www.pesticidepolicy.org

August 31, 2007

Kathy Davis

Certification and Worker Protection Branch

Field and External Affairs Division

Office of Pesticide Programs

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

Washington, DC 20460

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

Dear Ms. Davis:

The Pesticide Policy Coalition (PPC or “the Coalition”) appreciates the opportunity to provide 

input to the deliberations of the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) related to 

proposed regulatory amendments to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS, 40 C.F.R. 170) 

and Certification of Pesticide Applicators (40 C.F.R. 171).

The PPC represents food, agriculture, pest management and related organizations that 

support transparent, fair and science-based regulation of pest management. The PPC 

members include: nationwide and regional farm, commodity, specialty crop, and silviculture 

organizations, cooperatives, food processors and marketers, pesticide manufacturers, 

distributors, formulators, pest- and vector-control operators, research organizations, and 

other interested parties. The PPC serves as a forum for the review, discussion, development 

and advocacy of pest management policies and issues important to our members.

The comments provided below represent areas of “common ground” among the members of 

the Coalition. Individual members may be providing the Agency with additional or more 

specific information on any or all specific topics available for comment. 

Standards for use of RUPs by uncertified applicators (C&T 3)

The PPC believes that by enactment of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA), Congress intended uncertified applicators applying restricted use pesticides 

(RUPs) to be competent persons working under the supervision of a certified applicator. In 

addition, by making such a categorical distinction of applicators in the statute, Congress 
PPC Comments on C&T and WPS proposals, 8/31/2007 Page 2 of 8

2

clearly envisioned different levels of competency between certified and uncertified 

applicators.

The PPC believes that setting some reasonable standards may improve protections. Some 

basic training for the supervised applicator may be appropriate, but this should be flexible and 

risk-based. The PPC supports the Agency’s proposal that experience should be considered 

a component of competency and that this may be acknowledged in differing levels of 

supervision. However, the Coalition does not support any requirements that a certified 

applicator be on-site or at a maximum distance from the person being supervised. We

believe that the person being supervised should be required to have the ability to immediately 

communicate with the certified applicator.

Minimum Age for Pesticide Applicators (C&T 5)

EPA should only be considering this issue in the context of RUPs. PPC supports

consideration of establishing a minimum age of 18 to purchase, handle or apply RUPs 

occupationally, or a minimum age of 16 to purchase, handle, or apply RUPs on a family farm 

or family owned business.

Recertification Requirements (C&T 7)

Aside from section 11 of FIFRA, which prohibits EPA from requiring a written exam to gauge 

competency of private applicators, Congress granted EPA the authority to set parameters for 

certification of applicators. Under 40 CFR §171.11, EPA sets requirements for certification of 

applicators in States without federally approved plans. Under this provision, federal private 

certifications expire after four years and commercial certifications after three years.

1

The 

current regulations, therefore, already address EPA’s question regarding frequency of 

recertification. We urge the Agency to avoid more frequent recertification requirements. 

With respect to other more specific aspects of certification core competencies versus 

category specific requirements and online recertification, we encourage EPA to support the 

least burdensome, most flexible requirements possible. If EPA, with support of State 

regulatory authorities, decides to refine some of these specific elements, we urge the Agency 

to allow for appropriate transition periods so changes can be implemented with as little 

disruption as possible. 

Information on Pesticide Hazards (WPS 1)

The WPS and reregistration process has resulted in major risk reductions for agricultural 

workers. The reregistration process has resulted in the cancellation of a number of 

pesticides, the classification of some pesticides as RUPs, reductions in application rates and 

frequencies, longer retreatment intervals, more stringent PPE requirements, use of 

mandatory closed application systems, and longer reentry intervals. The information EPA 

cites to support the need for revisions to regulation predates these important changes under 

reregistration. 

1

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

3

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

enforcement challenges. Imposing additional requirements will not correct this situation. 

