### PPDC Comments on May 2007 Issue Papers

Table of Contents

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

AAPCO Worker Protection Co mmittee 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 Industr y 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 As sistance 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 Consu ltants and Association of Crop Consultants

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

Chemical Producers and Distributo rs Association Comments ............................................ 104

### AAPCO Worker Pr otection Committee State Lead Agency Comments
August 29, 2007

C&T 1: Expand scope of applic ators subject to regulation

California Comments: The purpose of proposing a change to federal regulation of certifica tion and training and worker protection is to raise the minimum federal standards th at many states have already moved beyond. Certifying occupational “for-hir e” and “not-for-hire” pesticide users as described in Option 1, goes far beyond raising th e 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 comp elling if it included illness or exposure statistics to help justify the need to esta blish competency requirements for occupational “for-hire” and “not-for-hire” pesticide user s. Implementing Option 3 “Review state regulations and certification pl ans for applicators and consider their approaches as a model for a national baseline.” may be the be st approach because it provides working examples of standards that are bei ng implemented and can work today.

Certifying occupational “for-h ire” and “not-for-hire” pesticide users as described in Option 1 would likely result in a program re quiring a significant increase in resources currently devoted to C&T. For exampl e, California certifies approximately 24,000 commercial applicators operating in agri cultural and landscape environments (non structural) and oversees certificat ion 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 us e 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 bait s, antimicrobials and pool chemicals who must comply with a set of industrial safety re gulations 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 user s. The exam would test for competency of general pesticide safety and label compre hension. This would allow the competent pesticide user (owner or opera tor) to supervis e 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. Th is expansion of competency testing in combination with the requirement for a training program is a significant improvement and does not require measuring co mpetency at the “hose level” with anexam. Effectiveness of the training program would be determined through State and local enforcement programs.

California has taken the traini ng and outreach approach into the urban pesticide use arena as well. The School IPM program is r eaching out statewide to school district maintenance representatives through workshops that describe and demonstrate reduced risk and pest prevention practices. A similar e ffort is underway to tr ain social services workers that interface with child day care f acilities 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 gauge s. Several industry sectors may not be prepared to develop such items.

While some additional expansion may be warra nted, I do not believe there is data to support the assumption that ALL occupa tional users need certification.

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

users.

Page 13, Other questions for consideration:

A- Indiana has difficulty in reconciling the f act 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 ab le 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 requi ring the occupational user be fully certified to the standard they have fo r “for hire’ applications.

North Carolina Comments: Option 4 Improve pesticide labeling to addr ess 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 edu cation and safety training.

EPA’s label improvement program is the co rnerstone for educati ng the non-RUP user homeowners, and other non-traditional C&T pr ogram 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.Option 7 Emphasize Hazard Communication training

Again Hazard communication training can also be provided on the labeling of products. In occupational situations, th e owner generally provides ap plication, equipment training, and other safety training required by DOL OSH. Educa tional 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. Th e 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 coordi nating 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 th at would involve an incompetent handler, including report ed 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 Endang ered 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 lis ted would be another possibility. In those situations, using the Primary Cate gories, categories that would include applications to either surface water or a reas most likely to have endangered species such as the Aquatic Category, or the Na tural 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.At this time there are no Restricted Use Pe sticides registered for aquatic application sites in Florida. However, because of th e 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 applicatio ns 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 proctori ng. This would appear, at least for the aquatic applicators, to be unnecessary. Pr oviding funding to a ssist 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 promotin g industry initiatives in training and licensing. Currently Florida has 1858 cert ified Right of Way Applicators and 680 certified Natural Areas Weed Manageme nt, with the Natural Areas Weed Management being the fastest growing category in Florida.

For Sensitive Human Populations, pest cont rol applications would be an obvious choice. In Florida, all persons making app lications to or around homes or businesses are already licensed through competency demo nstration. Therefore, this would be a redundant regulation in Florida.

C&T 2: Protect human health and the envi ronment by ensuring that occupational applicators of potentially harmful pesticid es 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 su pervisory or responsi ble- level staff and requires an enforceable training program for a ll handlers should be considered adequate.

If there is evidence of failur e of the training program and th e program can’t be improved, testing would be one option to consider. Testing of all for hire applicators would pose a significant resource burden, notw ithstanding the statement made in the issue paper’s cost analysis. It would likely tr iple the demands on DPR’s Licen sing and Certification unit.

Indiana Comments: Agree that written exams are our best met hod for determining competency. However, I am not convinced that all applicators n eed full certification. Additionally I am unconvinced that the agency can adequately de fine sensitive versus non-sensitive sites.

North Carolina Comments: Matrix Option 2 ensures that a level of pe sticide 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 test ing the “not for hire applic ator to non-sensitive sites” (handlers) would not demons trate competency, EPA should consider a pre- and postevaluation instrument that to be used by the handler’s employer to better assess information retention and material acceptabil ity similar to the private applicator option. Consideration here should be given to the f act 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 exis ting SLA certification/recertification programs for private applicators. And, with the te sting 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 an d 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 si tuations for determination of competency. For example recertification of licensure, in that they have already demonstrated competency.

2. Should different (more specific) CORE ex ams 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 fo r 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 in clude additional questions, not specifically a separate exam, but additional questions th at 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 CO RE 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 ma ndated 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 updati ng 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 wouldbe 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 al lowing all for-hire users of pesticides to be able to purchase, use and superv ise the use of RUPs after they have demonstrated competency? Why?

By requiring everyone who uses a pesticid e (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 re quires examination and that supervisors provide specific information to the applicator (technician).

Have strong reservations about creating “levels of supervisio n”. Disagree strongly with “base the required level of s upervision 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 th at can be comprehended by the applicator or that is enforceable. To use the already poor ly written label as a guide to supervision would be building one problem upon another prob lem. The pesticide label is the quick sand foundation of the agency. Do not build upon it.

Having levels of supervision compounds the di fficulty in trying to interpret and enforce a regulation. To have any chance of su ccess, a regulation must be simple.

North Carolina Comments: Minimum training requirements for the uncertif ied applicator working under the direct supervision must be established. Training for th is 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 (superviso r) 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 mana gement and emergency spill cleanup and containment procedures.Consideration should be given by EPA to design a pre- and post trai ning assessment tool to gauge competency based upon job responsib ilities, general pesticide safety and emergencies procedures.

Florida Comments: Questions for review

1. Private versus commercial applicators

Some States currently have di fferent “under the supervision” requirements for private and commercial applicators. Uncertified applicator s 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 gather ing information from the state plans and regulations related to these questions.

Yes, it would appear that based on violatio n rates, pesticide safe ty training and UTS is working. We are not noting signif icant violations in areas that would

demonstrate that the Handlers are not receiv ing appropriate training or supervision of applications. Violations that might demonstrate a lack of competency of the Handlers or an inadequate supervision wo uld include significant rate of worker and/or handler exposure to pesticides or label rate violations. These are not the largest percentage of violations being no ted 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 expose d to pesticide applications. During every pesticide use inspection conducted in Fl orida a minimum of one Handler is interviewed, and we are not documenting violations that woul d 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 liabi lity for all RUP applications made under

their license.

In Florida the Cooperative Extension Agen cy in connection with the University of Florida and the Florida Department of Agriculture are making efforts through hiring a bilingual WPS coordinator (empl oyed 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 in crease 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 thro ugh education and licensing, as well as increasing the number of licensed applicat ors to be available in situations where

UTS will be needed.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 requi rements 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 pr oposal to amend “application under direct supervision” was for tiered requirements, ba sed on EPA review of the uses and their risks. Again, further review of stat e regulations should inform this option.

Should experience be considered as a com ponent of competency? For example, an applicator with 5 years experience may requi re 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 wo rk with pesticides that do not continue to demonstrate competency. So, the market itse lf 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 training s to prepare to take their RUP license.

Most of these are Handlers that often h ave 5 years or more experience (usually much more then 5 years). Using experi ence as one of the tools for a tiered requirement for direct supervision would be a useful tool to th e 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 agricul ture industry in these areas would be a more cost effective way to increase safe ty 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 significan t increase in funding. Howe ver, providing a portion of that money assisting in funding more pr ograms 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 ma ke them a more valuable employee to the owner, which in turn hopefully will prom ote the industry in supporting their longterm employees efforts to increase thei r 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, ha ndle or apply pesticides. Reasons include children’s sensitivity to hazardous chemicals, federal labor law that prohibits children under 16 working in agriculture from applying Ca tegory I or II toxicity pesticides with the exception of those working on family farm s, and no exception for children under age 16 involved in non-production agricultural and n on- agricultural pesticide applications.

Children under the age of 18 are not responsible for their acti ons therefore violations of laws and regulations would invol ve parents or guardi ans 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 concer ns regarding exposure, then the age limit

should be at the lower end of the s cale (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 ex emption allowing private applicators no younger than 16 in specific situations.

The minimum age requirement should be established as a prerequisi te for applicator certification along with the ability to read and comprehend the English language in addition to having related job experiences. Spec ific guidelines/ definitions for hardship exemptions must be clearly st ated to assure consistency.

States must have the ability to develop th e exemption process with oversight by EPA and, to apply all regulations to th e 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 farm s. In most cases it would appear that children growing up on the family farm are work ing in a limited known environment. Because they have grown up on the family farm th ey will most likelyhave experiences in that business that ho pefully provides them with more informed decision making processes based on that experience.

Also this will minimize any hardship to th e family business, which by definition is only made up with immediate family memb ers, 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 th e 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 grow ing up on the family farm, and would therefore the experience, and be in a lim ited 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 incl ude for hire applications. Allowing an exemption for

children to assist in the fami ly 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 applicatio n 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 c ontent relevant, through the process of exam development.

