Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0184-0090
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2014-02-20T05:00Z

USDA Comments for the PPDC Worker Safety Regulation Change Subgroup

USDA appreciates the opportunity to provide input into these important
worker safety issues.  USDA complements EPA for the major
accomplishments it has undertaken in the recent past in reducing
pesticide risks to human health and the environment.

▪  EPA required that all pesticide products in use must contain Worker
Protection Standard safeguards in their labeling by October 1996. The
last of these pesticide products meeting WPS labeling requirements,
including increased PPE requirements, began to be used by growers in
1997.  

▪ In 2006-7, EPA completed the reregistration of all pesticides
registered before 1984.   Major and significant risk reductions were
accomplished including the cancellation of a number of pesticides,
cancellation of the riskiest uses of many pesticides, the classification
of a number of pesticides as Restricted Use Products, lowered
application rates, fewer applications of those pesticides, increased
retreatment intervals, increased PPE requirements, mandatory
closed-engineeri杮猠獹整獭‬湡⁤湩牣慥敳⁤敲湥牴⁹湩
整癲污⁳牦浯ㄠ′潨牵⁳潴砠渠浵敢獲漠⁦慤獹映牯琠
敨朠敲瑡洠橡牯瑩⁹景挠敨業慣獬മ

▪ As a result of the reregistratiion effort, children have become more
protected more by the elimination of the most toxic pesticides from use
on residential home lawns, within residential homes, within school
buildings and school areas and public areas such as parks.

▪ As a result of the ten year intensive reregistration effort, all
pesticide products, including anti-microbial agents and agricultural
pesticides now have clear label language for use by professionals and
non-professionals.

Especially noteworthy, the trend in reported pesticide illnesses is
clearly downward and the numbers reported, while of concern, are not
large in magnitude.  

The current federal/state regulatory system is already overwhelmed. So
the scope of the options under consideration may become an unfunded
mandate.

Therefore it is recommended that a full assessment of the recent impact
of reregistration risk mitigation decisions be undertaken before
implementing major worker safety regulatory changes. In view of the
downward trend in observed illnesses, increased and continued federal,
state and private educational efforts combined with enforcement is
recommended.

New significant federal requirements encompassing all pesticide
occupational users and incidental users and including general use
pesticides along with restricted use pesticides used for agriculture
will require changes in state statutes and regulations.  Care should be
taken to consider the impact on the existing infrastructure of state and
private organizations which now provide worker training as well as
impact on the small farmer.  

Issue Paper IA: Expand Scope of Users

▪ USDA is supportive of efforts to protect human health and the
environment as a result of the use of pesticides.  However, major
regulatory changes should await a closer review of the observed trends
in pesticide illnesses and a full evaluation of the benefits of recent
reregistration decisions completed in 2006 which resulted in the
cancellations of many pesticide registrations or uses of the most
to楸⁣数瑳捩摩獥‬⁡敲畤瑣潩⁮湩琠敨愠灰楬慣楴湯
爠瑡獥‬敬杮桴湥摥爠ⵥ湥牴⁹湩整癲污⁳湡⁤汣牡晩
敩⁤慬敢⁬慬杮慵敧‮䤠⁮桴⁥湩整楲Ɑ椠据敲獡摥猠
慴整‬敦敤慲⁬湡⁤牰癩瑡⁥摥捵瑡潩慮⁬晥潦瑲⁳獩
爠捥浯敭摮摥മ

▪  The epidemiological studies brought forward to support increased
regulation should be evaluated more closely in the light of major Agency
actions over the past ten years for three reasons.  

First, it is likely that many illnesses may have been the due to
exposure to more toxic pesticides (e.g. mevinphos, ethyl parathion,
methamidophos, ethion, EPN, moncrotophos, chloropyrifos,) which are now
cancelled or which have undergone major restrictions in their use.  
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/rup/rupjun03.htm" 
http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/rup/rupjun03.htm 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/a8f952395381d3968525701c005e65b
5/1cbb1b3bd0c3947f852571bf0066fbf7!OpenDocument

Second, the studies of worker illnesses cited by EPA cover the period
between 1993 through 2003.  However, the final deadline for compliance
to Worker Protection Standard, which increased worker protection
significantly by requiring increased PPE for all covered pesticide
products being distributed or sold was October 23, 1996.      HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/PR_Notices/pr95-5.html" 
http://www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/PR_Notices/pr95-5.html   So it is reasonable
to assume that it was not until the 1997 growing season that all
pesticide products in use met WPS PPE requirements.

