy

decisions on these issues.

The NCC understands the IGW currently interprets language when the Agency is asked for

clarification resulting in the interpretation effectively replacing vague language. Using the

language of the IGW to clarify these issues should have minimum impact on rules as currently

applied. The NCC encourages the EPA to clarify such language as long as the original intent of

the rule remains unchanged.

170.104

Describes workers who are exempted from certain WPS provisions under certain rules.

Consideration of the Agency: EPA intends to clarify the owner exemption and the concerns

related to the immediate family definition that have been raised to the IGW. The language for

the exceptions would be based on existing IGW policy decisions on these issues.

The NCC would like more information explaining the Agency’s meaning of “and the concerns

related to the immediate family.” Does the Agency intend to change the rule, clarify the

exemption, or both? If the Agency intends to change the rule to address “concerns related to the

immediate family”, the NCC believes the data signifying reason for concern as well as the

Agency’s intended revision to address the concern should be provided for review.

170.110 Restrictions associated with Pesticide applicators.

Contains provisions that restrict the areas in which workers are allowed to be in on nurseries

and greenhouses during certain types of high risk applications (high pressure applications,

aerial applications, fumigation, etc.) by establishing buffer zones around the treated area to

prevent exposure. The Agency believes similar “buffer zone” restrictions should be included for

farm and forests in order to protect workers in these operations.

Consideration of the Agency: EPA intends to propose revisions to this section of the rule

similar to restrictions during applications on farms and forests that currently exist for nurseries

and greenhouses. The restriction would add treated area “buffer zones” restrictions in the WPS

for certain applications on farms and forests like those that are already in applicable to
4

greenhouses and nurseries. ...high potential for worker or bystander exposure from drift such as

aerial, airblast, and fumigant applications.

The NCC would like clarification of “buffer zones”. Responding under the assumption the

Agency intends to restrict workers from entry of an untreated perimeter of the treated area, NCC

encourages the agency to evaluate the amount of production land that would be lost due to

inability to regulate activities of neighboring land. Depending on the size of the buffer zone and

whether or not the producer owns the adjacent property, the producer may be forced to remove

land from production in order to be compliant. Lost production land is an annual cost. This cost

would affect small production farms and farms in geographic locations that result in multiple

small acreage fields to a high degree.

The NCC is unsure why the agency is trying to equate greenhouse and nursery operations with

farm land. Greenhouse operations with closed environments and nursery operations with

partially closed (shade cloth cover) and high humidity environments require maximization of

space. Therefore, materials within the buffer zone are likely to be a crop and are likely to require

high contact with workers. Contrast this with open field environments surrounded by turn rows

for driving vehicles, fences, and trees (all of which involves little to no contact by workers) and

it is clear the two are not equal situations and therefore quite possibly do not have similar risk,

resulting in dissimilar worker protection features. Additionally, greenhouse and nursery

operations are seldom faced with pesticide products that can not be used on most of their entire

production. This allows much more flexibility in defining what needs to be treated and what to

call the buffer. Agricultural field crop operations often produce multiple crops and pesticide

products seldom can be applied to more than one of the crops grown. Contrasting the difference

between the two types of operations demonstrates how the regulations may not greatly affect one

while imposing extreme hardships for another.

170.112 Entry Restrictions

Provisions require employers to notify workers of any pesticide application on the establishment

the workers may come in contact with. Provides for oral/written notification depending on

circumstances, and specifies the requirements for warning signs. The issue, according to the

Agency, is “Workers are not being given adequate warning about pesticide applications;

warning signs are not effective and should be change to better convey warnings to workers.”

Consideration of the Agency: EPA is considering an option that would change the requirements

for the design of the treated area warning sign and the information required to be contained on

the sign, as well as posting requirements. EPA is also considering the following options:

1. In fields covered by REIs of more than 72 hours, a warning sign should also be posted at

the usual points of entry to the field and every 100 feet around the field’s perimeter. The

posted warning sign should bear the skull and cross bones, not the current sign (i.e., a

man with an upraised hand);

2. All fields which are or have been under an REI during the preceding 30 days, must have

a sign at the usual points of entry with the following specific information: name of

pesticide applied, application date and times; REI; contact information for employer, onfarm manager or pesticide applicator; and date and time that REI expires. In addition,

attached to each sign should be a written list of the pesticides used on that field during
5

the past 30 days. The list should be written in English and Spanish or other languages

spoken by the majority of the workers employed by that employer.

The NCC regrets the Environmental Protection Agency desires to revise the posting sign in a

manner to convey the most extreme negative image for agriculture. The image conveyed by

signage depicting a skull and cross bone every 100 feet around the perimeter of a filed would

create horror images of agriculture in public perception. Worker Protection Training adequately

informs workers of the meaning and purpose of the man with an upraised hand. The NCC does

not support the use of a warning sign that will promote a detrimental image of agriculture into

the minds of the public. Additionally, the skull and cross bones caption has long been used to

signify category I toxicity products. The use of this caption to post fields could potentially dilute

the significance of category I pesticide use. The NCC strongly discourages the agency from

pursuing the proposed sign change.

The NCC believes there are other aspects of proposed changes to WPS that the agency is

considering that would greatly improve worker training and ensure clear understanding of the

current signage. The Agency’s consideration of increasing the frequency of worker training

would likely improve worker recognition of the current sign. The NCC encourages the agency

not to impose multiple new rules targeting the same issue. The Agency should be able to

identify one appropriate solution to address one issue of concern without overburdening

employers or creating excessive regulations that jeopardizes compliance due to complexity.

With regards to posting signs every 100 feet around the field’s perimeter, each with a written list

of pesticides used on that field in the last 30 days, the NCC strongly discourages the Agency

selecting such a rule. In the cotton production system there are many fields that do not have

vehicle passage routes around the field. To place signs in the proposed manner will require

walking in some areas or purchase of ATV’s, insurance for the ATV to cover workers, and

tremendous labor. Printed list will require repeated replacement due to rain, wind, standard

agricultural practices (destruction by equipment), vandalism, and weathering.

The costs associated with this proposal change are dramatic and will impact small operations

more than large operations. This could mean the proposed change impacts minority producers to

a higher degree. To demonstrate the cost difference, assume a farm contains a total of 1000

acres which are divided into several fields with an average size of 20 Acres (small farm

operations). The cost of the normal EPA approved WPS posting sign is $5.20

(www.gemplers.com). To post each field entrance point would require $5.20, but to comply

with a posting requirement of 100 feet around the perimeter of the field would require an average

of 41.7 signs per field or $217.06 per field. The 1000 acre farm would pay $8680 for signs not

considering replacements. If we assume labor cost of $7.50 per hour and a travel speed of 2

MPH to travel the perimeter of the field plus 1 minute to place each sign, then the cost for the

1000 acre farm with average field size of 20 acres becomes $9911. If the 1000 acre farm had

average field size of 200 acres (above average for most large farms) the cost would reduce to

$3504. These costs do not fully address the issues of equipment, insurance and maintenance of

signs (verify, replace) to ensure compliance.
6

Clearly, this proposed regulation change would be difficult for producers to adopt because it is

too costly, places larger burdens on small field operations which are typically small size farms,

and complicates compliance without justification of benefits.

The NCC desire to understand who the agency believes is entering fields at locations other than

the usual point of entry. If the Agency is referring to individuals not authorized to be on the

premises, then the question of this individual’s adherence to increased signage seems to negate

the utility and efforts.

170.122 Providing specific Information about applications

This section contains provisions requiring employers to make available to workers certain

information about pesticide applications that have taken place on the establishment.

Concerns of the Agency: The current requirements for the application information do not

require the time the application ended to be provided or the actual time that the REI expires to

be listed. The requirements should be revised to provide this information so the requirement is

more useful and more protective for workers. EPA intends to propose revisions to this section of

the rule to require that the posted application information contains the time the application was

completed and the start and end times for the REI so that workers will be better informed about

areas under REIs and the information will be more useful and protective.

The NCC discourages the Agency from pursuing this change. Detailing information that does

not add protection for the worker should be avoided. The pertinent information for the worker is

the expiration time of the REI. It is not clear how the Agency intends to provide the proposed

information. The NCC assumes the agency is referring to making the material available at the

centralized location with other records and not adding detractions on the posting signs.

170.130 Pesticide safety training for workers

Contains provisions requiring employers to provide pesticide safety training to workers and

specifies requirements for trainers, content of training and training delivery. Addressed in WPS

2 & 3.

See NCC comments June 15, 2007.

170.135 Posted pesticide safety information

The section contains provisions requiring employers to provide a pesticide safety poster for

workers in a central location that contains certain pesticide information. Issue: Many workers

do not have an easy access to the “central location”. The poster should be at a location that the

worker is more likely to see the poster information and use it.

Consideration of the Agency: EPA is considering requiring an EPA-approved pesticide safety

poster to be posted at the typical points of entry to a treated field or at the site of the

decontamination water.

The NCC asks the Agency to provide a clear understanding of the issue. The phrase “do not

have an easy access” is vague. The phrase does suggest employees have access to the poster.

The NCC does not clearly understand how posting at a point of entry into a field will increase

worker use of pesticide poster information. The NCC is not convinced that workers are more
7

likely to read a poster that is place at a field entrance. The field entrance is most often an open

area, exposed to full sun and climatic conditions. The temperature is seldom favorable to

encourage reading a poster. The life expectancy of the poster would be greatly reduced due to

environmental conditions. The costs associated with this regulation would vary greatly between

farms and geographic areas because some farms have large fields while others have many small

fields. If we assume a farm has 1000 acres in production and small fields averaging 50 acres,

then this producer would be required to purchase 20 posters currently selling for 7.65

(www.gemplers.com) resulting in a total of $153 dollars for one set of posters rather than $7.65

for a poster at the central area. The dramatic increase in cost will increase more due to

environmental conditions that require posters be replaced. The NCC strongly encourages the

Agency not to adopt such a costly practice that does not logically appear to enhance safety.

170.150 Decontamination

This section contains provisions requiring employers to provide decontamination supplies to

workers when they have been working in pesticide treated areas. Issue: The current

requirements for decontamination supplies do not give workers a place where they can wash up

at the end of the day and change into clean clothes. As a result they may be likely to wear

contaminated clothing home and potentially expose themselves and others to pesticides.

Consideration of the Agency: EPA is considering a proposed option that would require all

farms to have an area where workers can change into work clothes and store clean clothing.

Hand washing water, soap and towels must also be available at these sites.

The above proposal would require construction of new facilities at most production farms.

Construction creates difficulties for small farming operations that rent farmland. Additionally, if

employees have access to such a facility, the material (towels, soap) will be used for purposes

other than decontamination. The NCC does not support this proposal due lack of justification of

safety improvement, the cost of construction, expense of maintaining acceptable towels which

will undoubtedly be used for other purposes related to equipment maintenance and repairs

rendering them disposable, and the cost of soap which will also be used for non-decontamination

purposes. This proposal will add additional costs associated with monthly water fees for the

facility. The cost would be doubled assuming employees are comprised of both genders. The

phrase “change into work clothing and store clean clothing” does not provide complete

information. It is unclear if the agency expects the workers to come to work in one set of

clothing while carrying their work clothes or if the Agency is suggesting the employer should

provide work clothing (uniforms) at the site. Provision of uniforms creates questions of cleaning

and replacing. It is not clear if Agency now suggest that employers should provide laundering of

work clothing. Many farms exist in remote areas without access to uniform providers/laundering

services. It is the hope of the NCC that the agency is not intending to require employers to

absorb costs for uniform supply and laundering.

Further, it is assumed the Agency is making this proposal based on the belief employees are

transporting residue to their home rather than an attempt to provide decontamination protection

at the work site, a requirement that already exists. If this is the case, the Agency must also

consider the question of whether or not employees will remain after work to shower before they

leave for home. The NCC questions whether employees will take advantage of shower facilities.
8

The NCC is concerned that after the work day has ended employees will have more interest in

getting home than utilizing these facilities. The NCC does not support this proposal based cost

as well as the lack of evidence to substantiate a need.

170.150 Emergency assistance

This section requires employers to provide emergency assistance to employees that may have

been poisoned or injured by exposure to pesticides while working on the establishment. Issue:

Language unclear as to how “promptly” information about pesticides must be provided to the

treating medical personnel by the employer, and the requirements for providing such

information only extend to workers.

Consideration of the Agency: EPA is considering a proposed option that would require

employers, in cases of suspected pesticide exposure to a worker, a worker’s family member or

bystander, to provide pesticide application information and a copy of the label(s) and MSDS or

information sheets to the affected person, his/her representative or a health care professional,

upon request, within two business days or within one hour in the event of medical emergency.

The NCC would agree with clarification of language to provide meaning to “promptly”.