Other questions: Support electronic testin g, provided adequate security and proctoring is available.

North Carolina Comments: Section 11 of FIFRA requires revision to requ ire 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 ha ve testing developmen t and administration requirements in place. The ag ricultural industry a nd general public have adapted to thismeans of determining competency and credibility to protect human health and the environment. If EPA is prepared to sta ndardize exam development and administration requirements, then EPA should strongly consid er revising the FIFRA to better reflect and

address the need to meet na tional competency standards.

Most states attempt to incl ude 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 us e and definitely as the technology changes. With that stated, training materials an d certification exams should be updated simultaneously. This would require close c oordination between agencies, but it would assure that exams accurately test topics that are covered by training manuals and sessions. Implementation of this validation process test s knowledge in tasks necessary to perform as an applicator.

Training materials and programs produced by in dependent organizations must also be considered here. EPA should give considera tion to develop a process that allows for consistent review and oversight of such mate rials. In doing so, states, pesticide trainers and educators would more likely accept the materials.

Reciprocity agreements would be more read ily 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 ex am 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 regul ations 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 electroni c 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 rem ote sites because of ea se of access to the applicator. Using a site such as a motor ve hicle 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 getan 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 resou rce of the Extension Agent and in most cases an extensive library of material relat ed to their industry for assistance in all aspects of the applicators business. And fina lly is a familiar location that is usually in the general area as the agriculture establ ishment. If the extension office had the availability of computers, then I would s upport a choice to growers for a paper exam or an electronic exam. However, without significant a dditional 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 Co re Competencies as well as the Changing Field of Pesticide Application ( Period and gauge for recertification)

Indiana Comments: Disagree that both core and cat egory 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 certif ication cycle.

North Carolina Comments: Consideration for revising the 40 CFR 171 to address a recertif ication period would better support EPA’s goal to protect human health and the environment.

Option 1: Set a federa l recertification period... Implementing federal standards for recertifi cation would ensure that all pesticide applicators meet national competency standa rds, 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 w ith 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 specifica lly target educational needs pertaining to the safe use of pesticides, technology, applic ation techniques, an d industry networking.Applicators would be required to obtain a specific number of category-specific credits and core credits to satisfy the requirements of recertification duri ng 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 c over both “core” and “c ategory 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 certific ation 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 lo ng 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 thos e 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 commercia l license. For example, we have many applicators in
Florida who hold Aquatic, Right of Way, Na tural Areas, Forestry and Ornamental
& Turf Categories. Having different recertification period s for different categories
would be onerous on both the applicator and the certification staff in trying to
recertify licenses. I agree that some categor ies such a fumigation have the potential
to pose a higher risk to humans, and A erial, 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.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 issu e a certification/license allows us to set
minimum standards for competency. However, once an applicator has
demonstrated that competency, I believe th at promoting an applicator to take CEU
courses so that they are exposed to th e 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 drivin g force allowing the industry to provide
safer chemicals, application/mixing equi pment and provide quicker feed back on
potential problems. Through CEU programs it assists the applicators to take the
time from their business to attend program s 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 obtain ed their license) or obtaining CEUs. By
far the majority of our recertification of a pplicators 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 CE Us to renew, and in those cases it is
important that they are able to continue their license and mainta in their business by
retesting. The concept of testing to demonstrate minimum competency in core
information as well as in category exams shou ld 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 recertifyin g, however, everyone who is certified to
apply RUPs should be able to demonstrat e 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 testin g. 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 ei ther retesting or attending CEU programs is the same person who originally obtained the license. There are many different locations in the state where an applic ator 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 pe rmitted? Under what circumstances?Yes, because of location, work responsibilit y, etc., not all applicat ors have the ability to attend enough CEU programs to renew thei r 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 th at the person taking the

online class is the actu al applicator. However, I feel that the benefits of online classes outweigh the negative of those who choose to get around the system.

### AAPCO Worker Pr otection Committee State lead Agency Comments
August 29, 2007

WPS 1: Protect the Health of Agricult ural Pesticide Workers and Handlers by Informing Them of Pesticide Hazards

Issue 1: How should the written pesticide-sp ecific 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 co mmunication 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 ev aluated 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 chr onic health effects), general symptoms of pesticide poisoning, how to protect workers and family members from exposure, emergency response/first-aid informa tion, and an 800 number for emergency

assistance.

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

Several SLA did not support th e use of fact sheets due to the complexity of the information and the difficulty to prepare th e information (e.g., chronic health effects). SLA suggested providing the information verba lly 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 ma ke pesticide labeling available. Option 1-5: Do not establish a requirement for employers to provide written hazard communication information - have employe rs provide pesticide-specific hazard communication orally.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 belo w); 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 communi cation 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 av ailable 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 contra ct 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 pos ter 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 requi ring copies of materials to be given to workers. Option 2-3: Have agricultural employers make hazard communication information available to workers by requiring the material s 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 de veloping 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 re viewing and approving the fact sheets. Option 3-5: Have EPA and regi strants share responsibility fo r developing required hazard

communication materials.

Several SLA did not support the other proposals listed below:Option 3-3: Have states be responsible for developing required hazard communication

materials. Option 3-4: Have employers be resp onsible for developing required hazard

communication materials.

Issue 4: Should there be separate pestic ide-specific hazard communication requirements for workers versus handlers?

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

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

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

handlers. Option 4-2: Have different hazard co mmunication requirements for workers and

handlers. Option 4-3: Have the same hazard communi cation requirements for both workers and handlers as in option 4-1, but strengthen th e existing requirements related to handlers having access to pesticide labels and being informed of labe l requirements so they are more effective in meeting the additional hazard communication needs of handlers.

Issue 5: What pesticide hazard informatio n should be conveyed to workers (e.g., acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, ch emical & 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 pr oduct name and active i ngredient(s) of the product; 2) the REI for the product; 3) wher e the product is applie d to (soil, foliar application, etc.); 4) acute health effect c oncerns for dermal/ocular exposure (skin or eye irritants), inhalation, ingestion, skin absorption (systemic toxici ty), and sensitization; 5)

chronic health effect concerns (carcinogens, reproductive effect s, 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 devel op 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.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 materi als should be in a pictorial, low literacy format, should be provided in Eng lish and Spanish, should use standardized pictograms to convey health, safety and h azard 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 materi als 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 ha ve an adequate understanding of risks and protective measures.

3. Eliminate the grace period and the option fo r the brief training; require retraining every three years to ensure that workers ha ve an adequate unders tanding 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 brie f training; opt for a re-training interval of less than 5 years or a refresher training option.

Several SLA recommended option 1 or 2, al though one SLA recommended maintaining the grace period if training records were requ ired, and require an training interval of every three years.Options for Competent Trainers

1. Require that trainers successfully rece ive 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 rece ive appropriate training by completing an approved Train-the-Trainer workshop; requ ire 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 trai ner” 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 appropria te method of presenting safety information is for EPA to develop and approve training th at can be easily presen ted with the trainer responding to questions. Several SLA felt th at 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 wo rkers 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 traini ng records to state l ead agency; trainers retain records as well; trained worker s receive cards as proof of training.

5. Establish a national searchable da tabase of trained workers.

Several SLA recommended Option 1. Inspecti on of training records and information gathered during inspections should be adequate to determine compliance. Option 2 would place a tremendous burden on states to pr ocess paperwork and track training of employees. Option 4 would be burdensome and duplicative.WPS 3: Enhance Safety Training to Better Protect Agricultural Workers and Their

Families

Options Under Consideration:

Option 1: Enhance the existing pesticide sa fety 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 ch ewing gum or tobacco, or using the

toilet.

3. Wearing work clothing that protects the body from pesticide residues. (Add reference to appropriate wo rk 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 diffe rent types of applications.

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

3. The availability of specific informati on 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 treatm ent of heat-related illness, based on the content in the current training for agricultural handlers

Protecting Families

• Populations who may be more sensitiv e to pesticide expos ure – children and
pregnant women

• Properly washing clothes that mi ght 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: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 repor t suspected i llnesses and to get information on treatment.

• Recognizing and seeking car e 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 CF R 170 to require employers to restrict field access, prohibiting agricultural wo rkers’ 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.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 loca tion should be at th e location that the worker is most likely to see it. Opposed to having a poster at ev ery 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 Suppor t the concept, but would rather see that information from the application records be suffice (in the ev ent that labels or msds are not available).

170.240 PPE support theory.

Cholinesterase monitoring; opposed to requir ing 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 definitio ns in their final version. In the present form, it is difficult to have a thorough unde rstanding of the changes. There are provisions and definition changes that we think need to be addressed.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 a nd are making more appl ications than the majority of agricultural sectors. We are a no t convinced that WPS n eeds 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” se ctor. As the WPS expands, targeting schemes become broade ned, the numbers of inspections have a decreased, and our regulatory presence is dimi nished. 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 betw een commercial use, research purposes, and

“own use” scenarios.

170.7 General Duties and Prohibited Act We have long believed the retaliation provisi on 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 ex ceptions or their interpretation. We believe the WPS Interpretative Guidance docume nt offers appropriate clarification.

170.104 Exemptions In NC, we have had no concerns with thes e exemptions or thei r interpretation. We believe the WPS Interpretative Guidance doc ument offers appropriate clarification.

170.110 Restrictions Associated w ith Pesticide Applications In NC, we have not had complaints in referen ce to this section of WPS. We do see where there may be a need to add extended “keep-out zones” to certain type s of applications on farms. Applications delivered by air, or fr om airblast and fumiga nt 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 ad equate protections to workers

if followed.