A number of products have received Restricted Use Classifications.  For
example, during the May 2002 and June 2003, thirteen pesticides were 
place onto the Restricted Use Products list 
http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/rup/rup6mols.htm

Again, the full
ef敦瑣漠⁦桴⁥敲敲楧瑳慲楴湯攠晦捥⁴潣灭敬整⁤祢
䔠䅐椠⁮〲㘰〭‷栠獡渠瑯礠瑥戠敥⁮畦汬⁹敲污穩摥
‮ഠ

▪  The trend in reported pesticide illnesses is downward.  During the
November 2006 PPDC meeting, EPA conveyed that “EPA is improving human
health protection from acute adverse effects of pesticides, especially
OP’s (1994 to 2004). Unintentional pesticide exposures declined 26%
and pesticide poisonings declined 37%. Unintentional OP exposures
declined 72% and OP poisonings declined 70%.”
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:RErd4OWw9oUJ:www.epa.gov/pesticides/
ppdc/2006/november06/session1-reregis.pdf+pesticide+reregistration+schoo
ls+2006&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5  

Therefore in view of observed downward trends, with the full
implementation of WPS labeling in 1997, and because the full impact of
reregistration has not been fully realized, it is not certain that no
action or expansion “will leave the public at higher risk of exposure
from a wider range of applicators using pesticides without any federal
regulatory standards.” 

The following information is also offered for consideration:

▪  With regard to safety among agricultural workers, the California
Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide Illness Surveillance
Program (PISP) 2004 report notes a “long-term decline since the
1980s” of suspected pesticide residue injuries to farm field workers
(68 in 2004 versus 350 in some years in the 1980s).”The number of
suspected pesticide residue injuries to farm workers in 2004 remained
low, with 68 cases reported, compared to 58 the prior year and 78 in
2002.”  “The number of suspected or confirmed agricultural drift
illnesses declined for the third consecutive year in 2004 (233 cases and
37 episodes, compared to 256 cases and 33 episodes in 2003; compared to
478 cases and 39 episodes in 2002).”  “Suspected or confirmed,
non-occupational cases have fallen
dramatica汬⁹湩爠捥湥⁴敹牡ⱳ映潲⁭㈵′湩㈠〰′潴㈠
㤴椠⁮〲㌰琠⁯ㄷ椠⁮〲㐰鐮†栍瑴㩰⼯睷⹷摣牰挮⹡
潧⽶潤獣眯獨㈯〰瀴獩⹰瑨൭

▪ From the Michigan Department of Community Health, 

http://www.michigan.gov/mdch/0,1607,7-132-2945_5105-127397--,00.html, it
is noted that the number of confirmed acute, work related pesticide
illnesses and injury cases in 2004 was 116 while the number of confirmed
cases in 2005 was 68.

▪ From the Washington Department of Health, 

(   HYPERLINK
"http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/ts/Pest/pest-school.htm#jamareport" 
http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/ts/Pest/pest-school.htm#jamareport )  

For school illnesses, it is noted that 70% of the reported pesticide
illnesses were the result the result of pesticides applied on school
grounds and 30% were the result of exposure from pesticides that had
drifted into schools from neighboring farmland for the period 2000 to
2005.  The completion of reregistration in 2006-7 fully considered
exposure in school settings as required by FQPA.  Risk mitigations have
included the cancellation of a number of pesticides in school settings
and adjacent areas. Addtionally, many new pesticide product labels with
increased protective language such as spray buffers as a result of
reregistration will be entering the marketplace in 2008 and later. The
protective decisions as a result of reregistration will not be fully
appreciated until beginning 2009.

▪  The full impact of reregistration decisions have not been fully
realized in the field because the new labels have not yet been
implemented. For example, as a result of reregistration, organophosphate
labels now require respiratory protection for pesticide handlers.
However, numerous applicators in Washington State were not using
respirators while using an OP product in 2004 and 2005. Per the
Washington State Department of Health’s Scientific Advisory Committee
for Cholinesterase Monitoring, “Final Report: Cholinesterase
Monitoring of Pesticide Handlers in Agriculture: 2005,” “As noted in
2004, approximately 50% of employers investigated are using a Lorsban
product that does not include a label requirement for respiratory
protection”  

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/ts/Pest/pest-illness-data.htm#cholinesterase"
 http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/ts/Pest/pest-illness-data.htm#cholinesterase 