EPA must instead be committed to better enforcement of existing regulations.

We do not agree that workers face significant risks because they do not have access to 

adequate hazard information for specific pesticides. Moreover, the Agency has not 

demonstrated how creation of additional information materials will enhance worker 

protections. Pesticide labels and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) are readily available 

and provide workers with all of the information needed. Employers could maintain MSDS 

material at the centralized location with other WPS materials (pesticide safety poster and 

application information). Creation of additional pesticide hazard information is costly,

burdensome, and potentially confusing to workers. Moreover, adding additional hazard 

information to the labeling or MSDS (e.g., the Global Harmonization System (GHS) effort) will 

require further education and training for all, placing a large burden on the already limited 

resources of those who must implement such training. To the extent that the Agency insists 

on development of additional materials, EPA should coordinate with USDA to ensure 

responsible production, distribution and maintenance of such materials. Involving the 

registrants, as EPA proposes, will likely result in cost shifts to employers and other end users.

Regarding EPA’s concern about potential “intimidation”, the PPC would be supportive of the 

Agency establishing a toll-free telephone line specifically for pesticide concerns. Such an 

approach could also be used by EPA to assess the magnitude and nature of real world

issues prior to proposing regulations based on intuition.

Workers should learn the meaning of particular symbols through proper education and 

training. We believe use of illustrations, such as skull and crossbones, is inappropriate, as

such symbols may be confused with the symbol’s use in other settings. 

Training Administration Issues (WPS 2)

Options for re-training intervals and grace period amendment

With respect to options for re-training intervals, the PPC supports reducing the retraining 

interval to three years. In many sectors, agriculture workers already receive more frequent 

training simply as a function of their mobile employment. However, we do not see the need 

for retraining at shorter intervals (e.g., annual), since it would be burdensome and may be so 

repetitive that it becomes ineffective. A refresher training option may be a viable alternative 

to annual retraining.

The PPC does not support the elimination of the grace period. Elimination of the grace 

period is impracticable for small farmers as they may need to employ outside resources to 

conduct training on the first day workers arrive.

Options for competent trainers

Video-based training must remain an option. While training by a competent instructor may be 

more effective than a video alone, professionally produced videos guarantee a consistent and 

high quality presentation. The use of videos is the most cost-effective and practical way to 
PPC Comments on C&T and WPS proposals, 8/31/2007 Page 4 of 8

4

assure topics are properly and consistently covered. Trainer availability and language 

barriers are significant challenges for agricultural employers. There simply may not be a 

large enough pool of trainers with the knowledge and language skills to meet the demand. 

Trainer education should be encouraged, and EPA should work with States to ensure 

availability of materials to support such programs, but a regulatory requirement will only 

exacerbate the shortage of available trainers. Finally, advances in information technology, 

such high speed internet access and streaming video, will only increase the value of 

leveraging these technologies to provide cost effective training programs. 

Options for recordkeeping

The PPC supports recordkeeping requirements for pesticide safety training (PST) for a period 

of up to two years. We do not support requirements to submit PST records to State lead 

agencies. 

Expanded Safety Training Content (WPS 3)

The PPC believes parents should be informed of measures to protect their families and 

children from pesticide exposure, but does not agree that this information should be added to 

the current WPS occupational training material.

EPA could develop this information which could then be made into brochures for parents to 

take and read at home. PPC believes that science-based, helpful information should be 

made generally available to all pesticide users as take-home materials.

Miscellaneous WPS Issues (WPS 4)

Expansion of WPS to cover dairy, livestock, landscape, and maintenance workers using 

pesticides

The PPC encourages the EPA to consider realistic potential risks and refrain from imposing 

complex regulations to any one sector when distinct uses or concerns do not exist. For 

example, agricultural style reentry restrictions are not realistic for lawn, landscape and

structural pest control applications. Products in these areas are regulated to reduce reentry 

exposure through applicable requirements for registration.