170.112 Notice of Applications We believe that the current notification pr ovisions are adequate. There are other references in the paper that states that wo rkers readily recognize the stern face with the outstretched hand, it seems that it would be coun terproductive to cha nge this provision. Also posting at all usual points of entry to th e field is appropriate, but posting every 100 feet appears to be excessive and it may not be feasible to all fields based on size andaccessibility to the field. In some cases, there is only one point of entry to the fields, so

there would be no benefit for th e extended posting requirements.

170.122 Providing Specific Information about Applications To better enable our inspector s 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 re quire that records include th e time that application was completed; this would assist in proper doc umentation of compliance or violation with REI’s as well as pre-ha rvest 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 th at 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 pr actices concerning where the workers gather. In some cases, (nursery a nd greenhouses) there is usually a central site

for information such as DOL’s notifications that would be more a ppropriate 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 provisi on has some benefit for workers required to wear PPE (earlyentry workers). Again for nursery and gree nhouse operations this situation could easily be offered. However, for farm operations , the period of time th e 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 cha nging clothes. Changing clothes at these sites may cause even more workers to be exposed to the contaminated clot hing and could even contaminate the clean clothes if not prope rly 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 th e terms “prompt transportation” and “promptly upon request” provide adequate protection a nd quicker transporta tion and information

transfer than the “within tw o business days” statement.

In the instances where worker’s families a nd bystanders are exposed to pesticides, we would favor changing the provisions to ensure that agricultur al 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 correc tly for its intended purpose and is used according to the manufacturer’s instructions.” We do realize the importance of wearingthe PPE correctly, and we do believe that a ll applicators should be instructed on the proper manner to conduct a fit-test. Howeve r, we further believe that the current provision is an adequate requi rement 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 monito ring are cost prohibitive and not feasible, due to the many different pesticides that ma y 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 th e 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 woul d be prohibited from entering treated areas during the REI to conduct crop advisor activitie s unless they received all applicable WPS protections required for other handlers unde r the rule such as personal protective equipment (PPE) and decontamination supplies, etc. In order to address situations of incidental entry or cases where very lim ited 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 fu ll 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, eliminatethe 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.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 polic ies, 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 indus try educators to work cooperatively on Certification and Training (C&T) needs, policies, and strategies. Th e 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 separat e 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 restri cted 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 enforcemen t 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, s upervise, handle, a nd apply products.

This can also lead to enforcement issues.

ii. The number of new “regulated” applicat or/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 pub lic 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 expande d scope of applicator certification, resources (FTEs, operational dollars) must be provided to support the SLA certification infrastructure and Extension education progr ams in order to develop training resources and credential new people as certified applicators and technicians.

Page 1 of 6i. The Agency needs to consid er 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 ongoi ng maintenance of programs: numbers of verified/monitored trainings, numbers of exams/retakes, database management/tracking, training mate rial revisions, everyday client

communication.

4. There is also some concern that states that cu rrently 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 n eeded, but requests that EPA assess mechanisms of labeling that could regulate certification leve l (competency gauge) by product use-restriction labeling (e.g., add defin itions to rules and change language of RUP statement, and/or or the option to make certain occupationally-applied pro ducts 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 hi re 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 mo netary 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 pestic ides in homes, businesses, landscape maintenance, aquatic weeds/fish, forestry, agriculture, schools, right of way, etc.

a. AAPSE supports that any person working unde r 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 supe rvisor 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 probl ems 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 6regulate 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 regul ating certification level (competency gauge – two tiers: certified applicator or technician-W PS 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 appli cator or by an EPA-approved trained technician or WPS handler under the supervision of a certifie d 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 suggest s 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 in crease. 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 co mpetency 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-re levant 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 th e 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 co re 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 re quire any examination used to demonstrate competency be a proctored, written, closed-book, content-relevant examination (definition fromCTAG issue paper 2003). AAPSE recognizes that closed-book exams can include proctorprovided labels, resource manuals, specimens for id entification, etc. In such cases, the exam candidate brings no reference materials into th e examination room and no reference materials

leave the examination room.

Page 3 of 6C&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 Ce rtified Applicator or Certified Pest Control for Hire Applicator) must be trained in th e 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 ve ry complex since it differs between states and even within states between certification typ es. 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 comp etency gauge protects the environment, the public, and the workforce. AAPSE suppor ts a dual-option approach to meet a competency gauge. The candidate has the choi ce of either participating in a verifiable content-relevant training program or passi ng a content-relevant exam (core exam). AAPSE supports requiring retraini ng, 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 u se-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 handl er 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 si nce 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 Applicat or (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 environm ent. 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 6WPS 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 th rough using best practices all the time as opposed to altering one’s practices for specific exposures. We belie ve it will be most effective to create a culture of safety through teaching workers b asic 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 importa nt right, is a separate issue and not necessarily contributory to a culture of safe use practices. We di sagree with the statement in the rationale for this proposed change regarding provision of hazard communi cation materials that “[t]his lack of knowledge [i.e., lack of hazcom information] may prevent [agric ultural pesticide workers and handlers] from taking appropriate steps to protect themselves, increasing th eir 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 th ey 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 fo r carcinogenicity, respiratory effects, target organ toxicity, reproductive toxicity, or mutagenicity. As ide 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 th is pesticide as opposed to a pesticide that does not carry this pictogram? In fact, instituting univer sal precautions, rather than picking and choosing appropriate safety practices for each residue to wh ich one is exposed, will better ensure exposure minimization. Training workers on the meaning of the various pictorial images a nd 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 main tained 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 th is argument, but rejects the phrase indicating that pesticide-specific information would help workers “r educe their chance for pestic ide 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 pr oducts, 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 pictogramform 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 6understandable 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 protecti on 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 a nd 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 trai ners 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 timel ine 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 kn owledgeable 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 6June 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 Associa tion of Pesticide Safety Educators (AAPSE) is developing its official stance. The Board was ab le to the reach consensus on several, but by no means all, of the proposed changes. The AAP SE 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 “s ensitive site” category implies that all pesticide applications made to these areas are extremely dangerous to the public. Also there could be significant difficu lty in defining such sites so that regulatory action can be

taken.

 One member felt that that a for-hire technici an has no tactical advantage (business wise or competency level) over a for-hire creden tialed (unsupervised) applicator. Both require training, but the technician needs to be supe rvised 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” requiri ng credentialing which they felt was important.

C&T 2

 One member noted that any training program for technician credentialing should have prior SLA review and approval.C&T 3

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

a technician/handler tier: the certified applicator must be within visual and voice contact at all times or require the RUP be on ly applied by a certified applicator.

C&T 6 – Standard Exams

 Several members commented they agree exam s should be proctored and identification made. Applicators should not be allowed to bring reference mate rial 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 f unds, fewer states will have the necessary

staff and resources to conduct annual conti nuing education sessions. Therefore, the member supports giving states the option to ad minister a recertifica tion 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 consideratio n: 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 inte rvals since there is no enforcement mechanism that could prevail. How does an employer verify age, let

alone SLAs enforce on it? One member e xpressed concern that it would lead to discriminatory hiring practices, and an employe r having to verify ages in a community of people who are largely illegal alie ns 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 pl aces the burden on the applicator. How in all practicality is an applicat or going to be in compliance w ith this, especially a customapplicator? This sounds very nice if the appli cator is the same one who owns the land and hires the workers, but it would be a nightma re 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 mandato ry 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 ch ildren as well as adults, then this would really re-orient training philosophy and seve rely 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 sta ff 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 main tenance workers would be brought in if the scope is expanded to include Pest Control For Hire App licators 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 “techni cian” 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 th ey receive compensation from the agency authorizing the application. That memb er 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 memb er questioned how EP A will clarify the definition of owner or immediate family. W ithout 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 struct ure? Another needed definition pertains to “spraying.” Many greenhouses inject pesticid es through irrigation systems; would this be considered sprayi ng and require the entire greenhouse to bevacated? EPA did not describe how the ventila tion criteria would be changed; therefore,

members cannot comment.

 170.112 –

• Two members expressed concern about c onfusion with a new skull and cross bones sign because of similarity on pesticide labe ls and the possible dual interpretations. These members also disagreed with the pr oposal to require signs every 100 feet, labeling it impractical. Cons ider 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 re mains attached? Another me mber 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. Th e proposal would require posting around the entire field for crops that are ve ry likely not to be entered.

• Additionally, a member stated that includi ng all pesticides applie d in the last 30 days to a posted field is the same as the inform ation 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 pest icides 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. Do es 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 poste d, the member suggests that the first entry point for each day a work crew enters a fi eld be posted, and th at the sign should be moved from point to point as the work crew moves through the field.

⁪ 170.122 – One member questioned why the applic ation 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, tim e of application (start and ending) would be very important for SLA inspectors to be ab le 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 ente ring 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 th e decontamination site as the “central location”. Many growers find it practical. Anot her member said for large growers thiswill be impractical and overre action. EPA should consider a llowing 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 inte nds to define farm? Many farms have separated land units that are many, many mile s 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 establishm ents avoiding coming under WPS. The member opposes EPA including bystander in this regulation. This could include anyone within an unspecified area of a trea ted field/forest. If EPA expands WPS to

maintenance workers this could include en tire office building employees or everyone within a school or university. The member suggests pesticide use information only be provided to professional hea lth care providers in a medi cal emergency, and supports the two business working days for providing such information. Providing such information to “his/her representative” c ould result in employers having to provide information to “representatives” who are just seeking pesticide use information and not related to a “suspect ed” medical situation.

 170.240 – One member said that although this has good intentions, ju st placing on a label or establishing a regulation doe s not result in compliance. EPA should realize that in many areas of the nation there are not medical facilities or industria l hygienists available for fit testing applicators. There will be added costs for applicators to drive many miles (50+ miles one way) to reach such faciliti es. 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 availabi lity. EPA should not require the use of equipment that is not readily available to th e applicator community.