▪  The studies provided by EPA (Blondell 2005, Michigan Department of
Community Health 2005, Calvert et.al., 2004) provide an overview of
pesticide illnesses in the period 1993 to 2003.  It can be expected that
EPA’s recent successful completion in 2006 of the reregistration of
all pesticides registered before1984 will only continue the decline in
reported illnesses.  For example, numerous OPs such as mevinphos, methyl
parathion, and ethyl parathion have been cancelled or were levied major
risk mitigation measures such as increased PPE, engineering controls,
lengthened spray buffers, ban on aerial applications, reduced
application rates, increased retreatment intervals and increased reentry
intervals levied to further protect human health. The uses for the
remaining OPs and other cholinesterase-inhibiting compounds have
successfully met reregistration requirements.

▪ With regard to childrens’ safety, pesticides were reregistered if
they met the safety standard of “reasonable certainty of no harm”
with regard to pesticide use on childrens’ playgrounds, school
buildings, home lawns and interiors, and public areas such as parks  as
required by the Food Quality Protection Act. As a result, numerous
pesticide uses, including cholinesterase-inhibiting compounds such as
organophosphates, have been cancelled or mitigated leading to increased
protection of children use in schools and home.  

▪  The EPA issue paper states that pesticides “are inherently
dangerous when used incompetently.” To require user competency of the
general working population for all pesticides is counter to the current
EPA regulatory scheme which includes pesticides exempted from regulation
under FIFRA Section 25(b), and numerous biopesticides and reduced risk
pesticides.  Per EPA’s FAQ’s, “There are situations where
pesticide exposure does not cause problems.  For example, some
pesticides cannot be absorbed across the skin.  Or, the body may be
able to metabolize and excrete small amounts of pesticides without
adverse effect.  Additionally, some pesticides have relatively low
toxicity for humans.”

  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/app_faq.htm#cost" 
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/app_faq.htm#cost 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

▪  To expand the scope of regulated users of pesticides beyond
restricted use pesticides, , EPA is utilizing a definition which is
broader than that intended by Congress in FIFRA or within EPA’s
current regulations.  EPA’s definition of occupational user in the
issues paper is not contained in FIFRA or EPA regulations; “An
occupational user is any person, including a self employed person, who
is employed for any type of compensation and who mixes, loads, transfers
or applies or assists in the application of any registered pesticides or
who is defined as a handler in 40 CFR 170.”  This definition should be
fully discussed on its own merit.   This definition would include
part-time farm hands who use any registered pesticides from Home Depot
to spray the family barn to control horse flies.

▪  The term “assists in the application” is a major expansion in
the proposed regulations, is vague and will raise numerous enforcement
issues.  It would be better that enforcement resources be allocated
elsewhere.

▪  USDA is not aware of major numbers of reported illnesses or
accidents associated with the buying or transport of a pesticide. 
Buying and transporting a pesticide consumer product from the
supermarket for work should not require certified applicator training or
the son or daughter of a family farmer to buy and transport pesticides. 

▪ Expanding the scope of users to include occupational users of
anti-microbial products appears to run counter to Section 2(jj) and
Section 2(kk) of FIFRA which excludes individuals who use
“antimicrobial pesticides, sanitizers or disinfectants” in defining
maintenance applicators and service technicians.

As with conventional pesticides, EPA has recently completed the
reregistration of anti-microbial pesticides so it is suggested that
major worker safety related regulatory changes for anti-microbials
should be reserved until an assessment of the outcome of those risk
mitigation decisions can be determined. The anti-microbial products
industry will be submitting additional occupational exposure data as
well

Private Applicators

▪  With regard to private applicators, could the Agency elaborate on
FIFRA Section 11(a)(1) “Federal Certification [of restricted use
pesticides] ”…”Such  program….shall not require private
applicators to take any examination to establish competency in the use
of pesticides.”   Establishing a mandatory federal competency gauge
for private applicators appears contrary to the intent of FIFRA
11(a)(1).