Additionally, the NCC would encourage the Agency to convey clear understanding of “suspected

pesticide exposure to a worker.” Realizing that some individual symptoms are more frequently

related to non-pesticide factors, some clarity should be included to identify the point of

“suspected” exposure. Additionally, how would the Agency identify “medical emergency.” The

NCC questions the Agency’s inclusion of “family member or bystander”. The Agency must

realize the probability that a family member was exposed by some material at home is much

greater than the probability the family member was exposed from diluted trace residue

transported into the home environment. The NCC believes, especially with completion of reregistration of pesticides, the Agency is complicating worker protection standards without

justification.

170.240 Personal protective equipment

This section contains provisions that establish requirements for the PPE that must be worn

during pesticide applications, the use of PPE, and the care, cleaning and maintenance of PPE,

and PPE exceptions. Issue: The rule currently lacks provisions for respirator fit-testing,

training and medical monitoring (such as those found in the OSHA respirator standard) to

assure that respirators are worn properly and that handlers are adequately protected from

respiratory hazards. Since OSHA’s respirator standard is not applicable to pesticides in

agriculture, there is a gap in the protection for agricultural handlers of pesticides that are

required to use respirators.

Considerations of the Agency: EPA is considering a proposed option that would add

requirements to the WPS requiring respirator fit-testing, training, and medical monitoring (such

as those found in the OSHA respirator standard) for all handlers using any pesticide with

requirements for respiratory protection beyond dust/mist filters.

The NCC believes WPS training adequately provides training for handlers to fit-test their

respirators. Adding a questionnaire (OSHA medical monitoring) produces additional forms and

time. Who will maintain the forms? What do they accomplish in providing a safe work
9

environment? Who will have access to the forms? This proposal does not appear to enhance

worker protection in the work place.

No Current WPS Provision

Issue: The WPS currently lacks provisions requiring cholinesterase monitoring for handlers.

Considerations of the Agency: require medical monitoring of pesticide handlers, who mix, load

or apply Toxicity Category 1 or 2 Ops or CBs for 30 or more hours in a 30 day period.

Employers must pay the cost of the medical monitoring, but doctors must inform workers and

employers of results and results must be reported directly from the laboratory to the state agency

overseeing the program.

Depression Action Required

20% Cholinesterase or more State agency must investigate and report

possible cause

30% RBC or 40% Plasma Cholines. must be removed from work until their

cholinesterase rebounds to 90% of normal;

must receive average rate of pay for the last

full pay period in which they worked;

Lab test should be performed by one laboratory. Each state lead agency should report on the

number of workers actions required annually.

The NCC does not support the addition of a costly medical monitoring regulation to be paid by

the employer. The material proposed in the above monitoring consideration would impose a

tremendous cost on employers, ignores the possibility the results are not work related while

requiring the employer to provide full pay with leave until the results reverse, and lacks

specification of how often employees would be tested.

WPS 5

Title: Ensure protection of employees of certified crop advisors.

Issue: The WPS allows crop advisor activities to be conducted during application and restricted

entry interval (REI) as long as persons performing such activities are trained and equipped as

pesticide handlers. The WPS contains provisions that exempt certified or licensed crop advisors,

and persons performing crop advising tasks under their supervision, from some WPS

requirements. EPA believes the terms of the exemption should be modified to ensure that

employees of crop advisors receive WPS protection during REI.

Option 1

Retain the current exemption under the WPS for certified crop advisors as is without any change.

Option 2

Retain the current exemption under the WPS for certified crop advisors but modify the terms of

the exception...so that employees would be prohibited from entering treated areas during the

REI to conduct crop advisor activities unless they received all applicable WPS protection

equipment (PPE) and decontamination supplies, etc. ... with an exception for a short ten minute

of entry during the REI for incidental entry.
10

EPA believes option 2 is the most appropriate option.

The NCC would recommend the Agency proceed with option 1. The NCC would stress to the

Agency that crop advisors are critical components of judicious pest management. The crop

advisors are knowledgeable experts who must have accurate information in order to make their

decisions regarding pest management. Additionally, they must have time to provide reports to

producers, check prices of products, maintain their records, and review recent history of multiple

different fields that are treated differently. Crop advisors understand their time constraints will

not provide time for them to examine all fields and thus they hire employees. They rely on

trained employees to assist in careful examination of pest densities in the fields. While a crop

advisor may prefer to examine treated fields themself, occasions do arise in which the number of

acres under REI exceeds the amount one person can examine. During periods of high pest

pressure or due to development of resistance, fields may require back-to-back treatments.

Additionally, some pest require multiple, timed treatments to break the life cycle and prevent

loss and excessive treatments. The crop advisor often works for multiple producers, and

understands that losses due to pests are considered his failure. The removal of the assistance

from the crop advisor’s employees will place the crop advisor in a dilemma during these times.

The loss of information will force the crop advisor to decide whether to wait and check the field

later or retreat the field to ensure control. The knowledge that the crop advisor job is on the line

should pest control failure result in crop loss will likely result in scheduled pesticide applications

due to regulations that prohibit the most basic IPM component, pest ID and density. In order for

the crop advisor to plan for these events ahead of time, the crop advisor would be forced to limit

acreage to a level the advisor could handle alone. However, the advising fee is often based on a

per acre basis and limited acreage would result in loss of wages, creating further discouragement

for crop advisor careers. The NCC encourages the Agency to realize regulations which prohibit

crop advisors from conducting their job will result in a backward trend away from IPM to the

days of scheduled spray programs.

Certification and Training

C & T 1

Title: Expand scope of applicators subject to regulation

Issue: Currently, federal regulations require only applicators of restricted use pesticides to

demonstrate that they are competent to use these pesticides safely.

The NCC believes general use pesticides (GUP) were in greater number than Restricted Use

Pesticides (RUP’s) during the writing and passing of FIFRA, and does not disagree that general

use pesticides outnumber restricted use today. The NCC additionally recognizes the FIFRA does

not allow the EPA to require an examination for private applicators. The Agencies comment that

“FIFRA does not preclude a requirement for competency standards for applicators of nonrestricted use pesticides:” raises the concern that the intent of FIFRA is being avoided. The NCC

believes FIFRA intended higher standards for RUP because of toxicity categories. Clearly,
11

FIFRA recognizes some pesticides posed more risk than others and provides the Agency a basis

for managing these higher risk products. It is additionally clear that the FIFRA identified a

particular exclusion to prevent EPA from requiring competency examinations for private

applicators. To suggest FIFRA would place such exclusion on RUP, but that the laws intent

would not be violated by placing competency examination on GUP appears questionable. The

NCC believes FIFRA did not intend for the EPA to expand the scope of applicators subject to

regulation to include general use pesticides. Other than homeowners, most pesticide users will

use both RUP and GUP. Expanding the scope would be duplicative and costly without adding

benefit.

C & T 2

Title: Protect human health and the environment by ensuring that occupational applicators of

potentially harmful pesticides pass a reliable certification exam that determines their

competency to use pesticides safely.

Issue:(not quoted, but summarized) There is no federal requirement for applicator competency

unless the pesticides are restricted use pesticides. The EPA would like to require a written test

for occupational applicators. The term occupational applicator includes applicators that make

applications to the property of others for compensation, those who, as part of their employment,

apply pesticides on the property of their employer. This includes persons using agricultural

pesticides in the production of any agricultural commodity, on their own land, their employers

land, or to the land of another. Additionally, terms are proposed for those applicators applying

non-restricted use pesticides.

Again, NCC does not believe the creation of new certification categories for General Use

Pesticides enhances the current regulations, but believes the practice would be duplicative and

costly. NCC also encourages the EPA to maintain the “Under the Supervision of” due to the

nature of farm operations (see Comments on C&T 3 submitted June 15). Many of the

applicators are merely tractor drivers. The Supervisor prepares the pesticide solution, calibrates

the equipment, and maintains the spray equipment. The tractor driver drives at the speed

instructed and flips a switch at the beginning and end of each row. Additional requirements on

these individuals would likely result in many individuals loosing their employment, and create

difficulty in finding employee’s that could meet a federal competency level in order be employed

to drive a tractor. The NCC encourages the agency to consider the impact this proposal could

have on operations that may have multiple tractors with planter planting fields and spraying

residual herbicide behind the planter. Under this regulation, the tractor driver becomes a

certified applicator first and then he can be hired to drive the tractor. This regulation would

place extreme hardship on the agricultural workforce and result in many lost employees.

C & T 4

Title: Unknown
12

It is the understanding of the NCC that C & T 4 does exist, but has not been released from

internal review as of June 21, 2007. NCC anticipates appropriate time frame to provide study

and comments on C & T 4.
13

C & T 5

Title: Establish a minimum age for occupational pesticide applicators.

Issue: A component of occupational pesticide competency is the ability to exercise sound

judgment and decision making skills. These skills are developed with age and experience.

EPA’s worker exposure assessments do not take into account the increased risk and

susceptibility of young applicators due to their ongoing development.

Option 1

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

Option 2

Establish a minimum age of 18 to purchase, handle, or apply pesticides occupationally, and a

minimum age of 16 to purchase, handle, or apply pesticides on a family farm.

Option 3

Establish a minimum age of 18 to purchase, handle, or apply pesticides occupationally with a

exemption allowing applicators to be 16 when employed by a family member on a farm or as

part of a family-owned business

Option 4

Establish a minimum age of 18 to purchase, handle or apply pesticides occupationally with a

provision for a hardship exemption allowing private applicators no younger than 16 in specific

situations

Option 5

Establish a minimum age of 16 to purchase, handle, or apply pesticides occupationally

Option 6

Establish a minimum age of 18 to apply pesticides occupationally; do not establish a minimum

age for private applicators working on a family farm as defined under the Fair Labor Standards

Act.

The NCC encourages the Agency to minimize impacts to family farms and youth involvement in

agriculture. The NCC agrees with the Future Farmers of America (FFA) with regards to the

negative impact the preceding regulation suggestion could have on valuable educational

experience programs conducted by the FFA. Additionally, youth working on family farms

receive extensive supervision and training from parents and extended family members. At times,

the survival of the family farm may require only family member participation due to financial

limitations. Another consideration includes the successful entry of young farmers into the

farming profession. As youth reach the age of 18, the decision of future occupation is at hand.

Adding an additional family to support as a part of the farm operation often requires expanding

the operation or requires the parent to aid the financing of a farm operation venture for their

child. Without the previous occupational training as minor, the operation will be far less secure.

While the NCC appreciates means to provide safe working environments and particular
14

provisions to protect youth, the Agency is encouraged to consider long term impacts when youth

are restricted from agricultural experiences and make sure restrictions are necessary.

Aside from family farms, the NCC recognizes youth provide an important work force

supplement to many farms during the production season. The NCC would like clarification

about the restriction “to apply pesticides occupationally”. The NCC would request clarification

as to the restriction of handling and application of general use pesticides under the supervision of

a certified applicator. The NCC believes the Fair Labor Standards Act provides reasonable

protection in agricultural environments for youth at their greatest developmental period. The

NCC recognizes that while not all RUPs are of category I or II, the restriction covers the

pesticides with highly toxic and moderately toxic properties.

The NCC does not support any of the preceding options presented by the EPA. The inclusion of

“handle, or apply” raises concerns that such regulations would prohibit youth involvement in all

farm operation involving pesticides, even for general use pesticide products that are available to

home owners. The NCC supports a minimum age of 18 to purchase restricted use pesticides

with possible exceptions or hardship exceptions for family farms. The NCC does not support

handling or applying restrictions beyond the extent of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Question 1. Why would you support or not support an exemption for family farms?

The NCC would support exemptions for family farms. The NCC believes supervision and

training on family farms far exceed the norms for employees. Additionally, the participation of

the family is often critical for the financial survival of the family farm. The educational

experience for a future occupation as the owner of a farm greatly enhances the prospects for

success. The NCC believes youth involvement in farming practices is critical for the future of

agriculture in the U.S.

Question 2. Do you have a suggested definition of family farm besides the Fair Labor Standards

Act definition?

The NCC would encourage the Agency to maintain the definition of the Fair Labor Standards

Act. Many employers have become familiar with the definition and may assume the definition to

be the same. Different definitions create confusion that may result in inadvertent noncompliance.

Question 3. Should a family exemption extend beyond agricultural use? How would it be

defined?

No Comments to Add.
15

C & T 6

Title: Standard Exam Development and Administration Requirements

Issue: Pesticide applicator certification exams range in quality and in administration due to the

lack of a strong federal standard.

Option 1. Define and require minimum standards for a secure exam

Option 2. Define and require minimum standards for a secure and content-relevant exam

The NCC believes the current system is adequate and should be maintained. The NCC does not

support C & T 6 entitled Standard Exam Development and Administration Requirements. The

NCC believes states are qualified to ensure exams are appropriate without federal burdens on

state budgets.