 170.7• One member supports, as long as the view of retaliation lines up with that of OSHA and the states that have their own regulations.

• Another member questioned the supporti ng 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 pesticid e 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 c holinesterase testing indicates that CHE depressions are fairly crop sp ecific. It would be better for EPA to assess the exposure risks on a crop use basis and mitigate expos ures by cropping systems with high human

exposures.

• Another member said EPA needs to real ize 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 cholinestera se tests.” time line. “Perio dic” is not very precise. The medical facility/doctors must report to th e workers in a language the workers can clearly understand.

WPS 5 – Crop Advisor Issues

 One member supported. Another member sa id that crop advisors need the same protection as field workers, and Option 2 is the better option. On e major reason is how will pesticides affect crop advisors differently from field workers? They both would enter a treated field pr ior to the REI, so why should the crop advisor not wear PPE but the

field worker must? How are SLAs to determin e 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 cr op. Thus, they should be considered like other employees in regards to pesticide safe ty. Crop advisors should be handlers under WPS. Crop advisors should have PPE a nd decontamination facilities available.

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

available it must be used. Another member commented that it may be best to retain existing vague wording rather than go thr ough another ten years of new vague wording. If EPA expands WPS to dairy, livestock, landscap e, and maintenance, there will be more exceptions needed, which will likely create more unclear wording.www.pesticidepolicy.org

August 31 , 2007

Kathy Davis
Cer t ification and Worker Protection Branch
Field and External Affairs Division
Office of Pesticide Pro grams U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

Wa shington, DC 20460

RE: Comments on Position Papers Relating to Worker Protection Standards (W PS)

De ar M s

. Davis :

The Pesticide Policy Coalition (PPC or “the Coalition” ) appreciates t he 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. 1 71).

The PPC represents food, agriculture, pest management and related organizations that support transparent, fair and science

- based regulation of pest management. The PPC

me mbers include: nationwide and regional farm, commodity, specialty crop, and si lviculture 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 a dditional or more specific information on any or all specific topics available for comment.

Standards for use of RUPs by uncertified applica tors (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, b y making such a categorical distinction of applicators in the statute , Co ngressPPC Comments on C&T and WP S proposals, 8/31/2007 Page 2 of 8

2 clearly envisioned different level s 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, t he C oalition does not suppo rt any requirements that a certified applicator be on

- site or at a maxi mu m 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 applicat or.

Minimum Age for Pesticide Applicators (C&T 5)

EPA should only be considering this issue in the context of RUPs. PPC support s consider ation of esta b lish ing a mi nim um 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 gr anted 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 expi re 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.

W it h respect to other more specific aspect s of certification core competencies versus category specific requirement s and online recertification, we encourage EPA to support the least burdensome, most flexible requirements possible. If EPA, with support of St ate 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)

T he W PS and reregistration process has resulted in major risk reductions for agricultural
workers. T he reregistration process has resulted in the cancellation of a number of pesticides

, the classification of some pesticides as RUP s , reductions in applicati on 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 im portant changes under reregistration

.

1 40 C.F.R. § 171.11(c)(4), (d)(2)PPC Comments on C&T and WP S proposals, 8/31/2007 Page 3 of 8

3 Other data cited, such as the North Carolina study by Das et. al. (2001)

, demonstrate s enforcement challenges

. Imposing additional requirements w ill not correct this situation.
EPA must instead be committed to bett er enforc ement 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 infor mation materials will enhance worker protections. Pesticide labels and M aterial Safety Data Sheets (M SDS ) are readily available
and provide workers with all of the information needed

. Employers could maintain MSDS

material at the centralized location wit h 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 o r 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 de velopment of additional materials, EPA should coordinat e 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 u sers.

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 na ture of real world issues prior to proposing regulations based on intuition.

Wo rkers should learn the meaning of particular symbols through proper education and training

. We believe u se 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 op tions for re

- training intervals, the PPC supports reducing the retraining

interval to three years. In many sectors, ag riculture workers already receive more frequent training simply as a function of their mobile employment. However, we do not see the need
for re training at s horter 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 impr acticable 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 rem ain an option. Wh ile 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 toPPC Comments on C&T and WP S proposals, 8/31/2007 Page 4 of 8

4 assure topics are properly and consistently covered. Trainer availability and l anguage barriers are significant challenge s 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 w ith 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 S tate lead

agenc ies

.

Expanded Safety Training Content (WPS 3)

The P P C believes parents should be informed of measures to protect their famil ies 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 c ould then be made into brochures for parents to

take and read at home. PPC believes that science

- based, helpful informatio n 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 maint enance workers using pesticides

T he P P C encourages the EPA to consider r ealistic potential risks and refrain from im posing complex r egulations to any one sector when distinct use s or concerns d o not exist

. For example, agricultural style reentry restrictions are not realistic for lawn, landscape and structural pest control ap plications. Products in these areas are regulated to reduce reentry

e xposure through applicable requirements for registration.

D evelop ment of regulatory definitions for closed system

, enclosed cab

, gree nhouse

, and commercial purposes

The P P C supports the develop ment 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 regulation s associated with the terms.

Anti

- r etaliation provisions

The P P C is concerned that EPA is going beyond its authority by addressing anti

- retaliation regulations. This is clearly the purview of other federal authorities.PPC Comments on C&T and WP S proposals, 8/31/2007 Page 5 of 8

5 Clarifications related to the exceptions for “wide

- area publi c pest control” and “in a manner not directly related to the production of agricultural plants ”

The P P C 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 mean t 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 chang e the rule to address “concerns related to the immediate family”, the P P C

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 review

related processes for each pesticide.

En try Restrictions

The W PS already contains requirements for field posting and notifi cation that is sensible and protective of worker health base on REIs. Existing point

- of

- entry requi re ments provide clear
and understandable information for workers. The P PC 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 ha nd. The use of the skull and crossbones will only serve s 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
C ategory I toxicity products and will result in confusion.

Point

- of

- entry signs should contain only the most critical information of immediate

im portance. Replicating general information at every point of entry undermines efforts by employers to stress t he im portance of reliance on the central location as the primary location for the most up

- to

- date information on a variety of issues.

R equire that posted application information contains the time the application was completed
and the start and end times

The P P C opposes this proposal

. The pertinent information for the worker is the expiration

tim e 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 informationPPC Comments on C&T and WP S proposals, 8/31/2007 Page 6 of 8

6 The PPC disagrees with EPA ’s assertion that “m any workers do not have an easy access to

the ‘ central location ’

. ” The P P C b elieves 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 locati ons 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 location s as a source for meaningful information . EP A’s proposal will undermine such
efforts.

Point

- of

- entry signs should contain only the most critical information of immediate

im portance. 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 place d at
a field entrance is highly questionable

. T he 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, th e PPC opposes this proposal.

R equire 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 o verly 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 Age ncy is trying to avoid.

R equire employers, in cases of suspected pesticide exposure to a worker, a worker’s family

me mber 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.PPC Comments on C&T and WP S proposals, 8/31/2007 Page 7 of 8

7 The P P C 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.

R equir e respirator fit

- testing, training, and medical monitoring and cholinesterase testing

The P P C believes W PS 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? Wh o will have access to the forms? This proposal appears to be more appropriate for r isk 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 b ear the costs of such activities? Additionally, m any activities and exposures unrelated to pesticides can significantly im pact cholinesterase levels

, and current measurement technology cannot distinguish between pesticide and non

- pesticide exposures. Mon itoring currently being done in C alifornia and W ashington 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 t o 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 dem onstrate 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 WP S

.

Crop Advisor Issues ( WPS 5 )

The PPC support s maintaining current exemptions for crop advisors under the WP S. Further, the PPC supports the reasonable changes noted under Option #2

, which would allow employees to enter a field for “no m ore than ten minutes

... during the REI unless full PPE and other applicable protections are provided

. ”

Clarify REI Exceptions ( WPS 6)

Growers and users need maxi mu m flexibility to reenter fields to perform tasks in a timely

manner. Clarifications which e nable their reentry in a timely manner are strongly supported. The Agricultural Ree n try 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 e xceptions in 40 CFR § 170.112 that allow critical activit ies during the restrictedPPC Comments on C&T and WP S 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 consid er ing 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

- Ch airs, PPC Technical Committeez Representing the Plant Science Industry z 1156 15 th 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 th e 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 th e crop protection products used by American farmers and growers. We are the voice of the industry th at ensures the safe and responsible use of pesticid es 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 in dustry leaders with specialty pesticid e 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 prov ide comments concerning possible revisions to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s ) Worker Protection Standard (WPS; 40 CFR Part 170). However, we must respectfully not e that given the large number of issues and complexity of appropriately res ponding to the wide variety of s uggestions 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 th e 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 issuan ce of a proposed rule that may contain changes to the current requirements, it is unclear why there is a “ver y tight” schedule for developing any proposal.

To reiterate some of the main points in the le tter of May 25, 2007 that we signed with a number

of other national trade or ganizations, we believe:CLA & RISE Comments, WPS Prop osals; 6/15/2007 Page 2 of 2

1. The level of outreach and notif ication 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 basi s of any possible changes to the current regulations. Comments submitted separa tely by the Pesticide Policy Coalition (PPC) enumerate a list (not necessarily ex haustive) of issues and topics to which we plan to contribute.