Development of regulatory definitions for closed system, enclosed cab, greenhouse, and 

commercial purposes

The PPC supports the development of definitions for the terms stated above to clarify issues, 

but encourages EPA to ensure that these definitions are widely accepted by other agencies,

knowledgeable professionals, and other government regulations associated with the terms.

Anti-retaliation provisions

The PPC is concerned that EPA is going beyond its authority by addressing anti-retaliation 

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

5

Clarifications related to the exceptions for “wide-area public pest control” and “in a manner 

not directly related to the production of agricultural plants”

The PPC supports EPA’s interest in clarifying the language as long as the original intent of 

the rule remains unchanged.

Clarification of the owner exemption and the concerns related to the immediate family 

definition

EPA should clarify what is meant by “and the concerns related to the immediate family.”

Does the Agency intend to change the rule, clarify the exemption, or both? If the Agency 

intends to change the rule to address “concerns related to the immediate family”, the PPC 

believes that EPA must provide a clear rationale for proposing the change.

Expansion of restricted areas to “buffer zones”

The PPC opposes expansion of restricted areas to “buffer zones” because EPA has not 

provided any data or assessments justifying this change in the regulations. The need for and 

establishment of “buffer zones” is dealt with appropriately during risk assessment and reviewrelated processes for each pesticide.

Entry Restrictions

The WPS already contains requirements for field posting and notification that is sensible and 

protective of worker health base on REIs. Existing point-of-entry requirements provide clear 

and understandable information for workers. The PPC strongly opposes the proposal of 

posting signs every 100 feet. This proposal is overly burdensome and will provide no 

additional benefits.

The PPC also strongly opposes the use of the skull and crossbones symbol to replace the 

man with the upraised hand. The use of the skull and crossbones will only serves to suggest 

to the public that the agricultural operation itself or the crop being grown there is unsafe. 

Additionally, the skull and cross bones caption has long been used specifically to identify 

Category I toxicity products and will result in confusion.

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

importance. Replicating general information at every point of entry undermines efforts by 

employers to stress the importance of reliance on the central location as the primary location 

for the most up-to-date information on a variety of issues.

Require that posted application information contains the time the application was completed 

and the start and end times 

The PPC opposes this proposal. The pertinent information for the worker is the expiration 

time of the REI. It is not clear how EPA proposes that such information be provided. This

information is already available at the centralized location with other records. EPA should not 

pursue a requirement to add this information to point-of-entry signs.

Posted pesticide safety information
PPC Comments on C&T and WPS proposals, 8/31/2007 Page 6 of 8

6

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

the ‘central location’.” The PPC believes that access to information at a central location is in 

the best interest of workers.

If workers do not have meaningful access to required information, then the location selected 

does not meet the necessary criteria. Employers should select locations that are in fact 

“central” and reasonably accessible to workers. Again, concerns regarding worker 

accessibility are likely enforcement issues. Workers must be encouraged to use appropriate 

central locations as a source for meaningful information. EPA’s proposal will undermine such 

efforts.

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

importance. Replicating general information at every point–of-entry undermines efforts by 

employers to stress the importance of reliance on the central location as the primary location 

for the most up-to-date information on a variety of issues.

Additionally, EPA’s assumption that workers are more likely to read a poster that is placed at 

a field entrance is highly questionable. The field entrance is most often an open area, 

exposed to full sun and climatic conditions. The temperature may not be favorable to 

encourage workers to read a poster. The poster could deteriorate rapidly due to 

environmental conditions. Consequently, the PPC opposes this proposal.

Require all farms to have an area where workers can change into work clothes and store 

clean clothing. Hand washing water, soap and towels must also be available at these sites.

The PPC opposes this proposal as it would be overly burdensome, and, in many cases, not 

feasible. Compliance would require construction of new facilities at most production farms. 