C & T 7

Title: Better Protect Human Health and the Environment by Establishing National Standards

for Recertification that Cover Core Competencies as well as the Changing Field of Pesticide

Application

Issue: Current regulations lack provisions detailing how frequently or in what manner ongoing

applicator competency should be gauged.

Option 1. Set a federal recertification period and standard for recertification programs

Option 2. Require applicators to recertify by taking an exam every 5 years.

Option 3. Require mandatory retesting for core material, and mandatory training for categories.

Option 4. Require applicators to be recertified by conducting an application while being

observed and evaluated on their performance.

The NCC supports the states rights to determine the need for increased frequency and

competency gauges. The states are more capable of evaluating the success of programs in the

state and determining the need for improvement or additional training. The NCC believes the

states should not be forced to add additional testing and costs if no needs are present. Calls,

reports, incidents, and other information at state levels help determine the need for cost effective

use of funds including increased testing or better testing gauges.

Conclusion

The NCC continues to support Worker Protection Standards with a mission to provide a safe

working environment for employees. However, the NCC believes the EPA is considering major

revisions to the Worker Protection Standards that are costly and not justifiable at this time. The

recent completion of the pesticide re-registration process has removed many of the toxic
16

compounds from the market and will dramatically impact worker protection as well as

environmental and public health. Evidence of the early impact of WPS and re-registration

procedures that resulted in the removal of some pesticides can be found in a recent article

published by one of the EPA’s employees titled “Decline in pesticide poisonings in the United

States from 1995 to 2004.”1These data refer to the current WPS and early product cancellation

as factors resulting in the significant decline of pesticide poisonings. It is important to consider

these data were prior to the completion of re-registration and that the data report 93% of the

pesticide incidents were residential, not production agriculture. The Agency’s use of data prior to

re-registration as justification for regulation changes is not appropriate due to the removal of

many pesticides from the market. Additionally, some proposed regulations extend beyond the

work place which creates concern that such regulations may not be appropriate for Worker

Protection Standard.

The NCC believes some proposed changes are warranted. Examples include the frequency of

worker training (see comment NCC comment of July 15) and some language clarification issues.

The NCC encourages the Agency to proceed with these changes.

The Agency is encouraged to refrain from the belief all states should be treated the same.

Activities vary greatly between states and states should be allowed to determine best approach

and improvements needed based on events within the state. Conversely, states should not be

forced to incur additional cost to meet the needs of other states regardless of whether or not the

need exist within the state itself.

The review of the proposed changes often seemed to imply vegetable production practices were

in mind as the regulations were written. The NCC encourages the Agency not to impose a rule

on all agricultural practices if the risk of concern is derived from a certain segment. The Agency

has recognized such differences in the previous WPS and has specified requirements for

Nurseries and Greenhouse segment that were not applicable to other production segments. The

NCC appreciates such recognition of differing practices and operation activities between

segments and encourages the Agency to continue addressing the segment of concern without

placing costly burdens on all segments of Agriculture.

The NCC greatly appreciates the patience and cooperation of the Agency with regards to

allowing comments on the preceding propositions and looks forward to working with the Agency

in the development of an appropriate Worker Protection Standard.

Sincerely,

Bill M. Norman, D. Engr.

Vice President, Technical Services

Reference

1. Blondell, J.M. 2007. Decline of pesticide poisonings in the United States from 1995 to

2004. Clinical Toxicology (2007) 45, 589-592.
June 5, 2007 

Mr. Kevin Keaney 

Chief Certification and Worker Protection Branch 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Field and External Affairs Division 

Box 7506P 

One Potomac Yard 

2777 South Crystal Drive 

Arlington, Virginia 22202 

RE: Worker Protection Standard Proposal 

Dear Mr. Keaney: 

The Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) is a trade association representing 

over 260 companies engaged in the manufacture, formulation, distribution, and sale of 

specialty products for household, institutional and industrial use. Our member companies 

produce a wide range of products such as disinfectants, disinfectant cleaners, household 

insecticides, insect repellants, and insect control products for companion animals. These 

products provide important public health benefits to consumers and are vital in protecting 

against disease and infestation. 

I appreciate the opportunity you provided to me yesterday to discuss CSPA’s concerns on 

the scope of EPA’s Worker Protection Standard proposal. We are pleased to learn that 

EPA’s proposal will not include occupational applicators of pet products, consumer 

ready-to-use non-agricultural pesticides, such as insecticides and insect repellants, as well 

as antimicrobial products. CSPA requests that if EPA considers further requirements for 

the application of these products or plans to undergo educational efforts on such, CSPA 

be contacted to discuss the most effective and practical methods that would address 

EPA’s concerns. 

Once again, we appreciate the Agency’s solicitation of stakeholder input and opportunity 

to provide these comments. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please 

do not hesitate to contact me at 202-833-7303. 

Sincerely, 

Jane E. Wishneff 

Regulatory Counsel 

Serving Makers of Formulated Products for Home and Commercial Use Since 1914 

900 17th Street, NW Suite 300 • Washington, DC 20006 • T: 202.872.8110 • F: 202.872.8114 • ww.cspa.org 

79 of 113
June 22, 2007 

Kevin Keaney 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Dear Mr. Keaney: 

The Farmworker Association of Florida is writing this letter to the EPA in order to 

submit our comments on the Worker Protection Standards review as applies to 

farmworkers and nursery workers. As a non-profit, grassroots organization with a 

statewide membership of over 7,000 farmworker families and with over 20 years of 

experience in working with the farmworker community in Florida, we feel we have some 

important insights to share with the Agency in terms of the need for greater protections 

for farmworkers’ health and safety. We feel that, while great progress has been made in 

the advancement and development of agricultural techniques in the past decade, similar 

progress in enhancing protections for workers has not kept pace. Recent scientific 

research has indicated links between Parkinson’s disease, learning disabilities in children, 

and even diabetes and pesticide exposure. Farmworkers are the most vulnerable 

population in terms of exposure to pesticides on both a regular and long-term basis. 

Every precaution must be taken to protect the lives and the welfare of farmworker 

families. We would like to submit the following comments and recommendations for 

improving the way agricultural workers are guarded against the hazards of the industry. 

Training

Suggestion: Require annual pesticide trainings. Currently, the WPS requires that 

farmworkers receive pesticide trainings once every five years. Considering the serious 

risks posed by pesticide exposure and the frequency of contact between farmworkers and 

agricultural pesticides, we feel that annual pesticide trainings are a must, in order to 

reinforce the dangers of exposure and the safety measures farmworkers should follow. 

Five years in between trainings allows workers to become complacent and unmindful of 

the daily risks they encounter. Since most employers use the EPA video as a training 

tool, and since most farmworkers say they generally pay little attention to the required 

video, a mandatory yearly training is one method of emphasizing the seriousness of the 

material presented in the training. This leads us to our second suggestion. 

Suggestion: Require oral, language-appropriate testing of workers to ensure they 

understand the contents of the training. Oral question and answer testing, in the language 

of the workers, should be required before workers actually begin to work. The purpose 

of the testing is to ensure that workers fully understand the information in the training 

video, that they are active participants in protecting their health, that they know their 

rights and their employer’s responsibility to follow the regulations, and that they have a 

right to a safe workplace. Too often, we hear from workers that they are sent to watch a 

video that has little meaning for them. Employers often show the video in order to 

80 of 113
comply with regulations, without making the employees aware of the purpose of the 

training and the importance of the contents. In some cases, contract laborers tell workers 

to sign a paper saying that they have been trained, without their actually having received 

training. Implementing a method of testing workers would help to solve some of these 

serious problems. 

Suggestion: Require of the employer “comprehension testing” two weeks after training 

to: 1) ensure that farmworkers did indeed receive the training, and 2) assess the 

comprehension and retention of the workers of the information that they learned in the 

training. This training could take an “interactive” approach; that is, workers can be asked 

to demonstrate what they would in certain situations, such as, washing hands before 

eating lunch, smoking a cigarette or going to the bathroom. The purpose of this is threefold: to determine the level of understanding of the workers of the risks of pesticide 

exposure; to put into practice the health and safety measures workers can take to protect 

themselves; and to remind them of their rights and what to do in case of illness or injury. 

Suggestion: Require training prior to beginning work. The current “grace period” of five 

days before a worker must be trained is not graceful at all, when workers risk exposure to 

pesticides that can affect their health and the health of their families. It only takes one 

acute exposure to cause serious health impacts, possibly even permanent damage to men 

and women who are not informed of the fact that they are coming in contact with 

chemicals that are potentially harmful. Workers in most other industries must receive 

training before they are actually allowed to begin their work. One option to facilitate this 

would be to assign a new worker for a day or two to follow a trained worker, who would 

be responsible to train the new worker in the health and safety protections and WPS. The 

“mentor system” could be used until such time as the full training is offered to the new 

employee. However, to avoid abuse, the trained worker would need to be certified and 

understand that pesticide safety training of new workers is a responsibility of his/her job. 

Suggestion: Require certified trainers to conduct trainings in conjunction with the 

training video. The most common method of training is the EPA training video. While 

the video itself is informative and complete, its effectiveness, without an interactive 

component, is very limited. We have come to understand this from talking with 

hundreds, if not thousands, of farmworkers over the years, the majority of whom say that 

they did not understand the purpose or importance of the video. A certified trainer that 

can engage workers in a dialogue and/or discussion about the information that is 

presented is one method of conveying the information in a more concrete and impactful 

way. The Farmworker Association uses EPA certified Pesticide Health and Safety 

trainers in a 1 1⁄2 hour long popular education method of training, which engages 

farmworkers in interactive activities that builds on their personal experiences. It includes 

game playing, and questions and answers to determine workers’ understanding and 

retention of the materials presented. Our experience has been that workers, even those 

that have spent significant time working in agricultural, learn a great deal more through 

this method of training then through watching a video that does not engage them. 

81 of 113
Suggestion: Require trainings to include pertinent information specific to woman of 

child-bearing age, to workers with families with young children, and to workers with 

illnesses, such as diabetes. Many pesticides in use today can be endocrine disrupters, 

teratogenic, cancer-causing, or otherwise put a woman at risk for her reproductive health 

and/or the health of her developing fetus. In order to avoid birth defects, miscarriages, 

infertility, sterility or other reproductive problems, the toxicity of pesticides used in the 

industry should be made clear to the workers in no uncertain terms. Men and women are 

more apt to take protective measures if they realize that their actions will affect their 

children and/or any offspring that they may hope to have. In addition, pesticide exposure 

can be more severe for people already suffering from disease or illness. These points 

need to be emphasized in order to affect the workers’ behavior. 

Right to Know

Suggestion: Require employers to notify in an intentional way, through posted notices, 

printed hand outs passed out to each worker and through supervisors, the name of a 

chemical at the time of application and the possible side effects from exposure. In this 

way, if a worker begins to experience certain unexplained symptoms, they will then be 

able to make the connection between the symptom and possible exposure. If medical 

attention is needed, they will then have the name of the pesticide to give to the medical 

provider. 

Notification

Suggestion: Require a “skull and crossbones” sign in all instances of application of 

pesticides with a Restricted Entry Interval (REI) of 72 hours or more. The skull and 

cross bones are generally understood worldwide as a sign of danger. Posting such a sign 

sends a universal message, to the literate and illiterate alike, as well as speakers of any 

language, that there is danger present. Such a sign is more apt to receive greater 

attention, respect and compliance, and, hence, provide greater protection to workers. 

Suggestion: Require the posting of signs, in fields under an REI within a 30-day period, 

to include information about the name of the pesticide, the date and time of application of 

the pesticide, the REI, and how to contact the employer. There are various reasons for 

this suggestion, one of which deals with the climate in Florida. High humidity can keep 

plants moist and wet and, thus, keep pesticides in a more potent phase for longer periods 

of time. In addition, people with compromised immune systems, children, the elderly, 

and others may be more susceptible to low-dose pesticide exposure and/or to delayed 

symptoms to exposure. Knowing what they might have been exposed to offers workers 

the opportunity to identify a possible pesticide exposure as a culprit in a late manifested 

health symptom. 

Suggestion: Require the posting of information of the location of local health care clinics 

and emergency room services, including information that they treat documented as well 

as the undocumented immigrants. Farmworkers often travel to new locations in search of 

work. They need information about the locations of community health centers, 

farmworker clinics and emergency rooms in their area, in case they and/or their family 

members experience symptoms after regular working hours. Too often, farmworkers 

82 of 113
suffer work-related illnesses that never go reported, which in part is responsible for the 

under-reporting of pesticide exposure cases. If workers have information displayed in the 

workplace about where they can go to get medical attention, they may be more inclined 

to seek help when they need it. 

Greenhouses

Suggestion: Require evacuation of all greenhouse workers during times of pesticide 

application. At a minimum, increase the 25foot protection area. Workers have told us 

that they both feel and smell pesticides that are being applied within the 25’ buffer zone 

in greenhouses.Special conditions in greenhouses, including high humidity, intense heat, 

closed conditions, and inconsistent ventilation based on wind and air circulation, make it 

too risky for any workers to remain in greenhouses during times of spraying of pesticides. 