At the same time, we repeat our basic perspectiv es, which we believe are central to any current or possible changes to requirements under WPS:

1. worker protection requirements must be propor tionate to the risks established for the pesticide products in question;

2. the pesticide label cannot be us ed 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 involve d with worker safety;

4. a one-size-fits-all approach to pesticide worker protection requirements will not reflect adequately the diversity of use situations, gr owing 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 sma ll 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>>z Representing the Plant Science Industry z 1156 15 th 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 th ey 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 con tinue to lower the risks to pe sticide 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 pes ticide 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 safe ty 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 fo rmulations 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 comme nted on numerous occasions about specific proposals put forth by EPA and other interested pa rties. CLA reiterates here some fundamental points that are central to a ny 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.WPS Proposals; CLA Comment s; 9/7/2007 Page 2 of 5

• Requirements and use limitations must be propor tionate to established risks of the pesticide products in question. The scope and complex ity of any requirements will vary with the established toxicity of the pest icide and the potential for exposu re to workers, which in many cases are best handled through appropriate label language tailored to th e particular pesticide product.

• Any one-size-fits-all approach to pesticide requirements will not adequately reflect the diversity of use situations, growing conditions, and pesticid es products that characterize current pesticide use an d agricultural production.

• The WPS program, like any FIFRA requireme nt, must recognize the long-standing Congressionally-mandated primacy of state enforcement programs.

• Some recent suggestions for modifying the WP S would require change s to FIFRA and could not be imposed under current law. The pesticid e label cannot be used to address concerns outside the scope of FIFRA and its requirement s, regardless of good intentions or perceived desirability.

Any regulations should be appropriate an d proportionate to the level of risk:

Before EPA considers any signifi cant revisions to the WPS, it should address the fundamental question of what areas of the current fram ework, if any, need si gnificant overhaul or improvement. This is a fundamentally sound star ting point for any progra mmatic initiative, and is required by FIFRA’s standard of risk-benefit balancing in order to ju stify additional regulatory burdens. As comments from other groups have illu strated, some of the id eas contemplated as changes to the current WPS do not appear to meet the FIFRA risk-benefit standard.

As noted, reregistration (unde r FIFRA §4) and the introduction of newer pest control technologies have significantly re duced the potential risk s of pesticides to workers, consumers, and the environment. Remaining risks are be ing 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 c onsidering expanding training requirements to encompass all occupational users of pesticides (even janito rs and landscape technicians). As noted in comments by some grower groups, a “simple” revi sion requiring addition al posting of signs around treated fields raises questions about ma intaining the signage, updating the appropriate information, and liability, and adds hundreds of do llars in operating costs, even if most of a

treated field borders on areas where no human entry points ar e likely (e.g., a river). Some revisions, while appearing simple or straight forward, may impose new or significantly greater costs without demonstrably reducing risks.

Similar concerns have been raised about many el ements of the revisions under consideration – what real risks are being addr essed, and do the revisions justif y the likely additional regulatory costs? CLA urges EPA to carefully consider whethe r any changes are likely to result in real risk reduction and therefore justify incr eased regulatory compliance costs.WPS Proposals; CLA Comment s; 9/7/2007 Page 3 of 5

Avoid one size fits all:

It is in particularized setti ngs on individual agricultural operati ons, 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 ingred ient by appropriate label instruc tions 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 id entical products is a more targ eted approach and may provide greater reductions in possible ri sk than significantly expanded requi rements for additional central posting of general information.

Some broad requirements are approp riate, but requirements need to acknowledge the wide range of demography, farming operation size, geographi c conditions, etc. that characterize modern agricultural production systems.

Another unintended consequence of broad centra lized 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 re gulatory findings, and dissemina ted rapidly and efficiently to parties with a need to know. EPA should avoi d requirements or approa ches which otherwise might preclude or hamper taking advantage of oppor tunities 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 corner stone of WPS and other FIFRA requirements is the appropriate deference to th e States and their long- standing importance in carrying out effective pesticide regulatory pr ograms. The individual states are and should continue to be given wide latit ude in exercising their primary re sponsibility for pesticide use in their respective juri sdictions. FIFRA §26 grants primary enfo rcement 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 re visions 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. Re visions to WPS cannot undo this statutory determination of a State preroga tive. If that is a desirabl e idea, it should be pursued by

amendments to the statute.WPS Proposals; CLA Comment s; 9/7/2007 Page 4 of 5

Scope of Certification & Training Requirements

Regarding the previous point pertaining to fundamental resp ect for the current statutory construction of FIFRA, CLA is especially conc erned that FIFRA does not provide the basis for proposed changes that would expa nd training requirements to in clude all occupational users of pesticides (including, for example, janitors a nd landscape technicians) or impose a mandatory examination. The Agency has not substantiate d the rationale for expa nding the scope of the regulations to cover all “occupa tional 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 Committee 2 described how provisions of Sections 2, 3, and 12 of the Act are intended to work together to ensure that pe sticide 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 tim e, EPA would upgrade its health and safety standards in support of a regist ration, resulting in additional pe sticides being placed in the restricted-use category. The same Senate Report states: “ The effect of classification for restricted use therefore is to provide for additi onal 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 an d the environment. Congress did not intend for the Agency to subject non-restricted use produc ts to additional regula tory 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 comp liance 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 a re 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 p esticide warrant in order to protect persons and the environment, while U.S. agriculture c ontinues to derive the benefits of pesticides

use.

2 S.92-838, 92d Congress, 2d Session, 1972WPS Proposals; CLA Comment s; 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 w ould seem more appropriate to bring such concerns before Congress and am end the underlying statute. Until such time, proposals to expand the scope of regulation that would otherw ise 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 Leader1

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

E nvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) Pesticide Worker Protection Standards position papers

that outline EPA’s considerations regarding modifications to Work er 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 home

furnishings are located in virtually every state.

The industry and its suppliers, together with t he 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 e xcess 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

ext ensive developments and modifications to WPS, and subsequently developed in

- house

materials to educate our membership in order for their compl iance with Worker Protection2

Standards. The NCC supports efforts to enhance safety in the agricultural work envir onment; 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 re sults. 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 produce d 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 desi res 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 stud y the remaining issues more carefully and anticipate s submission of additional issue response s 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 id entical 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

- r egistration 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 sa me 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 bel ieve 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 Agenc y’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. C oncerns of costs associated wit h debating the best simplification of terminology, best interpreted pictogram s , creation and distribution of documents, training employees how to interpret documents, and loss of time and productivity

should be evaluated along with cost s of utilizing mater ial 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

- site3

and could result in confusion regarding the pesticide in question once the employee ret urned 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, user s 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 backgrou nds. 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 F ederal 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

ye ar 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 fa ct 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 addi tional 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 h ave 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 c ompliance is best evaluated by requiring material to be present at a

central lo cation 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 i llness. 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 s afety 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 infor mation, 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 t he Agenc y’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 time s 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 certification4

exceeded $15,000 according to information shared with th e NCC by a state agency

. The

estimate does not include the trainer’s time spent conducting the program , travel costs, cost of

booklets , etc. F

unds assisting states with costs of WPS training have dramatically declined since 1992 in terms of unadjusted do llars. 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

pr ograms 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 suggest s consideration be given to a tiered fr equency of training never to exceed 5 year s between training intervals. Annual training could be provided for the first three year s
, 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 presentation s provide avenues to train workers for employment with

little conflic t 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 employee s be listed in the database prior to being able to perf orm employment duties? If not, then what benefit is the database? Is it enhancing the system or just a costly s et of information? The NCC believes verification records should be maintained by the trainer and employer for a period equal to retraining int ervals.

WPS 3

Title : Enhance Safety Training to Better Protect Agricultural Workers and Their Families

The NCC believes parents should be informed of measure s 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. T he lengthier the training material becomes, t he less trainees will pay attention resulting in less

retention of information. Wh ile 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 in5

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 urge s EPA to recognize that not all crops and all pesticides are equal

. S tudies based

on worker s in crops requiring high amounts of contact with the crop do not reflect crops that employee s 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 studie d 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 th ese 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 f unction of modern agriculture. NCC does not support establishment of a time or distance between the s upervisor 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 effecti ve, 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 Services1

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 Standard s

Dear Ms. Davis :

The National Cotton Council (NCC) appreciates the opportunity to provide this letter as a

follow

- up to our June 15 comment s on the E nvironmental 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 millio n 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 home

furnishings 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 c omments 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 is2

the work environment of most of the NCC membership. NCC will continue to wo rk 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 w ith 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 belie ves 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

comme nts.

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 t he 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 so me 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 th e risk activit ies 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; encl osed 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 professio nals 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 retaliat ion 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 ag rees that retaliation sho uld 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 d uplicative and
not necessary. Additionally , i ncluding concise training and examples in worker training will3

increase training program time and could result in less attention to material. Material related to direct protection of worker health should be ma intained 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 wa s 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 ag ency

.

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 inte rpretive 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 polic y 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 certa in 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 decision s 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 Pestic ide 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 establishi ng 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 propo se 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 applica tions on farms and forests like those that are already in applicable to4

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 “buffe r 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 cos t. 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. Gree nhouse 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 the refore 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 all ows 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 applicatio n 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 a rea 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 p oints 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, on

farm manager or pesticide applicator; and date and t ime that REI expires. In addition, attached to each sign should be a written list of the pesticides used on that field during5

the past 30 days. The list should be written in English and Spanish or other languages spoken by the majority of the workers emp loyed 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 pote ntially 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 gre atly 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 t o 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 compl exity.