Maintenance Applicators and Service Technicians

▪ EPA, in its definition of “occupational user,” seeks to include
applicators who use or supervise the application of structural or lawn
care pesticides.  Following is EPA’s summary of FQPA’s requirements
for maintenance applicators and service technicians. 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/laws/fqpa/fqpafifr.htm

“Sec. 120 Training for Maintenance Applicators and Service Technicians

Creates two new types of pesticide applicators: l) maintenance
applicators - who use or supervise the use of structural or lawn care
pesticides not classified for restricted use and 2) service technicians
- who use or supervise use of pesticides (other than a ready to use
consumer products pesticide) for structural pest control or lawn pest
control on another's property for a fee. (neither term includes persons
who use antimicrobials, sanitizers, and disinfectants. In addition,
maintenance applicators do not include government employees or people
who use pesticides not classified as restricted use on non-commercial
property.) 

Authorizes states to establish minimum training requirements for these
applicators; EPA's role on these minimum training requirements is to
ensure that states understand these provisions. 

From FIFRA Section 136w-5. “Minimum requirements for training of
maintenance applicators and service technicians”

        

“Each State may establish minimum requirements for training of
maintenance applicators and service technicians. Such training may
include instruction in the safe and effective handling and use of
pesticides in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency
approved labeling, and instruction in integrated pest management
techniques. The authority of the Administrator with respect to minimum
requirements for training of maintenance applicators and service
technicians shall be limited to ensuring that each State understands the
provisions of this section.”

			

The Federal Insecticides, Fungicides and Rodenticides Act (FIFRA)
Section 2(e) (1) and (3)  defines and limits certified applicators,
private applicators, and commercial applicators as those using only
restricted use pesticides. 

However,  FIFRA Section 3  (d)(1)(C)  provides EPA with the authority to
classify a general pesticide as a restricted use pesticide: “…when
applied in accordance with its directions for use, warnings and cautions
and for the uses for which it is registered, or for one or more of such
uses, or in accordance with a widespread and commonly recognized
practice, may generally cause, without additional regulatory
restrictions, unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, including
injury to the applicator, the Administrator shall classify the
pesticide, or the particular use or uses to which the determination
applies, for restricted use.”  Additional training can be mandated for
users of these restricted use pesticides as is done currently.

Protection of School Children 

▪   As stated previously, the full effects of the positive impacts of
reregistration have not yet been fully apprised on the school
population.  

 

▪   USDA supports EPA’s ongoing initiatives for integrated pest
management programs and increased educational efforts via increased
hazard communication efforts by  state, federal and private groups to
reduce pesticide-related illnesses among school children.

▪ While school children must be protected, it is noted that the
overall incidence rate, while increasing among children for 1998 –
2002, the 7.4 cases per million children rate is still three times lower
than the overall incidence rate among adults was 27.3 cases per million
full-time employee equivalents. 2005 “Acute Illnesses Associated with
Pesticide Exposure at Schools “report in the Journal of the American
Medical Association (JAMA), by Alarcon, Calvert, Blondell, et. al.   
HYPERLINK "http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/294/4/455" 
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/294/4/455 . Fortunately, only
three cases of the 2593 persons evaluated for the five year period,
including children, were considered high severity illnesses. Of the 2593
cases, there were no mortalities.  

Issue Paper IB: Under the Supervision 

▪ USDA supports efforts to clarify the requirements of direct
supervision of uncertified applicators to avoid enforcement confusion.
Perhaps a requirement for line-of-sight or the equivalent could be
considered instead of maximum number of feet there may be trees or hills
obscuring the view.  Will a nationally required minimum distance of x
feet actually be enforceable? Still, reported incidences such as single
field supervisor  “directly supervising” 500 workers and another
supervisor who was located 6 hours away should be avoided.  But for
these two given cases, is a national regulation necessary? 

Consideration should be undertaken for available technology to enable
appropriate direct supervision e.g. web cams and cell phones. The need
for closer direct supervisons depends on the experience of the
uncertified workers. First-day recruits would require more attention
than laborers with five years of experience for example.  The ability to
effectively communicate to the uncertified applicator merits
elaboration. 

USDA notes that EPA has the discretionary authority to prescribe that an
RUP may not be applied “under the direct supervision.”   EPA could
provide guidance on when an RUP product would not qualify for use
“under the direct supervision” But for Tox II, III and IV category
pesticides, increased education and outreach could be utilized. 

Issue Paper IC: Restricted Use Product Dealer Competency

▪ USDA supports in general increased competency in pesticide dealers
of restricted use pesticides.  It is noted though that some states
define “pesticide dealer” as one who deals restricted use pesticides
and other states define a pesticide dealer as one selling all
pesticides.  It is not clear if adding a new federal requirement layered
over differing regulatory definitions among states would be easier to
manage than volunteer industry standards such as those of Crop Life
America.  