The combination of heat and humidity along with exposure to chemicals can have a 

compounded impact on a worker who otherwise might be unaffected. Too avoid risk, all 

workers should be evacuated. Pesticide applicators should be required to wear protective 

gear and work for short time periods, so as not to succumb to heat exhaustion. 

Additionally, provisions must be made, such that workers’ drinking water and cups do 

not remain within a greenhouse while spraying is going on. This problem has been 

reported to us by workers, and we feel this presents a significant problem that needs to be 

addressed. 

Scope of WPS

Suggestion: Require WPS protections for workers in the dairy, livestock, sod laying, 

landscape and lawn maintenance industries. As development rapidly overtakes farmland 

in Florida, farmworkers often move from farming to landscape and lawn maintenance 

companies and to laying sod along roadways and new housing developments. 

Additionally, as intensive dairy farming and livestock grazing concentrate in ever 

decreasing rural areas, workers move from crop agriculture to these new areas of work. 

In this transition, they are all too often not provided with the information that they need 

to protect themselves from lawn pesticides, animal feed chemicals, and other substances 

of concern to their health. Worker Protection Standards for these industries, similar to 

those already in place, but specially designed for the industry in question, should be 

developed and implemented by EPA in order to reduce the risk to the health of these 

workers. 

Labor Camps

Suggestion: Require buffer zones around all farmworker housing that is located in and/or 

near farmland and/or nurseries and ferneries. In Florida, we have identified labor camps 

– farmworker housing, generally trailers – that are within 10 feet of tomato fields where 

methyl bromide is applied. Families, with small children, live in these trailers. Children 

often play outside in the dirt. This scenario raises many disturbing questions about the 

exposure of children and whole families to agricultural chemicals used in such close 

proximity to people’s living quarters. One remedy for such a scenario is to require 

adequate (minimum 100 feet) buffer zones around any farmworker housing areas. Built 

in to the requirement for buffer zones must be a mechanism for enforcement. Perhaps 

83 of 113
global positioning data should be submitted to EPA or corresponding state agencies by 

the employer to monitor for any unaccounted for housing located in “off limits” areas. 

Pesticide Applicators/Mixers/Loaders

Suggestion: Require apprenticeships, competency testing, and registration of all trained 

pesticide applicators/ mixers/ loaders. All persons preparing to mix, load, and/or apply 

pesticides should first pass through an apprenticeship period of one month, before being 

certified. The apprenticeship period should include a competency test, which must be 

both written, oral, and hands on, to indicate that the worker has an adequate and 

competent understanding of the work to be done. All trained workers should be 

registered with the appropriate state agency and the EPA to ensure accountability and to 

enable workers to transfer their skills within the industry. 

Suggestion: Require that a certified applicator be present to oversee all applications of 

agricultural pesticides. This could mean that the applicator can oversee several 

operations at a time, by moving from one area to another, but that oversight is maintained 

in all cases, the certified applicator should record the time of each “check in” along with 

the signature of the workers being overseen. 

We would like to thank the EPA for initiating this process of review of the WPS, and we 

hope that you will seriously take into consideration the suggestions that we are 

submitting herein. Farmworker organizations are in the best position to know and 

understand the reality of the workers, and, hence, have pertinent information to inform 

the discussion. 

Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. We would be happy to discuss 

these suggestions with you further. 

Sincerely, 

Tirso Moreno 

General Coordinator 

 

84 of 113
June 29, 2007 

Kevin Keaney 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Washington DC 20460 

worker_safety_regulation_change@epa.gov 

keaney.kevin@epa.gov 

Dear Kevin: 

These comments are submitted by Farmworker Justice, California Rural Legal Assistance 

Foundation, Legal Aid Services of Oregon, and Migrant Clinicians Network on behalf of 

migrant and seasonal farmworkers. 

The comments below provide additional support for the needed improvements in the 

Worker Protection Standard (WPS), which were detailed in the December 15, 2006, letter 

from Shelley Davis to Stephen Johnson, which was signed by more than 50 groups. 

I. The Full Range of Health Risks to Workers and Their Families Must Be 

Considered in Assessing the Benefits of WPS Improvements 

In conducting a cost-benefit assessment to support needed improvements in the WPS, 

EPA must consider the full range of adverse health effects to farmworkers and their 

spouses and children. These include: adverse neurobehavioral changes caused by low 

level (subacute) exposures, adverse reproductive outcomes, developmental problems, 

long-term neurological disorders (e.g., Parkinson’s disease), and cancer. 

1. Acute Incidents are Underreported.

It is widely recognized that acute incidents are underreported because workers do not 

always seek medical treatment for mild or moderate symptoms; clinicians may not 

recognize pesticide-related illnesses; and even recognized cases may not be reported. 

Source: Summary Results of Yakima Farmworker Focus Groups About Pesticides and 

Health Care. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Health, September 2003. 

Available at http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/oehas/EHA_publications.htm. 

In six focus groups with farmworkers conducted by the Washington State Health 

Department, nearly 75% of the participants reported that they would not seek medical 

attention for the mild or moderate symptoms of pesticide exposure. 

1

85 of 113
2. Even low-level (subacute) exposures to pesticides can be harmful.

Source: Rothlein, Joan, Rohlman, Diane, Lasarev, Michael, Phillips, Jackie, Muniz, Juan, 

McCauley, Linda. Organophosphate Pesticide Exposure and Neurobehavioral 

Performance in Agricultural and Nonagricultural Hispanic Workers. Environmental 

Health Perspectives 114(5): 691-696, 2006. 

Researchers compared the neurobehavioral performance of Mexican immigrant 

farmworkers working in Oregon with that of Mexican immigrants working in the hotel 

and restaurant industries in a nearby town. (Subjects and controls had similar 

demographic profiles with regard to age, education and other pertinent variables.) They 

found that the neurobehavioral performance of farmworkers was significantly poorer than 

that observed in controls. Within the sample of agricultural workers, researchers noted 

that there was a positive correlation between organophosphate urinary metabolite levels 

and poor performance on neurobehavioral tests. 

Source: Coronado et al. Agricultural Task and Exposure to Organophosphate Pesticides 

Among Farmworkers. Environmental Health Perspectives 112(2):142-147, 2004. 

Using a random sample of 213 farmworkers in 24 communities and labor camps in 

eastern Washington State, Coronado et al. examined the association between 

occupational task and organophosphate (OP) pesticide residues in dust and OP metabolite 

concentrations in urine samples of adult farmworkers and their children. Commonly 

reported farm tasks were harvesting or picking (79.2%), thinning (64.2%), loading plants 

or produce (42.2%), planting or transplanting (37.6%), and pruning (37.2%). Mixing, 

loading, or applying pesticide formulations was reported by 20% of their sample. 

Workers who thinned were more likely than those who did other tasks to have detectable 

levels of azinphos-methyl in their house dust (92.1% vs. 72.7%; p = 0.001) and vehicle 

dust (92.6% vs. 76.5%; p = 0.002). Contrary to expectation, workers who reported 

mixing, loading, or applying pesticide formulations had lower detectable levels of 

pesticide residues in their house or vehicle dust, compared with those who did not 

perform these job tasks, though the differences were not significant. The proportion of 

detectable levels of the urinary metabolite DMP showed a slight trend towards greater 

proportions among workers who performed field work (harvesting or picking, pruning, 

loading, packing, or sorting plants, fruits or vegetables; weeding, thinning, or irrigating) 

compared to workers who mixed, loaded or applied pesticides. Nonetheless, regardless of 

task, workers in all categories had detectable levels of OP metabolites in their urine. The 

finding of pervasive organophosphate urinary metabolites in the bodies of workers is of 

particular concern in light of the results of Rothlein et al. (see above) showing that such 

levels could lead to detectable decrements in neurobehavioral functioning. 

3. Farmworkers have an increased risk of a variety of reproductive health problems, 

including an increase in babies born with birth defects

Female farmworkers and women married to farmworkers need to know the specific 

details of the pesticides to which they or their spouses are exposed because of the serious 

2

86 of 113
and sometimes deadly consequences of that exposure on their unborn children, as found 

in the following studies. 

Source: Chelminski AN, Higgins S. Assessment of Maternal Occupational Pesticide 

Exposures During Pregnancy and Three Children with Birth Defects: North Carolina 

2004. Raleigh NC: North Carolina Department of Public Health and Human Services, 

2006. Available at http://search.nc.gov/DHHS/query.html. 

It is “plausible” to conclude that occupational pesticide exposure to a pregnant Ag-Mart 

field worker caused her son, Carlitos, to be born with no arms or legs, according to a May 

2006 report issued by the Occupational and Environmental Epidemiologic Branch 

(OEEB) of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. 

Between December 2004 and February 2005, three babies with severe birth defects were 

born to farmworker women who planted and harvested grape tomatoes for Ag-Mart farms 

in Florida and North Carolina. In addition to Carlitos, there was Violeta, who had 

multiple deformities (e.g., no discernable genitalia, a hole in the heart, cleft palate, no 

nose or ear) and died within three days, and Jesus, who has Pierre Robin’s syndrome (i.e., 

deformed jaw, which impedes swallowing and speech). OEEB also noted that while 

pesticide exposure may have contributed to Jesus’ defects, his father’s family also had a 

history of jaw deformities (i.e., micrognathia), so no firm conclusions could be reached 

about the role of pesticides. The third mother did not work in North Carolina during the 

critical period of her pregnancy, so OEEB reached no conclusion about her case. Six 

pesticides used by Ag-Mart in North Carolina have been shown to cause birth defects in 

animal studies. 

In its investigation, the OEEB drew on many sources, including data collected by the 

Florida and North Carolina Departments of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS 

and NCD&CS, respectively) and the Collier County (Florida) Health Department 

(CCHD). These sources included: (i) medical information for two of the three mothers 

and infants as well as the actual medical records for Carlitos and his mother; (ii) 

information obtained by CCHD from in-depth interviews with the six affected parents 

concerning their possible use of medications, alcohol and drugs, their dietary, work and 

lifestyle habits, and their family and medical histories; (iii) a literature review of articles 

addressing the possible association between pesticides and birth defects; (iv) a review of 

the North Carolina Birth Defects registry; (v) information from an interview with 

Carlitos’ mother by OEEB; (vi) Ag-Mart/North Carolina pesticide application and payroll 

records; and (vii) Ag-Mart/North Carolina work assignment records, covering all workers 

supervised by a particular crew leader. OEEB researchers focused on the period 

beginning three months prior to the babies’ conceptions through the mothers’ thirteenth 

week of pregnancy. From this information, OEEB learned when the pregnant women 

were exposed to pesticides associated with birth defects and when these exposures 

occurred in possible violation of restricted entry interval requirements (REI). The only 

significant medical information obtained was that Jesus’ father’s family has a history of 

deformed jaws. 

3

87 of 113
OEEB also noted that both FDACS and NCDACS have charged Ag-Mart with 

committing many pesticide safety violations. They include putting workers back into 

fields prior to the expiration of the REIs, failing to provide adequate training or label 

information to pesticide handlers, failing to provide workers with adequate supplies of 

hand washing or drinking water, allowing the open burning of pesticide containers, etc. 

NCDACS alleged that Ag-Mart committed 369 violations and fined the company 

$184,500; FDACS charged Ag-Mart with 88 safety violations and fined it $111,200. The 

company is challenging both the alleged violations and the penalties. 

Based on its investigation, OEEB recommended, among other actions, (i) development of 

a surveillance system to collect incidents of acute pesticide exposure and require doctors 

to report such cases; (ii) improve health providers’ education to enable them to recognize, 

manage and report pesticide-related illnesses; (iii) add parental occupation to birth 

certificates, which would enable the birth defects registry to compare incidents affecting 

agricultural and non-agricultural workers: and (iv) that the Environmental Protection 

Agency strengthen the Worker Protection Standard to require documentation of the 

workers’ field locations to improve investigations of possible REI violations. 

Source: Garry VF, Harkin M. Pesticide Appliers, Biocides, and Birth Defects in Rural 

Minnesota. Environmental Health Perspectives 104(4):394-399, 1996. 

Researchers in Minnesota who examined certificates for 210,000 live births, found that 

children of pesticide applicators had a rate of birth defects of 30 per 100,000 live births, 

which was 60% higher than the rate of birth defects for children born in the Twin Cities 

(18.3 per 1,000 live births) to parents who did not have occupational pesticide exposure. 

Source: Garry VF, Holland SE, Erickson LL, Burroughs BL. Male Reproductive 

Hormones and Thyroid Function in Pesticide Applicators in the Red River Valley of 

Minnesota. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A 66:965-986, 2003. 