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 syste m there are many fields that do not have vehicle passage routes around th e 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 wi ll 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 operat ions. 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 100 0 acres which are divided into several fields with an average size of 20 Acres (small farm

o peration s ) . 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 a verage 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 $7.5 0 per hour and a travel speed of 2 MPH to travel the perimeter of the field plus 1 minute to pl ace 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 ref erring 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 prov isions 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 t he 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 t o 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 i s 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 Pesti cide 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 i t

. Consideration of the Agency : EPA is considering requiring an EPA

- approved pesticide safety poster to be po sted 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 employee s 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 more7

likely to read a poster that is place a t 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

environm ental 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 incr ease 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 s ection 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 t hat 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 N CC 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 t hem 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 double d 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 e xist 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 t his 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 ques tion 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 in terest 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 assistanc e 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 employ er, 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 Agen cy’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 int o the home environment. The NCC believes, especially with completion of re

registration of pesticides, the Agency is complicating worker protection standards without justification.

170.240 Personal protective equipment This section contains provisions th at establish requirements for the PPE that must be wor n 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 t raining 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 work9

environment? Who will have access to th e 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 mo nitoring 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 work ers 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 certifie d 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 provision s 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 minu te 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 p est 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, mainta in 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 p eriods 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 o ften 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 w ill 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 p esticide 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

cr op 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 regula tions 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 writi ng 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

“FIFR A does not preclude a requirement for competency standards for applicators of non

restricted 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 catego ries. 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 c ompetency 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 th e 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) T here 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 appli cations 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 o wn 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 e nhances 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 ro w. 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 enco urages 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: Unknown12

It is the understanding of the NCC that C & T 4 does e xist, 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 comp onent 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

suscept ibility 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 memb er 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

situatio ns

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 a s 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 precedin g regulation suggestion could have on valuable educational experience programs conducted by the FFA. Additionally, y outh working on family farms receive extensive superv ision and training from parents and extended family members. At times,

the survival o f 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. A s 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 particular14

provisions to protect youth, the Agency is encouraged to consider long term impacts when youth are restricted from agricu ltural 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 r easonable 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 pest icide 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 restrict ions beyo nd 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 non

compliance.

Ques tion 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 quali ty 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 budge ts.

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 de tailing 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 th e 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

stat es 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 gau ges.

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 cos tly and not justifiable at this time. The recent completion of the pesticide re

- registration process has removed many of the toxic16

compounds from the market and will dramatically impact worker protection as well as environmental and public health. Eviden ce 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.” 1 These 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 re port 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. Additiona lly, 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 whet her 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 agricultura l 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. Norm an, 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 Wo rker 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 di sinfectants, disinfectan t cleaners, household insecticides, insect repellants, and insect c ontrol products for companion animals. These products provide important public health benef its to consumers and are vital in protecting against disease and infestation.

I appreciate the opportunity you pr ovided 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 produc ts or plans to undergo educa tional efforts on such, CSPA

be contacted to discuss the most effectiv e and practical methods that would address

EPA’s concerns.

Once again, we appreciate the Agency’s solici tation 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.orgJune 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 Protec tion 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 sa fety. We feel that, while gr eat progress has been made in the advancement and development of agricultur al techniques in the past decade, similar progress in enhancing protections for worker s 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 ev ery five years. Considering the serious risks posed by pesticide exposure and the fre quency of contact between farmworkers and agricultural pesticides, we feel that annual pesticide traini ngs are a must, in order to reinforce the dangers of exposure and the sa fety measures farmworkers should follow. Five years in between trainings allows work ers 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 gene rally pay little attention to the required video, a mandatory yearly trai ning is one method of emphasi zing the seriousness of the material presented in the training. This leads us to our second suggestion.

Suggestion: Require oral, language-a ppropriate testing of workers to ensure they

understand the contents of the tr aining. Oral question and answ er 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 th e 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 fo llow 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. Em ployers often show the video in order tocomply with regulations, without making the employees aware of the purpose of the training and the importance of th e contents. In some cases, c ontract laborers tell workers to sign a paper saying that they have been tr ained, without their actually having received training. Implementing a method of testing wo rkers 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 ta ke 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 cigarett e or going to the bathroom. The purpose of this is threefold: to determine the level of understanding of the workers of th e risks of pesticide exposure; to put into practice the health and safety measures worker s can take to protect themselves; and to remind them of their rights and what to do in cas e of illness or injury.

Suggestion: Require training prior to beginning wor k. 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 thei r health and the health of their families. It only takes one acute exposure to cause serious health imp acts, 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. Wo rkers in most other industries must receive training before they are actually allowed to begin thei r 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 safe ty 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 trai ned 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 c onduct trainings in conjunction with the training video. The most common method of tr aining is the EPA training video. While

the video itself is informativ e and complete, its effectiven ess, 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 importanc e of the video. A certified trainer that can engage workers in a di alogue and/or discussion about the information that is presented is one method of conveying the info rmation in a more concrete and impactful way. The Farmworker Association uses EP A certified Pesticide Health and Safety trainers in a 1 1⁄2 hour long popular edu cation method of training, which engages

farmworkers in interactive activit ies that builds on their personal experiences. It includes game playing, and questions and answers to determine workers’ understanding and retention of the materials pres ented. Our experience has been that workers, even those that have spent significant time working in ag ricultural, learn a grea t deal more through this method of training then through watchi ng a video that does not engage them.Suggestion: Require trainings to include pertin ent information specific to woman of child-bearing age, to workers with familie s 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 proble ms, 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 certa in unexplained symptoms, they will then be able to make the connection between the sy mptom 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 fiel ds 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 cl imate in Florida. High humidity can keep plants moist and wet and, thus, keep pesticid es in a more potent phase for longer periods of time. In addition, peopl e with compromised immune systems, children, the elderly, and others may be more susceptible to lo w-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 po ssible pesticide exposure as a cu lprit 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 info rmation 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 th eir area, in case they and/or their family members experience symptoms after regular working hours. Too often, farmworkerssuffer work-related illnesses that never go repo rted, 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 medi cal 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 with in the 25’ buffer zone in greenhouses.Special conditions in greenhous es, including high humidity, intense heat, closed conditions, and incons istent ventilation based on wi nd and air circulation, make it too risky for any workers to remain in greenhous es 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 appl icators should be require d 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 spra ying is going on. This problem has been reported to us by workers, and we feel this pr esents a significant probl em that needs to be

addressed.

Scope of WPS Suggestion: Require WPS protections for worker s 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 roadwa ys and new housing developments. Additionally, as intensive dairy farming a nd livestock grazing concentrate in ever decreasing rural areas, workers move from crop agriculture to these new areas of work. In this transition, they are a ll too often not provided with th e 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 desi gned 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 farmwork er 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 scenar io raises many disturbing questions about the exposure of children and whole families to ag ricultural chemicals used in such close proximity to people’s living qua rters. One remedy for such a scenario is to require adequate (minimum 100 feet) buffer zones ar ound any farmworker housing areas. Built in to the requirement for buffer zones must be a mechanism for enforcement. Perhapsglobal 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 registra tion of all trained pesticide applicators/ mixers/ loaders. All persons preparing to mix, load, and/or apply pesticides should first pass through an appren ticeship 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 indicat e 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 th eir 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 fr om one area to another, but that oversight is maintained in all cases, the certified app licator 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 th is process of review of the WPS, and we hope that you will seriously take into c onsideration the suggestions that we are submitting herein. Farmworker organizations are in the best position to know and understand the reality of the workers, and, hen ce, 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 w ith you further.

Sincerely,

Tirso Moreno

General CoordinatorJune 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 we re 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 advers e health effects to farmworkers and their spouses and children. These include: advers e neurobehavioral changes caused by low level (subacute) exposures, adverse reproduc tive 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 incide nts are underreported because workers do not always seek medical treatment for mild or moderate symptoms; clinicians may not recognize pesticide-related illn esses; and even recognized cases may not be reported.

Source : Summary Results of Yakima Farmworker Focus Groups About Pesticides and

Health Care. Olympia, WA: Washington Depart ment of Health, September 2003.

Available at http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/oehas/EHA_publications.htm

.

In six focus groups with farmworkers c onducted by the Washington State Health Department, nearly 75% of the participants reported that they w ould not seek medical

attention for the mild or moderate symptoms of pesticide exposure.

12. Even low-level (subacute) exposur es to pesticides can be harmful.

Source : Rothlein, Joan, Rohlman, Diane, Lasarev, Michael, Phillips, Jackie, Muniz, Juan, McCauley, Linda. Organophosphate Pestic ide Exposure and Neurobehavioral Performance in Agricultural and Nonagricultural Hispanic Workers. Environmental Health Perspectives 114(5): 691-696, 2006.

Researchers compared the neurobehavior al performance of Mexican immigrant farmworkers working in Oregon with that of Mexican immigrants working in the hotel and restaurant industries in a nearby to wn. (Subjects and controls had similar demographic profiles with regard to age, e ducation and other pertinent variables.) They found that the neurobehavioral performance of farmworkers was signi ficantly poorer than

that observed in contro ls. 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 a nd Exposure to Organophosphate Pesticides Among Farmworkers. Environmental Health Perspectives 112(2):142-147, 2004.

Using a random sample of 213 farmworker s in 24 communities and labor camps in eastern Washington State, Coronado et al. examined the association between occupational task and organophosphate (OP) pes ticide residues in dus t and OP metabolite concentrations in urine samples of adu lt farmworkers and their children. Commonly reported farm tasks were harvesting or pick ing (79.2%), thinning ( 64.2%), loading plants or produce (42.2%), planting or transpla nting (37.6%), and pruning (37.2%). Mixing, loading, or applying pesticide formulati ons was reported by 20% of their sample. Workers who thinned were more likely than t hose who did other tasks to have detectable levels of azinphos-methyl in th eir 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 formul ations had lower detectable levels of pesticide residues in their house or vehicl e 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 pe rformed field work (harve sting or picking, pruning, loading, packing, or sorting plants, fruits or vegetables; weeding, thi nning, or irrigating) compared to workers who mixed, loaded or app lied pesticides. Nonetheless, regardless of task, workers in all categories had detectable levels of OP metabolites in their urine. The finding of pervasive organophosphate urinary me tabolites 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 decrem ents in neurobehavioral functioning.