▪ USDA supports limiting dealer competency to restricted-use
pesticides since FIFRA does not address training requirements for
general use pesticides and since no information has been provided
indicating that pesticide dealer incompetence for general use pesticides
has been problematic so as to require increased regulation.

▪ It is not clear if EPA is proposing competency standards for
pesticide dealers only or also their sales employees.  e.g. customer
assistance personnel.

▪ With regard to homeland security, on December 28, 2006, the US
Department of Homeland Security issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking ``interim final regulations'' for the security of certain
chemical facilities in the United States. Public comment closed on
February 7, 2007. These proposed regulations may not affect the sites of
pesticide dealers.  Depending on the standards to be set, not every
pesticide dealer facility storing pesticide products may be considered a
high-risk facility especially smaller facilities.  Additionally, the
Department of Homeland Security may not require homeland security
safeguards for all classes of pesticides beyond Restricted Use
Pesticides.    HYPERLINK
"http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=0807182
1172+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve" 
http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=08071821
172+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve 

Issue Paper IIA: Minimum Age for Applicators

▪ USDA supports the protection of youths in agricultural employment
and other occupations.  EPA is commended for nearly completing in
2006-7, the reregistration of all old pesticides (pre-1984
registrations).  Many uses were cancelled or modified by reductions in
the maximum use rate, reductions in the numbers of applications,
additional PPE requirements, and required engineering controls such as
closed-handling systems and water soluble packaging for the most acutely
toxic.  

▪ The full effects of these measures and their benefits on youth have
yet to be realized as newer product labels are still entering the market
place.  From May 2002 to June 2003 alone, 13 pesticide active
ingredients were placed onto the Restricted Use Products list  
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/rup/rup6mols.htm" 
http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/rup/rup6mols.htm .   Some active ingredients
were cancelled altogether including mevinphos, monocrotophos, ethyl
parathion. Further, pesticide products could be sold without the
required WPS language and therefore the required worker safety
protection measures until October 1996 (PR Notice 95-5).  The benefits
of required PPE, worker training, washing facilities and other worker
safety measures were 

▪ With regard to applying pesticides occupationally, it was noted
Calvert et.al (2003), that only 15 of 70 of the youths (15 – 17 years)
over a eleven year period (average of 1.4 per year) were reported ill
from directly handling (applying, disposing, or mixing/loading)
pesticides in an agricultural setting.  The magnitude of numbers of
illnesses is small and most illnesses were not classified as major. 
While Issue IIA wishes to ensure that youths in agriculture do not
“endanger” themselves, USDA notes that no mortality was observed
over the eleven year period evaluated.  

▪ While the overall incidence for youths in agriculture is 27 times
higher than that observed in the general working population of youths,
the total numbers are small in magnitude (44 cases per year).  Of the
531 total reported illnesses for agricultural and non-agricultural
related incidences over a twelve year period (average 44 cases per
year), 7 (1%) were reported as major severity and  418 (79%) were
classified as minor severity. 

▪ While Calvert (2003) recommended that “the FSLA and the Worker
Protection Standard should be reviewed and appropriately revised to
ensure that workers younger than 18 years are protected against toxic
pesticide exposures,”

Calvert (2003) reported that the incidence ratio among working youths
aged 15 to 17 employed in agriculture was lower than in adults (0.74)
suggesting that youths in agriculture had a lower risk than adults in
agriculture.  

Calvert (2003) also noted that “only 3 youths appeared to be working
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  These 3 youths
were younger than 16 years, were employed on farms not owned or operated
by their parents, and were applying or handling EPA acute toxicity
category I or II pesticides.”

▪ It was also noted in Calvert et.al. (2003) that for cases from 1993
to 1998, “Nineteen percent (9 of 48) of youths employed in agriculture
used protective equipment.”  Since labels conforming to WPS
requirements for use of PPE for handlers were required by EPA to be in
the market by October 1996, we can expect substantial improvement from
1997 onward. Fortunately, for the period 1993- 1998, “79% of the cases
of acute occupational pesticide-related illness among youths were of
minor severity” and “no fatalities were identified.”