In the Minnesota study, researchers also found that current and past exposures to 

pesticides found that birth defects were more common in male children than in female 

children born to spouses of pesticide applicators. 

Garry VF, Harkins M, Lyubimov A, Erickson L, Long L. Reproductive Outcomes in the 

women of the Red River Valley of the North. I. The spouses of pesticide applicators: 

pregnancy loss, age at menarche, and exposures to pesticides. Journal of Toxicology and 

Environmental Health, Part A 65:769-786, 2002. 

Spouses of applicators in the Minnesota study were more likely to experience 

miscarriages (OR=1.8), and also gave birth to a significantly reduced number of male 

children versus female as compared with the expected sex ratio at birth. 

Source: Lacasaña M, Vázquez-Grameix H, Borja-Aburto VH, Blanco-Muñoz J, Romeiu 

I, Aguilar-Garduño, García AM. Maternal and paternal occupational exposure to 

4

88 of 113
agricultural work and the risk of anencephaly. Occupational and Environmental 

Medicine 63:649-656, 2006. 

Researchers found an increased risk (OR = 4.57, CI 1.05 to 19.96) of anencephaly (a 

devastating neural tube defect) in offspring of mothers with occupational exposure to 

pesticides. In addition, the results suggest that paternal exposure to pesticides during the 

periconceptional period or before may also increase this risk. 

Nickerson K. Environmental Contaminants in Breast Milk. Journal of Midwifery & 

Women’s Health 51:26-34, 2006. 

Breast feeding is a significant source of infant exposure to fat-soluble pesticides, which 

includes the organochlorines, which can accumulate in the mother’s body for years 

before conception. 

Saldana TM, Basso O, Hoppin JA, Baird DD, Knott C, Blair A, Alavanja MCR, Sandler 

DP. Pesticide exposure and self-reported gestational diabetes mellitus in the Agricultural 

Health Study. Diabetes Care 30:529-534, 2007. 

Exposure at any point in life to four herbicides and three insecticides commonly used in 

agriculture was associated with a doubling of the risk for developing gestational diabetes 

mellitus (OR = 2.2, CI 1.5-3.3) among women married to pesticide applicators in this 

longitudinal national study. 

4. Neurological Disorders

Source: Kamel F, Tanner CM, Umbach DM, Hoppin JA, Alavanja MCR, Blair A, 

Comyns K, Goldman SM, Korell M, Langston JW, Ross GW, Sandler DP. Pesticide 

Exposure and Self-reported Parkinson’s Disease in the Agricultural Health Study. 

American Journal of Epidemiology 165 (4): 364-374, 2007. 

Evidence continues to mount that pesticide exposure increases the risk for developing 

neurological problems, especially among applicators. A number of studies have linked 

pesticide application to an increased risk for developing Parkinson’s Disease (PD), a 

neurodegenerative disease for which the cause is not fully known. PD is most commonly 

diagnosed in older individuals, and making the connection with years or decades of 

pesticide exposure can be difficult without extensive records. One source of data for 

investigating the association of PD with pesticide exposure is the Agricultural Health 

Study (AHS), a national study of pesticide applicators and their spouses being conducted 

by the National Institutes of Health and the US Environmental Protection Agency. 

The AHS has data on health and work histories from over 89,000 licensed pesticide 

applicators and their spouses from Iowa and North Carolina. Data were collected at two 

points in time 6 years apart using self-reporting questionnaires. Eighty-three cases were 

identified at the first point in time (i.e., prevalent PD), and an additional 78 cases 

developed during the next six years of the study (i.e., incident PD). Prevalent PD was 

5

89 of 113
found to be associated with use of paraquat (OR = 1.8, CI = 1.0 to 3.4) and cyanazine 

(OR = 2.6, CI = 1.4 to 4.9). For people who developed PD during the study, the disease 

was associated with use of trifuralin (OR = 1.7, CI = 1.0 to 3.2), 2,4,5-T (OR= 1.8, 

confidence interval = 1 to 3.3), and methyl bromide (OR= 2.1, CI = .9 to 4.9). The 

strongest association with incident PD was cumulative lifetime exposure to pesticides of 

any type. 

This study adds to the evidence that pesticides may be responsible for a host of serious, 

long-term health problems in individuals who are exposed on a regular basis, including 

farmworkers. 

5. Farmworkers have an increased risk for certain cancers, which may be associated with 

pesticide exposure.

Source: Mills, P, Farmworkers of America 1987-1997, American Journal of Industrial 

Medicine 40:596-603, 2001. 

Researchers examined the California cancer registry for the period 1987-1997 and 

compared the cancer rates of members and retirees of the United Farm Workers (UFW) 

with that of all Latinos living in California. They found that UFW members and retirees 

had elevated rates of: leukemia (Odds ratio (OR): 1.59); stomach cancer (OR: 1.69; 

uterine/cervix cancer (OR: 1.63); uterine corpus cancer: (OR: 1.68); and brain cancer 

(OR: 1.57). “Occupational exposure, particularly to pesticides may explain the elevated 

risk of leukemia and brain cancer” (p. 600). 

 

6. Long-Term Effects - General

McCauley LA, Anger KW, Keifer M, Langley R, Robson MG, Rohlman D. Studying 

Health Outcomes in Farmworker Populations Exposed to Pesticides. Environmental 

Health Perspectives 114(6):953-960, 2006. 

Many studies have shown associations between pesticide exposures and chronic health 

effects. Strong evidence supports the link to certain cancers, such as non-Hodgkin’s 

lymphoma, leukemia, multiple myeloma and prostate cancer (Alavanja et al. 2004; 

Daniels et al. 1997); neurological problems, such as memory loss, attention deficits and 

cognitive dysfunction (Rohlman et al. 2001); and birth defects, especially orofacial clefts 

and musculoskeletal disorders (Hanke & Jurewicz 2004). Yet significant challenges 

remain in studying the long-term health effects of pesticide exposure in farmworkers. To 

advance this research, McCauley and colleagues present a brief overview of the existing 

literature, identify research challenges in studying farmworkers and suggest helpful 

approaches and methods for tackling these issues. 

Using an epidemiological lens, “[t]he basic components that are necessary to effectively 

study the association between pesticide exposure and health effects are determination of 

the population at risk; a valid determination of exposure; verification of diagnosis, 

symptom, or biological marker of a health effect among the populations being studied; 

6

90 of 113
methods to link individual exposure to health effects; and the ability to establish a 

temporal relationship between the exposure and the health effect” (McCauley et al. 2006: 

954). But many of these basic data are unavailable for the farmworker population (e.g., 

number of farmworkers, names of products and amounts of pesticides to which they are 

exposed, number of acute poisoning cases, complete health records for workers). 

Consequently, the methods and approaches for collecting data need to be customized to 

fit the farmworkers’ needs. 

II. Farmworkers Working in Treated Areas (Post-Application Workers) 

1. Training

Training should be conducted annually and should address, among other topics, hazard 

communication (i.e., the short- and long- term health effects associated with each 

pesticide used at the worksite), protecting children, and workers’ rights. 

Source: Flocks J, Monaghan P, Albrecht S, Bahena A. Florida Farmworkers’ Perceptions 

and Lay Knowledge of Occupational Pesticides. Journal of Community Health 32(3): 

181-194, 2007. 

A number of studies have been conducted to document the perceptions and beliefs held 

by farmworkers in the US about pesticide exposure and related health risks. Federal 

requirements for pesticide safety training for workers cover a range of technical issues, 

e.g., re-entry intervals and application notifications, but do not address the personal 

concerns of workers about their own and their families’ health. This study conducted in 

Florida concerning farmworkers understanding of occupational pesticides found that the 

knowledge gaps are frequently filled using personal experience. While much of this “lay 

knowledge” is in agreement with generally accepted medical science, some of it is 

inaccurate in ways that may lead to increased exposures. 

Over 100 farmworkers participated in a series of focus groups in which they discussed a 

variety of topics related to pesticides in the workplace, including classification, means of 

exposure, routes into the body, and adverse health effects. Farmworkers generally did not 

know the names of pesticides they applied, and often referred to them using the Spanish 

words for “poison” or “medicine.” They included an array of agricultural chemicals in the 

category of pesticides, some of which, such as fertilizers and growth enhancers, were not 

considered dangerous. The workers had generally accurate knowledge of the ways they 

could be exposed in the fields as well as in enclosed settings such as nurseries. They were 

aware of the various ways in which pesticides could enter the body, and spoke of 

pesticides “going to the brain” after being inhaled. Because workers usually did not know 

about applications at their worksites, they tended to rely on their sense of smell to 

determine whether pesticides were present. The odor itself was considered the source of 

some of the negative reactions, e.g., dizziness or headaches. Workers were least confident 

of their knowledge of the long term health effects of exposure, especially with respect to 

reproductive health. Children and women were considered more vulnerable to adverse 

effects due to being “weaker” than adult males. 

7

91 of 113
These findings demonstrate that although farmworkers have accurate knowledge on 

certain aspects of pesticide safety and exposure risk, important gaps remain. Workers 

need timely, unimpeded access to information about applications, including the name of 

the pesticide(s) used and their short- and long- term health effects. Workers also need to 

be educated that odor is not a reliable means of detecting the presence of pesticides. They 

should be provided with appropriately detailed information on the possible reproductive 

health effects so they are better equipped to protect themselves and their families. 

Source: Elmore RC, Arcury TA. Pesticide Exposure Beliefs Among Latino Farmworkers in 

North Carolina’s Christmas Tree Industry, American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 

40:153-160, 2001. 

In a North Carolina study, based on interviews conducted by Arcury, workers reported 

that they did not know the long-term health effects of pesticide exposure or that 

poisoning could result from skin contact with pesticide residue. Many mistakenly believed 

that the harmfulness of a pesticide could be discerned from the strength of its odor and that 

adverse health effects would not last more than a day or two. As one worker put it: “I would 

like to know [about possible long-term health effects] to make sure I’m doing all I can to 

protect my family.” 

Source: US General Accounting Office, Occupational Safety and Health: Employers 

Experiences in Complying with the Hazard Communication Standard GAO/HRD – 92 – 

63BR, May 1992. 

In other industries, educating workers and employers about the specific chemical hazards 

they encounter on the job has led to increased workplace safety. A US General 

Accounting Office (GAO) study of the impact of the Hazard Communications Standard 

(HCS) found that 56 percent of employers who appeared to be complying with the 

standard reported a “great” or “very great’ improvement in the availability of hazard 

information in the workplace and in management’s awareness of workplace hazards. In 

addition, 30 percent of these employers replaced hazardous chemicals with less harmful 

ones, and 17 percent saw a reduction in workplace injuries. 

2. Workers should receive pesticide safety training before they work in treated areas.

Source: OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (HCS). GAO/HRD – 92 – 63BR. 

Under OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard, training on chemical hazards must take 

place before the worker is exposed to the chemical at the worksite. This training must 

include the short- and long- term health effects associated with the pesticide. 

8

92 of 113
3. Restricted Entry Interval (REI) exceptions: 

Source: Reeve M, Schafer K, Hallward K, Katten A. Fields of Poison: California 

Farmworkers and Pesticides. San Francisco, CA: Pesticide Action Network North 

America (PANNA), 2002. Available at http://www.pesticidereform.org/article.php?id=4 

In reviewing reported poisoning incidents in California, for the period 1998-2000, 

researchers found that about 25% (336 cases) involved exposure to pesticide residues. Of 

these incidents, violations contributed to 143 (43%) of the residue cases. As such, many 

residue incidents occur because growers are taking advantage of REI exceptions. To 

prevent injuries, these loopholes should be closed. 

4. Buffer zones should be required to protect sensitive areas, including labor camps.

Source: Reeve M, Schafer K, Hallward K, Katten A. Fields of Poison: California 

Farmworkers and Pesticides. San Francisco, CA: Pesticide Action Network North 

America (PANNA), 2002. Available at http://www.pesticidereform.org/article.php?id=4 

In an analysis of reported pesticide incidents in California, involving agricultural 

workers. 51% (681) cases involved pesticide drift . Violations contributed to 373 (55%) 

of the drift cases. In other instances, the protections against drift were not adequate to 

prevent exposure. Many labor camps are directly adjacent to treated areas, so 

farmworkers will be at risk if buffer zones are not required. 

III. Mixer, loader, applicator issues 

1. Users of respirators should have a medical evaluation and be fit tested

Sources: OSHA Respirator Standard; California Department of Pesticide Regulation, 

T3CCR6739 Respiratory Protection. 

Under OSHA’s respirator standard, workers who use a respirator must first be evaluated 

by a doctor to determine if their heart and lungs are strong enough to withstand the strain 

of breathing through a respirator. In certain instances, workers also must be educated as 

to how to obtain a tight seal between their face and the respirator. Recently, the 

California Department of Pesticide Regulation has updated pesticide worker safety 

requirements so they are now nearly equivalent to federal OSHA’s requirements 

Moreover, some pesticide fumigant labels now specify that the OSHA respiratory 

protection regulations must be followed for use of their products. 