3. Farmworkers have an increased risk of a variety of reproductive health problems, including an increase in ba bies born with birth defects

Female farmworkers and women married to farmworkers need to know the specific details of the pesticides to which they or th eir spouses are exposed because of the serious

2and 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 Childre n 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 pe sticide exposure to a pregnant Ag-Mart field worker caused her son, Carlitos, to be bor n 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 Jesu s’ 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 moth er did not work in No rth 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 ma ny sources, including da ta collected by the Florida and North Carolina Departments of Agriculture and Consum er Services (FDACS and NCD&CS, respectively) and the Collie r 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 revi ew of articles addressing the possible associati on 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/Nort h Carolina pesticide application and payroll records; and (vii) Ag-Mart/North Carolina wo rk 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 informati on, OEEB learned when the pregnant women were exposed to pesticides associated w ith birth defects and when these exposures occurred in possible violation of restricted entry interval requirements (REI). The only significant medical information obt ained was that Jesus’ fathe r’s family has a history of deformed jaws.

3OEEB also noted that both FDACS a nd 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 handler s, failing to provide worker s with adequate supplies of hand washing or drinking water, allowing the open burning of pestic ide 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 allege d violations and the penalties.

Based on its investigation, OEEB recommende d, 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 def ects registry to compare incidents affecting agricultural and non-agri cultural workers: and (iv) that the Environmental Protection Agency strengthen the Worker Protection St andard to require documentation of the workers’ field locations to improve inve stigations 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 cer tificates 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, resear chers also found that curren t 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, Borj a-Aburto VH, Blanco-Muñoz J, Romeiu I, Aguilar-Garduño, García AM. Maternal and paternal occupational exposure to

4agricultural work and th e 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 def ect) 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 C ontaminants in Breast Milk. Journal of Midwifery &

Women’s Health 51:26-34, 2006.

Breast feeding is a significant source of infa nt 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, K nott C, Blair A, Alavanja MCR, Sandler DP. Pesticide exposure and self-reported gesta tional diabetes mellitus in the Agricultural Health Study. Diabetes Care 30:529-534, 2007.

Exposure at any point in life to four herbicides and three in secticides commonly used in agriculture was associated with a doubling of the risk for de veloping 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, Langs ton JW, Ross GW, Sandler DP. Pesticide Exposure and Self-reported Parkinson’s Di sease in the Agricu ltural Health Study. American Journal of Epidemiology 165 (4): 364-374, 2007.

Evidence continues to mount th at pesticide exposure increases the risk for developing neurological problems, especially among app licators. 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 ex tensive 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 a pplicators 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 us ing self-reporting questionnaire s. 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., incide nt PD). Prevalent PD was

5found to be associated with use of para quat (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 cu mulative 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 cer tain 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 can cer 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 Californ ia. 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 co rpus 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, La ngley R, Robson MG, Rohlman D. Studying

Health Outcomes in Farmworker P opulations 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 bi rth defects, especia lly orofacial clefts and musculoskeletal disorders (Hanke & Jurewicz 2004). Yet significant challenges remain in studying the long-term health effect s of pesticide exposure in farmworkers. To advance this research, McCauley and collea gues present a brief overview of the existing literature, identify re search challenges in studying farmworkers and suggest helpful approaches and methods for tackling these issues.

Using an epidemiological lens, “[t]he basic components that are nece ssary to effectively study the association between pesticide exposur e and health effects are determination of the population at risk; a valid determinati on of exposure; verification of diagnosis, symptom, or biological marker of a health effect among the populat ions being studied;

6methods to link individual exposure to health effects; and the ability to establish a temporal relationship between the exposure and the health effect” (M cCauley et al. 2006: 954). But many of these basic data are unava ilable for the farmworker population (e.g., number of farmworkers, names of products a nd 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 Treate d 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- te rm health effects associated with each pesticide used at the worksite), prot ecting children, and wo rkers’ rights.

Source : Flocks J, Monaghan P, Albrecht S, Ba hena 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 e xposure 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 thei r families’ health. This study conducted in Florida concerning farmworkers understanding of occupational pesticides found that the knowledge gaps are frequently filled using pe rsonal 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 heal th 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 genera lly 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 pest icides could enter the body, and spoke of pesticides “going to the brain” after being inhaled. Because worker s usually did not know about applications at their wo rksites, they tended to rely on their sense of smell to determine whether pesticides were present. Th e 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 te rm 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.

7These findings demonstrate that although farmworkers have accurate knowledge on certain aspects of pesticide safety and e xposure risk, important gaps remain. Workers need timely, unimpeded access to information a bout applications, including the name of the pesticide(s) used and their short- and long- term health e ffects. Workers also need to

be educated that odor is not a reliable means of detecting the presence of pesticides. They should be provided with appropr iately detailed information on the possible reproductive health effects so they are better equipped to protect themselves and their families.

Source : Elmore RC, Arcury TA. Pe sticide Exposure Beliefs Am ong Latino Farmworkers in

North Carolina’s Chri stmas Tree Industry, American Journal of Industrial Medicine

. 40:153-160, 2001.

In a North Carolina study, based on interv iews 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 di scerned from the strength of its odor and that

adverse health effects would not last more than a day or two. As one work er put it: “I would

like to know [ about possible long-term hea lth effects] to make sure I’m doing all I can to protect my family.”

Source : US General Accounting Office, Occupa tional Safety and Health: Employers Experiences in Complying with the Hazar d Communication Standa rd GAO/HRD – 92 – 63BR, May 1992.

In other industries, educating workers and em ployers about the specific chemical hazards they encounter on the job has led to in creased 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 manageme nt’s awareness of workplace hazards. In addition, 30 percent of these employers repl aced hazardous chemicals with less harmful ones, and 17 percent saw a reduc tion 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 ch emical at the worksite. This training must include the short- and long- term health effects associated with the pesticide.

83. Restricted Entry Interval (REI) exceptions:

Source : Reeve M, Schafer K, Hallward K, Katten A. Fields of Poison: California

Farmworkers and Pesticides. San Francisco, CA: Pestic ide Action Network North America (PANNA), 2002. Available at http://w ww.pesticidereform.org/article.php?id=4

In reviewing reported poisoning incident s in California, for the period 1998-2000, researchers found that about 25% (336 cases) in volved exposure to pesticide residues. Of these incidents, violations c ontributed to 143 (43%) of the residue cases. As such, many residue incidents occur because growers ar e taking advantage of REI exceptions. To prevent injuries, these lo opholes 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: Pestic ide Action Network North America (PANNA), 2002. Available at http://w ww.pesticidereform.org/article.php?id=4

In an analysis of reported pesticide inci dents in California, involving agricultural workers. 51% (681) cases invol ved pesticide drift . Violatio ns contributed to 373 (55%) of the drift cases. In other instances, the pr otections 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 w ho use a respirator must first be evaluated by a doctor to determine if their heart and l ungs 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 th eir face and the respirator. Recently, the California Department of Pesticide Regulat ion has updated pesticide worker safety requirements so they are now nearly e quivalent to federal OSHA’s requirements Moreover, some pesticide fumigant labels now specify that the OSHA respiratory protection regulations must be fo llowed for use of their products.

Conclusion:

Your consideration of our co mments is much appreciated.

Sincerely,

9Shelley Davis

Farmworker Justice

Anne Katten California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation

Shelley Latin Legal Aid Services of Oregon

Amy K. Liebman Migrant Clinicians Network

10June 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 Pr otection Standard (WPS). ICAN is a statewide grassroots organization with f ourteen 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 work er 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 s hould also be required to ensure that workers have been trained before they enter a fi eld 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 sy mptoms they were experiencing were due to pesticide exposure. If they had been trai ned, 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 thr ee 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 be lieved 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.Hazard Communication

Farmworkers should receive health information about the specific pes ticides used at the worksite. Because many workers in Idaho ar e 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 pe sticide 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 commonl y 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 cont act 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 th e fields every time they apply a pesticide, and for 30 days after the REI has ended.

In Idaho, communication problems between gr owers and farm labor contractors have led to accidental pesticide e xposures that could be preven ted if fields were clearly posted with information about pesticide appl ications. Most of Idaho’s growers hire workers through labor contractor s, and the contractors do no t 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 arri ve. When this happens, if the contractor does not contact the grower, workers can en ter 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 a nd 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 pe sticide application information at points of entry will provide critical pesticide information for neighbor s 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, becau se they were afraid of angering their employer by reporting, or because they were afraid of gettin g involved in an investigation because of their immigration st atus. As we researched the problem in Idaho, we found very few studies of the exte nt of pesticide exposure in Idaho, and no information even about the extent of pesticid e 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 repor ted exposure incidents.The Environmental Protection Agency s hould strengthen the Worker Protection Standard to protect farmworkers. ICAN w ould like to participate in the rule making process, and would welcome any further opportu nity to comment on the changes, either in writing or through public hearings. Pleas e inform us of future opportunities to comment on the regulations.

Sincerely,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. Perhapsmore 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: 614-292-9783Kathy 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 Storage6. 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 soby 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 WashingtonMr. 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 invita tion 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 NAI CC 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

# C C h h e

e m

m i i c c a

a l

l P

P r r o

o d d u u c

c e

e r

r s

s a a n

n d

d D D i i s s t

t r

r i

i b

b u

u t

t o

o r r s

s A A s s s

s o

o c c i

i a a t

t i

i o o n n

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 Rela ting to Worker Protection Standards

Dear Ms. Davis:

The Chemical Producers and Distributors A ssociation (CPDA) woul d like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the disc ussion papers developed by the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) that ad dress 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, form ulation, distribution, and sale of pesticide products used on food, feed and fiber crops, a nd in the care and ma intenance of lawns,gardens and turf. The CPDA membership al so includes a number of companies that manufacture, distribute and se ll 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 th e proposed changes to certification and training requirements are insufficient and th ere is no existing data that supports an extension of the reach of these requi rements 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 comp etency to use pesticides safely; and, 3)

revise standards for the use of restricted us e pesticides by uncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator.