Construction creates difficulties for small farming operations that rent farmland. Some 

agricultural operations are not farms in the traditional sense of the word (e.g., forestry 

operations), so providing elaborate “nearby” facilities is not feasible.

In addition, it is unclear what the Agency means by “change into work clothing and store 

clean clothing”. Is the Agency suggesting that the employer should provide work clothing 

(uniforms) or launder clothes at the site? Many farms exist in remote areas without access to 

uniform providers/laundering services, or needed utilities. Again, this provision is cost 

prohibitive to employers.

No valid scientific data has been provided to justify amending the regulations and imposing 

additional these significant infrastructure costs on employers.

Education of workers is the key to prevent the potential take-home exposures the Agency is 

trying to avoid.

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

member or bystander, to provide pesticide application information and a copy of the label(s) 

and MSDS or information sheets to the affected person, his/her representative or a health 

care professional, upon request, within two business days or within one hour in the event of 

medical emergency.
PPC Comments on C&T and WPS proposals, 8/31/2007 Page 7 of 8

7

The PPC supports clarification of the term “promptly” contained in the regulations, but the 

proposal goes too far by including “family”, “bystander” and “his/her representative”. EPA 

should limit changes to clarification of “promptly”.

The regulation should also make it clear to MSDS and pesticide labels are readily available 

via the internet and this should be reinforced in education and training.

Require respirator fit-testing, training, and medical monitoring and cholinesterase testing

The PPC believes WPS training adequately provides training for handlers to fit-test their 

respirators. Adding a questionnaire (OSHA medical monitoring) produces additional forms 

and time. Who will maintain the forms? What do they accomplish in providing a safe work 

environment? Who will have access to the forms? This proposal appears to be more 

appropriate for risk assessment discussion, and does not appear to enhance worker 

protection.

Requiring medical monitoring is very problematic. Medical monitoring raises legal issues 

associated with personal privacy and the protection of medical information. Who would bear 

the costs of such activities? Additionally, many activities and exposures unrelated to 

pesticides can significantly impact cholinesterase levels, and current measurement

technology cannot distinguish between pesticide and non-pesticide exposures. Monitoring 

currently being done in California and Washington has not demonstrated that there are 

significant problems that justify this very expensive undertaking being implemented 

nationwide. Public and private dollars are better spent on training workers to follow the label 

directions and responsible use activities. The recommendations related to medical 

monitoring would be cost prohibitive for both employers and States, and would provide little if 

any measurable public health benefit. 

Available data demonstrate that elevated cholinesterase incidents typically involve failure of 

workers to follow label directions. Consequently, this issue is more appropriately addressed 

through improvements in training. The PPC opposes mandatory medical monitoring being

included in WPS.

Crop Advisor Issues (WPS 5)

The PPC supports maintaining current exemptions for crop advisors under the WPS. 

Further, the PPC supports the reasonable changes noted under Option #2, which would allow 

employees to enter a field for “no more than ten minutes ... during the REI unless full PPE 

and other applicable protections are provided.”

Clarify REI Exceptions (WPS 6)

Growers and users need maximum flexibility to reenter fields to perform tasks in a timely 

manner. Clarifications which enable their reentry in a timely manner are strongly supported. 

The Agricultural Reentry Task Force has developed data that show which activities should be 

classified as “no” and “low” contact activities and do not jeopardize worker health. PPC 

supports exceptions in 40 CFR §170.112 that allow critical activities during the restricted 
PPC Comments on C&T and WPS proposals, 8/31/2007 Page 8 of 8

8

entry interval. If clarification of vague language is necessary, we encourage EPA to ensure 

that revisions do not jeopardize these critical exemptions.

Thank you for considering our comments, and we look forward to further dialogue with EPA 

and other stakeholders on future WPS revisions.

Sincerely, 

Rebeckah Freeman Adcock Ray McAllister/Angus Kelly

Chair, Pesticide Policy Coalition Co-Chairs, PPC Technical Committee