Conclusion: 

Your consideration of our comments is much appreciated. 

Sincerely, 

9

93 of 113
Shelley Davis 

Farmworker Justice 

Anne Katten 

California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation 

Shelley Latin 

Legal Aid Services of Oregon 

Amy K. Liebman 

Migrant Clinicians Network 

10

94 of 113
June 29, 2007 

Kevin Keaney 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Washington DC 20460 

Dear Mr. Keaney: 

The Idaho Community Action Network (ICAN) is submitting the following comments 

on the proposed changes to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS). ICAN is a 

statewide grassroots organization with fourteen chapters around the state. ICAN 

promotes economic, racial, and social justice on the state and federal level. ICAN’s 

members include many farmworkers and we have worked for farmworker justice in Idaho 

and the nation. 

ICAN’s farmworker members have been exposed to pesticides on many occasions. We 

have worked to increase worker protections in Idaho, and we welcome this opportunity to 

comment on proposed federal changes to the Worker Protection Standard. 

Training 

We believe that the frequency of the worker training required by the WPS should be 

increased to every year. The information in the training is critical, and training workers 

every five years is insufficient. Growers should also be required to ensure that workers 

have been trained before they enter a field for the first time. In 2005, ICAN members 

were exposed to pesticides while working in an onion field that had been treated 

without the owner’s knowledge. Some of these workers were working in the field for 

the first time, and did not realize that the symptoms they were experiencing were due to 

pesticide exposure. If they had been trained, they could have protected themselves by 

leaving the field at the first sign of exposure. 

The training should include information about how to protect workers’ families from 

pesticide exposure. In 2006, students and faculty at Boise State University tested the 

hands of farmworkers at health fairs at three migrant labor camps in Idaho. They found 

that workers had hazardous and toxic chemical residues on their hands, including 

pesticides, even though they had washed and believed that their hands were clean. It is 

clear from this research that workers need more information about how to protect their 

families from pesticide exposure. A short article about this research is attached. 

95 of 113
Hazard Communication 

Farmworkers should receive health information about the specific pesticides used at the 

worksite. Because many workers in Idaho are hired by farm labor contractors, rather 

than by growers, it is critical that the grower provide this information directly to the 

workers when they are at the worksite, to ensure that they receive the correct 

information. Pesticide manufacturers should be responsible for preparing materials that 

growers can obtain when they purchase the pesticide and distribute to workers. The 

materials should be written in a way that is easy for a lay person to understand, and 

should be published in the most commonly spoken languages, including English and 

Spanish. 

Notification

In all fields that have been under an REI in the previous 30 days should include a sign 

posted at the usual points of entry with the following information: name of pesticide; 

application date and times; REI; and contact information for the grower. ICAN has 

supported changing the law in Idaho to require these signs. Growers should be required 

to warn workers verbally and post signs in the fields every time they apply a pesticide, 

and for 30 days after the REI has ended. 

In Idaho, communication problems between growers and farm labor contractors have 

led to accidental pesticide exposures that could be prevented if fields were clearly 

posted with information about pesticide applications. Most of Idaho’s growers hire 

workers through labor contractors, and the contractors do not know the history of every 

field that workers enter. Growers say that contractors do not always arrive with their 

crews at the time they have promised to arrive. When this happens, if the contractor 

does not contact the grower, workers can enter a field where pesticides have been 

applied because the grower and contractor have not communicated. 

Idaho’s rapid population growth has also created confusion. Many newcomers to 

Idaho’s rural areas have not lived near farms before and do not know about pesticide 

applications. These new residents live next door to fields, and they and their children 

walk, run, and play beside fields. Posting pesticide application information at points of 

entry will provide critical pesticide information for neighbors as well as farmworkers. 

Evidence of the need for stronger regulations 

In our grassroots work with farmworkers, we have found that many people have been 

exposed to pesticides and not reported that exposure because they did not understand 

until later that they had been exposed, because they were afraid of angering their 

employer by reporting, or because they were afraid of getting involved in an 

investigation because of their immigration status. As we researched the problem in 

Idaho, we found very few studies of the extent of pesticide exposure in Idaho, and no 

information even about the extent of pesticide use in Idaho. It would be a grave mistake 

to assume that pesticide exposure is not a problem because of the lack of published 

studies on the subject or reported exposure incidents. 

96 of 113
The Environmental Protection Agency should strengthen the Worker Protection 

Standard to protect farmworkers. ICAN would like to participate in the rule making 

process, and would welcome any further opportunity to comment on the changes, either 

in writing or through public hearings. Please inform us of future opportunities to 

comment on the regulations. 

Sincerely, 

97 of 113
After our AAPSE board call on our official comments on the expansion of 

C & T and WPS, I wanted make some additional personal comments. My 

comments are as an adult educator with 25 years of experience and not 

the President of AAPSE. This is the issue of written exams for the 

technician level under direct supervision and why I might support it in 

theory but not in practice. I support the idea of requiring basic 

training or at least the option of training in lieu of a written exam. 

Background on our state situation: 

I conduct new applicator training for commercial applicators. Many of 

the participants in my training are public people from parks, schools, 

universities, DOT etc. that are required to be licensed to use general 

use products in our state as well as private lawn/landscape companies 

and others. We have recently put increased emphasis on public groups 

being licensed and expanded the definition of public sites to hospitals, 

daycare, apt housing etc. However, we do allow direct supervision. We 

have a mandatory, trained serviceperson requirement for anyone who 

works under the direct supervision of any commercial type (includes 

public) applicator. In essence, WPS handler training was extended to all 

non-agricultural sectors. Training content is the handler manual under 

WPS with Ohio law and information added. Technician (trained 

serviceperson) training can be done by the employer as is the case with 

WPS. In this situation, if a person does not pass state license exams, 

they can continue to work under direct supervision. 

The problem in the real world with written exams only: 

There are hard-working, decent people who have difficulty just taking 

exams. Many individuals who EPA is proposing to extend licensing to 

may not be paid well and they do tough, dirty jobs and work long hours 

to support their families. Pesticide applications may be just a minor 

part of their total job but it is required. In some instances 

individuals may be functionally illiterate or have learning disabilities 

but they are capable workers. Some try again and again to pass the exams 

and their employers are concerned and would like to continue to employ 

them. My concern is that written credentialing exams may not really 

reflect whether a technician who does repetitive tasks can safely and 

responsibly apply pesticides (especially general use pesticides) in his 

job under supervision. Some exams emphasize "book learning" more than 

practical, on-the-job competencies. Many technicians could perform 

quite well if they didn't know the word adsorption for example. We 

have similar problems with vocabulary for the Amish and folks who are 

non-native speakers of English. I suspect this situation exists in other 

states. 

Since I am not convinced that written exams are a good measure of 

competency for supervised technicians, I would not want to deprive 

decent people their employment. We have a responsibility to protect 

people and the environment but HOW we do that so that we are not 

capricious or callous towards the realities of all our citizens is also 

important. These changes aren't just about "EPA's regulations" or state 

laws, they are about thousands of real people's jobs and lives. 

As an example, below is the labor statistics website section for what 

landscapers make and their education level. In 2004, 7 7% of the 

people had only a high school or less than a high school education. The 

median average income is only about $20,000. Certification exams and 

study materials are often written at levels much higher than the 

standard 6th grade reading level. Many of these groups have no voice or 

recourse if they would lose their job because they could not pass a 

test. Clearly training to protect their safety, others and the 

environment is important. We must exercise caution that we just don't 

do the expedient thing that is easiest to document such as written 

exams without a clear plan and funding for workforce assistance. Perhaps 

98 of 113
more appropriate would be documented training with practicals where 

they mix/load a product or actually spray using their equipment and deal 

with a mock spill etc. 

http://data.bls.gov/oep/servlet/oep.noeted.servlet.ActionServlet?Action=

emprprt&Occ=3730110537&Number=10&Sort=earn&Base=2004&Proj=2014&EdLevel=9

9&Search=Education&Type=Education&Phrase=&StartItem=0 

-- 

Joanne Kick-Raack 

State Pesticide Coordinator 

The Ohio State University 

Pesticide Education Program 

1991 Kenny Rd. 

Columbus, OH 43210 

kick-raack.1@osu.edu 

Ph. 614-247-7489 

FAX: 614-292-9783 

99 of 113
Kathy Davis 

Kathy Davis (7506P) 

Certification & Worker Protection Branch 

Field and External Affairs Division 

US EPA 

Dear Ms Davis: 

This email is intended to make a few points about the issues before the 

EPA’s PPDC. 

Respirators and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) 

The EPA worker protection standards do not include several very 

important aspects of proper use of respirators and other personal 

protective equipment. There are no requirements within the standard for 

several essential activities such as fit testing, medical clearance for 

respirator use, proper respirator selection, maintenance and cleaning, 

cartridge change out and respirator use under special conditions such as 

facial hair and facial deformity. The EPA has taken upon itself the 

responsibility for protecting these agricultural workers who use 

pesticides. The EPA has made PPE a central tool for protecting workers 

from the hazards of pesticides. Assuring that PPE will fit, function, 

and protect takes more than requiring that it be worn. Proper fitting, 

medical clearance to wear what is often physiologically burdensome 

equipment, and training of workers on the proper use, maintenance and 

fit of respirators is critical for PPE to be effective in protecting 

workers from the hazards associated with these chemicals. 

The following is and excerpt from the table of contents from the NIOSH 

guide to Industrial Respiratory Protection. Sept 1987 

(http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/87-116.html). 

Chapter 4 Respirator Use 

Part I. Federal Regulatory Requirements 

Part II. The Respiratory Protection Program 

A. Employer Responsibility 

B. Employee Responsibility 

Part III. Program Elements 

A. Program Administration 

B. Program Components 

1. Written Standard Operating Procedures 

2. Medical Surveillance 

3. Training 

4. Fitting 

5. Respirator Inspection, Cleaning, Maintenance, and Storage 

100 of 113
6. Surveillance of Work Area Conditions and Worker Exposure. 

7. Respirator Program Evaluation 

Melody Kawamoto has provided EPA with documentation about several health 

hazard evaluations done in agricultural settings illustrating how 

despite the use of PPE, inadequate PPE programs led to failure to 

protect. She has supplied other supporting information on this topic as 

well. Please refer to the material sent in to EPA in July 2006 entitled 

“Pesticide Exposure and Worker Protection from CDC/NIOSH.” sent to Cathy 

Davis. 

HIPAA and Pesticide Surveillance 

A second issue I want to address is the cluster of problems presented by 

the new Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 

1996. Because of the onerous penalties associated with the release of 

health care information (including overexposure events) by clinicians, 

this act have a chilling effect on the willingness of clinicians to 

report pesticide health events. While, state surveillance systems, which 

require such reporting, trump the HIPAA restrictions, the fear of 

violating HIPAA will strongly discourage participation in reporting 

despite the requirements to do so. Because there is no national 

reporting system for human pesticide health events, that might override 

HIPAA information protection, the overall effect of the HIPA act will be 

to reduce reporting of human health events, and thus severely impair the 

ability of EPA to estimate population health effects from pesticides. 

This act will have a particularly negative impact on reporting by 

pesticide companies through the 6(a)(2) program. Human health event 

reporting is certainly going to decrease as protected health information 

is rigorously guarded by health care providers, denying the companies 

the essential elements required to trigger reporting through the 6(a)(2) 

program requirements. EPA could counteract the effect of the HIPAA 

legislation by instituting a national pesticide poisoning reporting 

surveillance system. Federal (or state) reporting requirements 

accompanied by provider education could counteract the chilling effect 

of HIPAA and restore the flow of data needed for EPA to make informed 

decisions about marketed pesticides. 

A third issue I want to address is cause labeling. It strikes me as 

highly risky to allow messages, symbols, emblems or language onto 

pesticide labels that might in any way counteract the warnings on the 

labels. The example presented to the PPDC at our last meeting, that of 

the Red Cross endorsing chlorine bleach is an excellent example. I 

believe that allowing information on the pesticide label (such as the 

Red Cross symbol) that could potentially suggest, subliminally or 

overtly, that a product was safer than it is, is extremely dangerous. 

Illiterate and semi literate or foreign language speaking populations 

would be most at risk for such misinterpretation and I believe will be 

poorly served by this practice. I am fervently against this “cause 

labeling” and believe EPA should prohibit it. 