The proposal would establish a federal requir ement calling for the formal training and/or certification of potentially millions of occupa tional applicators throughout the U.S. that currently apply general use pesticides and antimicrobial compounds in industrial or institutional settings. Many of these individuals have alread y 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, restri cted use pesticides (RUPs) may only be applied by individuals classified as certified applicators. It is estimated that restricted use pesticides account for approxima tely 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 pape r (C&T 1). CPDA believes that the issues raised by USDA have considerable merit a nd should weigh significantly in any possible

revision of worker certificati on and training requirements. As EPA itself acknowledges,

USDA asserts that a full assessment of EP A 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 m oving forward with the proposed changes outlined in the discussion paper until the Ag ency 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 declini ng and notes that many illnesses previously observed were likely due to pesticides such as mevinphos, ethyl

2parathion, chlorpyrifos, and other or ganophosphates which are now cancelled or

restricted. USDA also indicates that the inci dent 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 re present 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 regulati ons. 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 da ta substantiating the ra tionale for expanding the scope of the regulations to cover “occupational” users

Training Standards for Uncerti fied Applicators (C&T 3) :

CPDA believes that establishing some reasona ble 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 shoul d be flexible and risk-based. However, CPDA does not support any requirement that a certi fied applicator be si tuated on-site or a maximum distance from the person being superv ised. As explained in the comments of the National Cotton Council (NCC), a certifie d applicator who supervises multiple employees needs to have the flexibility to re turn to the farm hea dquarters 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 cer tified applicator are given specific instructions pertaining to spee d, pressure, and monitori ng 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 peri od 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 appli cation would preclude that individual from making necessary and critical equipment adju stments that can only be done offsite at a centralized control facility s ituated in farm headquarters.

Recertification Requirements (C&T 7) :

CPDA concurs with the position of the Pestic ide Policy Coalition (PPC) which points out that under 40 CFR 171.11, federal private cer tifications expire after four years and commercial certifications after three years. As such, current regulations already address EPA’s question regarding frequency of recer tification. CPDA joins with PPC in urging EPA to refrain from adopting any requireme nt that would call for more frequent

recertification.

3Pesticide Hazard Information (WPS 1) :

CPDA strongly supports the premise that a ll employees have a “right-to-know” the

hazards and identities of the ch emicals they are exposed to in the workplace as well as the measures that they can take to protect th emselves. However, CPDA believes that this goal can be accomplished with the existing regulatory tools EPA has in hand. The Agency should move cautiously in consider ing 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 th e 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 in tends to adopt as it s final approach in implementing the GHS. In its issue paper, EP A 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 po ssible 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 di rect bearing on the components of any WPS hazard communication system and that both pr ograms should proceed in tandem, rather than independently of one another.

Before addressing the specifics of EPA’s pr oposal as contained in issue paper “WPS 1,” CPDA raises the overall question of whethe r any changes to the hazard communication

elements of WPS are needed at all in li ght 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 implementa tion of label changes to lower application rates, allow fewer applications of pesticides , increase re-treatment intervals, increase personal protective equipment (PPE) requireme nts, require mandatory closed-engineering systems, and increase re-entry intervals fo r 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 movi ng forward with any wholesale changes to

the WPS.

In its “WPS 1” issue paper, EPA is proposi ng to include a requirement that employers provide copies of hazard communication material s to workers for those pesticides that the workers may be exposed to during early entry activities. EPA is also proposing that

4employers make appropriate hazard communica tion information available to workers at the location of the field in which they are work ing if they do not have suitable access to a central location. As described, this option suggests that the lo cation where employees would find pesticide hazard communication w ould 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 actu ally result in greater confusion among agricultural workers who woul d never know, from day to day, where to find information on the pesticide products that they would be handling on th e job. CPDA encourages EPA to adopt a system whereby relevant pestic ide hazard communication would be made available to all agricultural workers at a pe rmanent, centralized location that will not “float” to different locations on a daily basis.

CPDA agrees with the suggestion of the Pest icide 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 re liance 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 en trance 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 consider ation is one that would requi re agricultural employers to utilize the MSDS as the vehicle for delivering hazard communication information to workers. The Agency notes that the MS DS is already developed and has national applicability. However, the Agency rejects th is 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 lite rate than other worker s that are subject to the Occupational Safety and Health Admi nistration’s Hazard Co mmunication 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 th an the WPS provides to workers under its purview. Specifically, in its “WPS 1” issue pape r, 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, empl oyers could obtain MSDS material to be

maintained at the centralized location with ot her WPS resources such as pesticide safety posters and application information. Th e creation of additio nal 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

5community 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 developmen t 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 bene fit to the farm worker community.

CPDA is concerned that EPA’s proposal call ing 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 pr esent the information in a bilingual manner, important safety information could be translat ed incorrectly or conveyed in a manner that differs markedly from the precautions stipulat ed on the MSDS and/or pesticide label. Important nuances could be lost in transla tion. The potential for incorrect translation raises liability issues for both the farm operato r 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 agricultura l 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 re duction 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 wo rker 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 retenti on of proper handling of pesticides and safety precautions. CPDA believes that repeating the same material numerous times will eventually become ineffective. As an alte rnative, CPDA recommends that EPA consider

a shorter interval for re-train ing 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 th e elimination of the current training grace period that allows workers to enter treated fields for a peri od of five days without first receiving full Pesticide Safety Training. CPDA opposes the elimination of the grace period. Elimination of the gra ce period is not feasible partic ularly 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 empl oyment. When contemplating any proposal that would eliminate the current grace period, it is important to ta ke into account the transitory and somewhat unpredic table nature of the agricultu ral workforce. It is not uncommon for existing workers to leave thei r 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.

6Issue paper (WPS 2) lists se veral 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 EP A is also considering the establishment of a

national searchable database of trained workers.

CPDA is concerned that EPA’s proposal calli ng 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 th at states would incur significant expenses associated with revamping existing IT system s 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 poten tially result in cutb acks in other state regulatory initiatives crucial to the safe use of pesticides. Furthe rmore, EPA’s recordkeeping proposal would place an undue burde n 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 th is proposed record submission requirement in an efficient manner. Small farmers lacking su ch IT capabilities woul d have to resort to the submission of paper records, a pro cess that is time-consuming, financially burdensome, and inherently fraught with the po tential 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 agricu ltural employers should be required to retain worker training records, CPDA recommends a peri od 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 th e information contained on the sign as well as posting requirements. EPA is also consider ing the following additi onal 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 illust ration of a man with an upraised hand; and, 3) all fields which are or have been u nder an REI during the preceding 30 days would have a sign posted at the usual points of entr y with specific information that includes the name of the pesticide applied, application da te and times, REI, contact information for

7employer, on-farm manager or pesticide ap plicator, and date and time that the REI expires. In addition, attached to each sign would be a writte n list of the pesticides used on that field during the past 30 days. The list would be writte n 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 “s kull and cross bones” symbol on signs around the field. The “skull and cross bones” pictoria l 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 significan ce of toxicity category I pesticide use. Furthermore, CPDA agrees with other members of the regulated community that the “skull and cross bones” symbol would projec t a negative image of America’s farming industry, particularly at a time when U.S. gr owers face ever increasing competition in the global markets. CPDA recommends that EPA re tain the current symbol that displays the picture of a man with an upraised hand in c ontemplating 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 requi rement 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 acr es per field would re quire 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 1 000 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, insura nce, 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 app lications. The WPS already contains requirements for field posting and notif ication that are sensib le 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 re stricted entry interval (REI) exceptions to address what the Agency believes is vague and unenforceable language that may be confusing to agricultu ral employers and the regulated community. The Agency states

that it also has concerns that if the co nditions for the exceptio n are unclear, workers might be sent into fields to engage in task s that should not take place during the REI.

8CPDA believes that important exceptions to th e REI are necessary in order for certain

essential tasks critical to agricultural production to be pe rformed 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 excepti ons and thus negatively impact production processes that are time sensitive which, in thei r absence, could result in significant crop damage. CPDA references the comments of th e PPC which notes that the Agricultural Reentry Task Force has developed data that sh ow 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 applica tions on farms/forests similar to those that exist for nurseries/greenhouses. The Agen cy is concerned th at the current WPS regulations lack protective requi rements for farms and forests th at 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 just ifying 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 agricultu ral plants on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses. The Agency is considering th e 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 defi nition developed is widely accepted by other agencies and professionals engaged in act ivities associated with these terms.

Providing specific information about applications : EPA proposes that employers make available to agricultural workers informati on regarding the time the application was completed and the start and end times for th e REI. CPDA opposes this proposal. The pertinent information for the worker is th e expiration time of the REI. EPA has not provided any specifics on how agricultural em ployers 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 adop ting 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-

9day period which includes taking baseline and periodic plasma and red blood cell

cholinesterase tests. CPDA does not believe th at 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 numb er of non-pesticide re lated activities could drastically impact cholinesterase levels. Moreover, measurements of cholinesterase levels cannot distinguish betw een pesticide and non-pesticid e exposures. Where elevated

cholinesterase levels are associated with the use of pes ticides, such cases generally

involve incidents where worker s do not follow label directions. As such, it would be better to channel resources into improved W PS 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 oppor tunity 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