▪ With regard to reentry exposure, “Among the 55 agricultural
workers not handling pesticides, 33 (60%) were exposed while handling
plant products previously sprayed with pesticides.”  It would be
worthwhile effort to determine if the pesticides involved were any of
the organophosphates which have been cancelled between 1993 through
1998.  Also, stated earlier, it can be expected that  new lengthened
reentry intervals from 12 hours to x number of days, as required in
EPA’s completed reregistration effort in 2006-07 will have a positive
impact in reducing reentry related incidences.

▪ The fruits of reregistration from 2006 onward can be expected to
reduce reported illnesses.  For example, only 16 percent of the 70
agricultural youths affected, for which information on PPE was
available, wore PPE [Calvert et.al. (2003)] in a review of incidences
between 1993 - 1998.   The label requirements for increased protection
under WPS was required for all pesticide products by October 23, 1996.
The product labels were reaching the field for the 1997 growing season. 
The requirement for the availability of water for washing and the
changing and washing of worker clothes was also strengthened.  Further,
under WPS, training requirements were strengthened. It would be
instructive to evaluate by the year, (1988 to 1999), the number of
youths who did not the  now- required PPE (respirators, long sleeved
shirts and pants, gloves, etc.) or were not subject to WPS training
requirements. Also, since 61% of the youths reported ill were exposed to
insecticides, it would also be instructive to evaluate how many youths
were exposed to now-cancelled pesticides (mevinphos, ethyl parathion,
monocrotophos).  The full benefit of new labels is yet to be fully
realized.  For example, the Washington Department of Health Report 2005,
stated that 40 % of growers in 2004 and 2005 reported using a certain
organophosphate product whose label had no respirator requirement on it.
The newer labels requiring a respirator  as a result of reregistration
had not yet been utilized within the state.

▪ While the incidence rate for youths in agriculture was 28 times that
of those not working in agriculture based on hours worked (Calvert
(2003), it is also noted that this extrapolation was made from a
relatively small numbers of persons.  There were 213 cases in
agriculture over a six year span  (average 35.5 cases annually).  Cases
in the nonagriculture sector totaled 107 cases (17.8 annually).  Because
of the small magnitude of cases per annum, USDA urges that the full
effects of WPS implementation and reregistration be assessed before
major regulatory changes are implemented to avoid unnecessary negative
impact on family farms and elsewhere.  

▪ USDA does not believe that a person must be 18 to purchase or
transport even the least toxic registered pesticides especially if they
will not be the applicator.  In the Calvert et. al. 2003 report, no
youth was reported ill from the purchasing or transport of pesticides. 
Per EPA in the Issue IIA paper, “A report in the American Journal of
Public Health demonstrated that few pesticide incidents involving
children were due to violations in the Fair Labor Standards Act.”  

▪ Evidence was not provided that youths aged 16 and above were more
prone to risk or abuse from the purchasing and transport of pesticides
as opposed to applying them.

In “Acute Pesticide-Related Illnesses Among Working Youths,
1988-1999,” by Calvert et.al (2003), the incidence ratio among working
youths aged 15 to 17 employed in agriculture was lower than that
observed in adults (0.74) suggesting that youths in agriculture had a
lower risk than adults in agriculture.  

▪ As proposed, a worker would need to be 18 even to purchase personal
insect repellents and 25(b) pesticides.

▪ With regard to minimum age and hazardous communications issues, USDA
urges EPA to cooperate with Department of Labor Occupational Safety and
Health Administration and CDC’s National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health if it has not already done to minimize confusion on
the part of family farms and growers. Child labor laws,   regulations
and posting requirements are already in force.  Overlapping regulations
from three government organizations instead of two should be minimized
for the sake of farm worker, large producers, and family farms.

  HYPERLINK "http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/docs/hazag.asp" 
http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/docs/hazag.asp 

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/youthlabor/agerequirements.htm" 
http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/youthlabor/agerequirements.htm 

  HYPERLINK "http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/childlab.html" 
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/childlab.html 

  HYPERLINK "http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/cl/exemptions.asp" 
http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/cl/exemptions.asp 

▪ Pending further data, USDA supports the existing Department of
Labor’s regulations that youth under 16 must not be “Handling or
applying agricultural chemicals if the chemicals are classified under
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act as Toxicity
Category I -- identified by the word "Danger" and/or "Poison" with skull
and crossbones; or Toxicity Category II -- identified by the word
"Warning" on the label. (Handling includes cleaning or decontaminating
equipment, disposing of or
returnin⁧浥瑰⁹潣瑮楡敮獲‬牯猠牥楶杮愠⁳⁡汦条慭
⁮潦⁲楡捲慲瑦愠灰祬湩⁧条楲畣瑬牵污挠敨業慣獬⤮
ഠ䤍獳敵倠灡牥䤠䉉›硅浡⁳潦⁲灁汰捩瑡牯††††
†††††††††ഠ