Finally, I want to address a point I have brought up on several 

occasions at PPDC meetings. As a clinician who, for many years has been 

involved in pesticide health research and health care for patients with 

pesticide overexposure, I believe that unlike many other products on the 

market, pesticides pose a unique set of diagnostic issues to the 

clinical community. And the nature of pesticide use imposes a unique 

responsibility on those who would benefit from the sale of these 

chemicals. Pesticides are (aside from antipersonnel gases), the only 

toxins that we intentionally release into the environment intending to 

do harm to living beings. Most other toxicants that enter the 

environment, either the work environment or the open environment, do so 

101 of 113
by accident, neglect or as a waste product. Pesticides manufacturers, 

therefore, are benefiting from the direct and intentional release of 

their products into the environment we share with the target of the 

pesticide. The health effects of pesticidal chemicals in humans are 

often difficult to distinguish from non pesticidal health problems. 

Patients often present with symptoms that are vague and 

non-pathognomonic way (pathognomonic means a presentation unique enough 

as to make the diagnosis virtually certain). Thus the diagnosis of 

pesticide overexposure is often difficult to make. Presently, most tests 

that could confirm that an overexposure to a particular pesticide has 

occurred, can only be performed in research facilities under carefully 

controlled conditions. These tests are rarely available to the average 

clinician. As clinicians, aside from only a few tests (such as 

cholinesterase, helpful only with a baseline value available), our 

diagnostic tool kit is devoid of the tests we need to make confident 

diagnoses in pesticide overexposure cases. I suggest that the EPA 

establish as a requirement for pesticide registration, that a registrant 

develop and validate a clinical test for diagnosis of illness due to 

their chemical. This would put into the hands of the clinicians who 

provide care to overexposed patients the ability, not only to diagnose 

an illness that is due to an overexposure to a specific chemical, but 

the ability to demonstrate that said chemical is not responsible for the 

illness when it is not. 

Thank you for considering these suggestions. 

Sincerely, 

Matthew Keifer MD MPH 

Associate Professor of Public Health and Medicine, University of 

Washington 

102 of 113
Mr. Kevin Keaney 

USEPA Headquarters 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 

Mail Code: 7506P 

Washington, DC 20460

Dear Mr. Keaney: 

On behalf of the National Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants (NAICC) and the 

Certified Crop Advisers (CCA), thank you for the opportunity to submit the following 

comments regarding EPA’s issue paper entitled “Ensure Protection of Crop Advisor 

Employees”. We also appreciate the invitation to participate in the PPDC telephone 

conferences held this year. 

CCA and NAICC support maintaining our current exemptions under the Worker 

Protection Standard (40 CFR 170). Further, we feel that the changes noted under 

Option #2 which state that employees would be allowed to enter a field for “no more 

than ten minutes of entry during the REI unless full PPE and other applicable protections 

are provided” are reasonable. 

EPA currently acknowledges both the Certified Crop Adviser (CCA) program, 

administered through the American Society of Agronomy, and the Certified Professional 

Crop Consultant, administered by NAICC as appropriate to meet the minimum 

qualifications of a licensed or certified crop advisor. We appreciate this recognition and 

look forward to working with you during the implementation process. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Allison Jones Luther Smith 

Executive Vice President Executive Director 

National Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants Certified Crop Advisers 

103 of 113
CChheemmiiccaallPPrroodduucceerrss aannddDDiissttrriibbuuttoorrssAAssssoocciiaattiioonn

1430 Duke Street 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

703.548.7700 

FAX: 703.548.3149 

www.cpda.com

October 1, 2007 

Ms. Kathy Davis 

Certification and Worker Protection Branch 

Field and External Affairs Division 

Office of Pesticide Programs 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

RE: Comments on Position Papers Relating to Worker Protection Standards 

Dear Ms. Davis: 

The Chemical Producers and Distributors Association (CPDA) would like to thank you 

for the opportunity to comment on the discussion papers developed by the Pesticide 

Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) that address proposed regulatory amendments to 

the Worker Protection Standard (WPS, 40 C.F.R. 170) and Certification of Pesticide 

Applicators (40 C.F.R. 171). 

CPDA is a voluntary, non-profit membership organization consisting of 76 member 

companies engaged in the manufacture, formulation, distribution, and sale of pesticide 

products used on food, feed and fiber crops, and in the care and maintenance of lawns, 

 

104 of 113
gardens and turf. The CPDA membership also includes a number of companies that 

manufacture, distribute and sell adjuvants and inert ingredients used to increase the 

efficacy of crop protection formulations. 

Expansion of Certification and Training Requirements (C&T 1 and C&T 2)

CPDA believes that the overall basis for the proposed changes to certification and 

training requirements are insufficient and there is no existing data that supports an 

extension of the reach of these requirements to “occupational users.” 

The proposal under consideration would: 1) call for expanding the scope of applicators 

subject to regulation to include all employees who handle pesticides in an occupational 

setting; 2) require occupational applicators of potentially harmful pesticides to pass a 

certification exam that determines their competency to use pesticides safely; and, 3) 

revise standards for the use of restricted use pesticides by uncertified applicators working 

under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. 

The proposal would establish a federal requirement calling for the formal training and/or 

certification of potentially millions of occupational applicators throughout the U.S. that 

currently apply general use pesticides and antimicrobial compounds in industrial or 

institutional settings. Many of these individuals have already completed existing industry 

sponsored training programs provided to them by their employers as a condition of their 

employment. As such, the certification and worker safety proposals now under 

consideration would unnecessarily duplicate ongoing training of employees who apply 

general use pesticides in performing their jobs. 

Under the current regulatory regime, restricted use pesticides (RUPs) may only be 

applied by individuals classified as certified applicators. It is estimated that restricted use 

pesticides account for approximately 11% of all registered pesticides on the market. The 

proposal under review would extend the certified applicator requirement beyond 

restricted use pesticides to the remaining 89% of pesticides on the market that are 

registered for general use. 

In identifying our concerns with the proposed changes to worker certification and training 

requirements, CPDA would like to direct EPA’s attention to the comments provided by 

USDA as cited by EPA in its discussion paper (C&T 1). CPDA believes that the issues 

raised by USDA have considerable merit and should weigh significantly in any possible 

revision of worker certification and training requirements. As EPA itself acknowledges, 

USDA asserts that a full assessment of EPA reregistration risk mitigation actions 

implemented to date is necessary before changes of the magnitude set forth in the 

discussion paper are considered. CPDA agrees with this observation made by USDA and 

believes that EPA should refrain from moving forward with the proposed changes 

outlined in the discussion paper until the Agency has had the opportunity to fully assess 

the success of the risk mitigation measures it has put into place. USDA also points out 

that the incidents of pesticide illnesses have been steadily declining and notes that many 

illnesses previously observed were likely due to pesticides such as mevinphos, ethyl 

 2 

105 of 113
parathion, chlorpyrifos, and other organophosphates which are now cancelled or 

restricted. USDA also indicates that the incident data referenced in earlier drafts of 

EPA’s discussion paper was assembled prior to full implementation of the WPS in 1997 

and, as such, may not accurately represent current day levels. 

In its other comments, USDA maintains that the proposed changes in certification and 

training requirements at the federal level as detailed in the discussion paper would require 

significant changes in state laws and regulations. CPDA is concerned that such changes 

at the state level would consume significant resources and could divert state regulators 

away from more pressing pesticide regulatory issues where there is irrefutable evidence 

of a health or safety concern. 

Overall the basis for the proposed changes in issue papers “C&T 1” and “C&T2” are 

insufficient. The Agency has not provided data substantiating the rationale for expanding 

the scope of the regulations to cover “occupational” users 

Training Standards for Uncertified Applicators (C&T 3): 

CPDA believes that establishing some reasonable standards may improve protections for 

uncertified applicators. Some level of basic training for the supervised applicator who is 

not certified may be appropriate, but this should be flexible and risk-based. However, 

CPDA does not support any requirement that a certified applicator be situated on-site or a 

maximum distance from the person being supervised. As explained in the comments of 

the National Cotton Council (NCC), a certified applicator who supervises multiple 

employees needs to have the flexibility to return to the farm headquarters to ensure the 

proper calibration of equipment and the correct mixing of materials. NCC points out that 

employees at the application site working under the direction of a certified applicator are 

given specific instructions pertaining to speed, pressure, and monitoring of equipment. If 

the supervisor is forced to shut down the equipment in the field because he or she must 

leave the site of application for a brief period of time, problems with improper settings or 

incorrect calibration may be encountered when the equipment is subsequently restarted 

upon the supervisor’s return. A requirement mandating that the certified applicator 

remain onsite throughout the period of application would preclude that individual from 

making necessary and critical equipment adjustments that can only be done offsite at a 

centralized control facility situated in farm headquarters. 

Recertification Requirements (C&T 7): 

CPDA concurs with the position of the Pesticide Policy Coalition (PPC) which points out 

that under 40 CFR 171.11, federal private certifications expire after four years and 

commercial certifications after three years. As such, current regulations already address 

EPA’s question regarding frequency of recertification. CPDA joins with PPC in urging 

EPA to refrain from adopting any requirement that would call for more frequent 

recertification. 

 3 

106 of 113
Pesticide Hazard Information (WPS 1): 

CPDA strongly supports the premise that all employees have a “right-to-know” the 

hazards and identities of the chemicals they are exposed to in the workplace as well as the 

measures that they can take to protect themselves. However, CPDA believes that this 

goal can be accomplished with the existing regulatory tools EPA has in hand. The 

Agency should move cautiously in considering any major changes in existing hazard 

communications programs that would provide little, if any, improvement in product 

specific worker safety information. 

Possible changes to the WPS to make hazard communication more consistent with OSHA 

requirements should be considered against the backdrop of EPA’s efforts on the Globally 

Harmonized System for Chemical Labeling (GHS) initiative. CPDA believes it is 

important for the Agency to abstain from making any major revisions to the WPS until 

there is more clarity as to what EPA intends to adopt as its final approach in 

implementing the GHS. In its issue paper, EPA states that it has coordinated with GHS 

program managers on the proposed WPS rule changes related to hazard communication 

and does not believe there is any inherent incompatibility between the two programs. 

However, until the Agency has finalized its GHS initiative, it will be difficult for the 

regulated community to fully evaluate any possible disruptions that may ensue during the 

transition from old pesticide labels and data sheets to new ones that meet the 

requirements of GHS. CPDA believes that the eventual phase-in of GHS hazard 

communications requirements will have a direct bearing on the components of any WPS 

hazard communication system and that both programs should proceed in tandem, rather 

than independently of one another. 

Before addressing the specifics of EPA’s proposal as contained in issue paper “WPS 1,” 

CPDA raises the overall question of whether any changes to the hazard communication 

elements of WPS are needed at all in light of the Agency’s laudable progress in 

developing risk mitigation mandates as part of reregistration. As noted in the issue paper, 

the Agency’s reregistration activities have resulted in major and significant risk 

reductions including: 1) the cancellation of a number of pesticides; 2) cancellation of 

some of the riskiest uses of pesticides; 3) the classification of a number of pesticides as 

Restricted Use Products; and, 4) the implementation of label changes to lower application 

rates, allow fewer applications of pesticides, increase re-treatment intervals, increase 

personal protective equipment (PPE) requirements, require mandatory closed-engineering 

systems, and increase re-entry intervals for the great majority of chemicals. CPDA 

believes that reregistration risk mitigation measures coupled with already existing WPS 

requirements provide the EPA with a variety of tools necessary to ensure the safety of 

farm workers. As such, CPDA encourages the Agency to focus its efforts on 

enforcement of existing mandates before moving forward with any wholesale changes to 

the WPS. 

 In its “WPS 1” issue paper, EPA is proposing to include a requirement that employers 

provide copies of hazard communication materials to workers for those pesticides that the 

workers may be exposed to during early entry activities. EPA is also proposing that 

 4 

107 of 113
employers make appropriate hazard communication information available to workers at 

the location of the field in which they are working if they do not have suitable access to a 

central location. As described, this option suggests that the location where employees 

would find pesticide hazard communication would change from day to day depending on 

the particular pesticide application planned for that specific point in time. As such, 

CPDA believes that EPA’s proposal could actually result in greater confusion among 

agricultural workers who would never know, from day to day, where to find information 

on the pesticide products that they would be handling on the job. CPDA encourages EPA 

to adopt a system whereby relevant pesticide hazard communication would be made 

available to all agricultural workers at a permanent, centralized location that will not 

“float” to different locations on a daily basis. 

CPDA agrees with the suggestion of the Pesticide Policy Coalition that point of entry 

signs should contain only the most critical hazard and safety information of immediate 

importance. Replicating general information at every point of entry undermines efforts 

by employers to stress the importance of reliance upon a central location as the primary 

access point for the most up to date information on a variety of issues. CPDA also 

concurs with PPC that EPA’s assumption that workers are more likely to read a poster 

that is placed at a field entrance is highly questionable. As PPC points out, the field 

entrance is most often an open area, exposed to full sun and climatic conditions. The 

temperature is seldom favorable to encourage reading a poster. The life expectancy of 

the poster would be greatly reduced due to environmental conditions. 

Among the options under consideration is one that would require agricultural employers 

to utilize the MSDS as the vehicle for delivering hazard communication information to 

workers. The Agency notes that the MSDS is already developed and has national 

applicability. However, the Agency rejects this option in part due to its belief that the 

information in the MSDS is too complex for most agricultural pesticide workers and 

handlers to understand given their level of literacy. CPDA questions why the EPA 

asserts that agricultural workers are any less literate than other workers that are subject to 

the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Hazard Communication Standard 

that relies upon the MSDS as the primary method for delivering safety information to 

workers that handle or are exposed to chemicals on the job. Moreover, EPA 

acknowledges that the OSHA HCS provides a higher level of protection for the 

employees under its regulatory jurisdiction than the WPS provides to workers under its 

purview. Specifically, in its “WPS 1” issue paper, EPA maintains that the lack of hazard 

communication provisions in the WPS results in agricultural workers “not being afforded 

comparable protections under the WPS as they would have under the Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Hazard Communication Standard. (HCS) 

regulation (29 CFR 1910.1200).” 

As some stakeholders have suggested, employers could obtain MSDS material to be 

maintained at the centralized location with other WPS resources such as pesticide safety 

posters and application information. The creation of additional pesticide hazard 

information is costly and burdensome. To the extent that the Agency insists on the 

development of additional materials, CPDA agrees with others in the regulated 

 5 

108 of 113
community that EPA, in coordination with USDA, should be responsible for the 

production, distribution and maintenance of such materials. Involving the registrants, as 

EPA proposes, will likely result in increased costs that would ultimately be passed down 

to the end user. Moreover, if the development of additional pesticide hazard information 

is made the responsibility of individual registrants as opposed to EPA and USDA, there is 

the possibility that such materials may not be consistent in format and thus would not 

likely provide maximum utility or benefit to the farm worker community. 

CPDA is concerned that EPA’s proposal calling for the development of a simple onepage fact sheet that could be formatted to provide hazard communication bilingually 

could possibly omit important information that is contained in the MSDS. Furthermore, 

the possibility exists that in seeking to present the information in a bilingual manner, 

important safety information could be translated incorrectly or conveyed in a manner that 

differs markedly from the precautions stipulated on the MSDS and/or pesticide label. 

Important nuances could be lost in translation. The potential for incorrect translation 

raises liability issues for both the farm operator and the registrant of the pesticide product 

that the agricultural worker is handling. 

Training Administration Issues (WPS 2)

As set forth in the EPA issue paper (WPS 2) that addresses potential revisions in 

pesticide safety training (PST) for agricultural workers, the current regulations at 40 CFR 

170.130 require that such employees receive PST at least once every five years. One of 

the options that EPA is considering is a reduction in the retraining interval from five 

years to one year. CPDA recognizes that more frequent pesticide safety training would 

reinforce the knowledge of the agricultural worker on how to handle pesticides safely. 

However, CPDA questions whether an annual re-training interval would result in any 

appreciable increase in the worker’s retention of proper handling of pesticides and safety 

precautions. CPDA believes that repeating the same material numerous times will 

eventually become ineffective. As an alternative, CPDA recommends that EPA consider 

a shorter interval for re-training of three years with perhaps the option of a “refresher 

course” to be administered to the worker on an as needed basis. 

In its other proposals, EPA is considering the elimination of the current training grace 

period that allows workers to enter treated fields for a period of five days without first 

receiving full Pesticide Safety Training. CPDA opposes the elimination of the grace 

period. Elimination of the grace period is not feasible particularly for small farmers as 

these establishments may not have quick access to a trainer that would be able to fully 

train workers on the first day they begin employment. When contemplating any proposal 

that would eliminate the current grace period, it is important to take into account the 

transitory and somewhat unpredictable nature of the agricultural workforce. It is not 

uncommon for existing workers to leave their place of employment and for new workers 

to arrive on extremely short notice. It is a well accepted fact within the farming 

community that the lack of consistency in the agricultural workforce is not unusual but 

rather is the norm. 

 6 

109 of 113
Issue paper (WPS 2) lists several proposed options that address recordkeeping for 

Pesticide Safety Training. The WPS requires agricultural employers to maintain worker 

training records to ensure that employees in the field have been properly trained. EPA is 

considering a requirement that would direct employers to submit worker training records 

to the state lead regulatory agency. The EPA is also considering the establishment of a 

national searchable database of trained workers. 

CPDA is concerned that EPA’s proposal calling for the submission of worker training 

records to state regulatory agencies would place an undue strain on limited resources and 

budgets at the state level. It is likely that states would incur significant expenses 

associated with revamping existing IT systems so as to accommodate the massive influx 

of worker training records. The additional pressure on already limited state budgets that 

would ensue from EPA’s proposal could potentially result in cutbacks in other state 

regulatory initiatives crucial to the safe use of pesticides. Furthermore, EPA’s recordkeeping proposal would place an undue burden on small farmers and growers. Many 

small farmers located in rural areas do not have access to information technology 

resources that would allow them to meet this proposed record submission requirement in 

an efficient manner. Small farmers lacking such IT capabilities would have to resort to 

the submission of paper records, a process that is time-consuming, financially 

burdensome, and inherently fraught with the potential for errors that could arise in the 

form of possibly lost or misplaced paperwork. 

CPDA agrees with EPA that the retention of worker training records serves as an 

important tool in the Agency’s efforts to monitor compliance with WPS requirements and 

that agricultural employers should retain such records on-site. However, CPDA does not 

support any requirement that these records be submitted to the state lead regulatory 

agency. 

With regard to the length of time that agricultural employers should be required to retain 

worker training records, CPDA recommends a period that is consistent with the interval 

for pesticide safety retraining. 

Miscellaneous Issues (WPS 4)

In its issue paper (WPS 4) that addresses an assortment of miscellaneous worker 

protection implementation issues, one proposal would change the requirements for the 

design of the treated area warning sign and the information contained on the sign as well 

as posting requirements. EPA is also considering the following additional options: 1) in 

fields covered by restricted entry intervals (REIs) of more than 72 hours, a warning sign 

would be required to be posted at the usual points of entry to the field and every 100 feet 

around the field’s perimeter; 2) the posted warning sign would bear the “skull and cross 

bones” symbol as opposed to the current illustration of a man with an upraised hand; and, 

3) all fields which are or have been under an REI during the preceding 30 days would 

have a sign posted at the usual points of entry with specific information that includes the 

name of the pesticide applied, application date and times, REI, contact information for 

 7 

110 of 113
employer, on-farm manager or pesticide applicator, and date and time that the REI 

expires. In addition, attached to each sign would be a written list of the pesticides used 

on that field during the past 30 days. The list would be written in English and Spanish or 

other language spoken by a majority of the workers employed by that employer. 

CPDA is strongly opposed to the use of a “skull and cross bones” symbol on signs around 

the field. The “skull and cross bones” pictorial has long been used to signify category I 

toxicity products. The use of this symbol as part of WPS posting requirements is 

inappropriate and would dilute the significance of toxicity category I pesticide use. 

Furthermore, CPDA agrees with other members of the regulated community that the 

“skull and cross bones” symbol would project a negative image of America’s farming 

industry, particularly at a time when U.S. growers face ever increasing competition in the 

global markets. CPDA recommends that EPA retain the current symbol that displays the 

picture of a man with an upraised hand in contemplating any changes to required posting 

of signs. 

With regard to the proposed requirement calling for posting of signs every 100 feet 

around the perimeter of a field, CPDA believes that such a requirement would be cost 

prohibitive particularly for small farming operations. CPDA refers to the comments 

submitted by the National Cotton Council which includes a detailed example of the 

potential cost impact of EPA’s proposed requirement that signs be posted every 100 feet. 

NCC explains that assuming a cost of $5.20 for an EPA approved sign, a 1,000 acre farm 

subdivided into several fields averaging 20 acres per field would require 41.7 signs at a 

production cost of $217.06 per field or a total of $8680 for the entire 1,000 acre farm not 

including the costs incurred in the labor and time expended in placing the signs. NCC 

further notes that if the 1000 acre farm had an average field size of 200 acres (above 

average for most large farms), the cost would be $3504 not including the expenses 

associated with paying for equipment, insurance, and maintenance of signs to ensure 

compliance. In addition, CPDA believes that EPA’s proposed requirement calling for a 

written list of the pesticides used on a field during the past 30 days to be affixed to the 

sign is impractical due to the fact that the printed list will require repeated replacement as 

a result of exposure to sun, rain, wind, and destruction or damage associated with the 

routine use of equipment in addition to changes in applications. The WPS already 

contains requirements for field posting and notification that are sensible and protective of 

worker health based on REIs. Existing point of entry requirements provide clear and 

understandable information for workers. As such, CPDA recommends that EPA reject 

this proposal for sign posting. 

Exceptions to Treated Area Entry Restrictions (WPS 6)

EPA is proposing to revise the current WPS restricted entry interval (REI) exceptions to 

address what the Agency believes is vague and unenforceable language that may be 

confusing to agricultural employers and the regulated community. The Agency states 

that it also has concerns that if the conditions for the exception are unclear, workers 

might be sent into fields to engage in tasks that should not take place during the REI. 

 8 

111 of 113
CPDA believes that important exceptions to the REI are necessary in order for certain 

essential tasks critical to agricultural production to be performed in a timely manner and 

to minimize adverse impacts on agriculture. While CPDA supports clarification of any 

vague language contained in the exceptions, we urge EPA to refrain from adopting any 

revisions that could eliminate the exceptions and thus negatively impact production 

processes that are time sensitive which, in their absence, could result in significant crop 

damage. CPDA references the comments of the PPC which notes that the Agricultural 

Reentry Task Force has developed data that show which activities should be classified as 

“no” and “low” contact activities that do not jeopardize worker health. CPDA urges EPA 

to consider this data in contemplating any changes to WPS exceptions to the REI. 

Other Issues: 

Expansion of buffer zones: EPA has proposed a revision of the WPS to add treated area 

“buffer zone” restrictions for certain applications on farms/forests similar to those that 

exist for nurseries/greenhouses. The Agency is concerned that the current WPS 

regulations lack protective requirements for farms and forests that could result in a lower 

standard of protection for workers on these establishments. CPDA opposes this proposal 

as the EPA has not provided any data justifying this change in the regulations. 

Proposed expansion of WPS to cover dairy, livestock, landscape, and maintenance 

workers using pesticides: The current WPS covers employees who work with or around 

pesticides used in the production of agricultural plants on farms, forests, nurseries, and 

greenhouses. The Agency is considering the expansion of WPS to cover pesticide 

workers and handlers in other establishments. CPDA believes that WPS should apply to 

all segments to ensure the safety of workers. However, CPDA joins with the PPC in 

encouraging EPA to consider potential risks and refrain from imposing complex 

regulations when they are not warranted. 

Development of regulatory definitions for: closed system; enclosed cab; greenhouse; and 

commercial purposes: CPDA echoes the position set forth in the comments of the PPC 

that calls upon EPA to ensure that any definition developed is widely accepted by other 

agencies and professionals engaged in activities associated with these terms. 

Providing specific information about applications: EPA proposes that employers make 

available to agricultural workers information regarding the time the application was 

completed and the start and end times for the REI. CPDA opposes this proposal. The 

pertinent information for the worker is the expiration time of the REI. EPA has not 

provided any specifics on how agricultural employers could feasibly provide information 

on application end times to workers so as to be useful. CPDA believes that the 

information most pertinent to worker safety is the expiration time of the REI. Thus, 

CPDA recommends that EPA refrain from adopting this proposal in its current form. 

Cholinesterase Monitoring for Handlers: EPA is considering an option that would 

require employer-paid medical monitoring of pesticide handlers who mix, load or apply 

Toxicity Category 1 or 2 organophosphates or carbamates for 30 or more hours in a 30-

 9 

112 of 113
day period which includes taking baseline and periodic plasma and red blood cell 

cholinesterase tests. CPDA does not believe that there is sufficient evidence of a problem 

with elevated cholinesterase levels in workers to justify the cost that would be associated 

with such a monitoring requirement. A number of non-pesticide related activities could 

drastically impact cholinesterase levels. Moreover, measurements of cholinesterase 

levels cannot distinguish between pesticide and non-pesticide exposures. Where elevated 

cholinesterase levels are associated with the use of pesticides, such cases generally 

involve incidents where workers do not follow label directions. As such, it would be 

better to channel resources into improved WPS training rather than into very costly 

medical monitoring which will not likely result in any measurable worker health benefits. 

In closing, CPDA would like to thank the Agency for the opportunity to provide input in 

the development of a proposal to revise and clarify the current WPS. CPDA looks 

forward to working with EPA in the months ahead as the Agency continues this dialogue 

with the regulated community. 

 

 10 

113 of 113