▪ Certification of all users of pesticides (general use vs. RUP) will
place a greater burden on states.  According to the American Association
of Pesticide Safety Educators (AAPSE) states receive approximately 1.8
million dollars to run their programs.  The funding comes from EPA and
USDA.  For the last 3 or 4 years AAPSE has indicated that this level of
funding from EPA and USDA has been insufficient.  States will require
additional monies to administer a substantially expanded program; monies
will most likely not available, to run the program as described.  

▪ Currently, in the northeastern states, at least two states do not
allow for reciprocity.  This is problematic for a federal employee who
may need to work across state boundaries as those states do not
recognize any certification outside of their jurisdiction.  Will there
be a way for federal agencies to work with states to allow for true
reciprocity if EPA does establish a program that is minimally consistent
across all states and federal agencies?

▪ Additional training requirements will require more state enforcement
and state costs.  Compliance costs will be passed onto the applicator. 
A number of association organizations are already in place to train
personnel. Does another system by the federal government need to be set
up? 

▪ Has EPA undertaken a preliminary economic analysis on the cost of
the revamping of the program?  How many states will need to revise their
statutes, rules and categories in order to conform to a national
standard? Can savings be expected? or will the requirements be
significant but unfunded? 

		

Issue Paper IIC: Set Standard Requirements for Testing               

▪ Standardized exams are good, however there are problems with these
sorts of exams.  How many different exams will there be?  Who will
construct those exams?  How will regional differences be taken into
account? What protections will be available to states to prevent
pirating of exams?  How often will exams be updated to assure that
information is scientifically and technically correct? 

▪ An apprenticeship can be an onerous task.  Who would determine that
certain “minimum competencies” are met?  Is the apprentice then
given an exam to determine “competency?”  Who would develop the
practical exams? There are a number of people in pesticide education who
have never been involved in operational treatment projects.   These same
people develop and put in
place朠極敤楬敮⁳桴瑡愠敲渠瑯攠晦捩敩瑮漠⁲牰捡楴
慣⁬潦⁲灯牥瑡潩慮⁬灡汰捩瑡潩獮漠⁦数瑳捩摩獥മ

▪ In general, states can still have programs that are more stringent
than the EPA

C&T program which may still lead to states not wanting to grant
reciprocity to

other states or federal agencies that have EPA approved C&T programs. 
Can this

stumbling block be overcome?.  

Issue Paper IID: Competency Requirements Commensurate with Risk

▪ How will “competency based on risk be determined?”  Previous
discussion seems to imply that all pesticides are “high risk” and
“inherently dangerous” The description of “competent person” is
nebulous at best.

▪  EPA has suggested an option to “establish [a] competency gauge
appropriate to risk.” Initially, USDA believes that such an effort
will be extremely complex to regulate and manage. Instead of developing
another layer of pesticides regulation, it might be more expedient to
continue to utilize the administrative process already provided by FIFRA
section 3 which provides for two classes of pesticides: general use and
restricted use with mandatory training for restricted use pesticides. 
Mandatory product stewardship requirements are already on many pesticide
labels.

Issue Papers IIE & F: Period and Gauge for Re-Certification	

Issue Paper  IIIA: Develop Standard Certification Categories	

▪ An expanded list of federal categories for restricted use pesticide
applicators with an option for states to add categories is supportable
if this will increase reciprocity among the states.  If only a handful
of states have reciprocity issues, might it be easier for EPA to work
with those neighboring states?  There is still no assurance that states
will reciprocate if a national standard were implemented.  The same
would apply even during emergencies.  

▪ Certification based on risk associated with the site or type of
application should await until an assessment of the impacts of
reregistration in view of the observed long term continuing downward
trend in observed worker illnesses. (“Summary of Results of the
California Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program 2004 (HS-1865). 
California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Pesticide
Regulation)

Issue Paper IIIB: Update Federal/ State/Tribal Certification Plan
Requirements 

*

6

J

\

t

†

>

h

ž

°

hÂ

hÔ

h»

hÂ

h

hÂ

j8

hÂ

h

jÖ

hÂ

B

D

F

Z

œ

x

¶

摧ʐSᰀ▪ APHIS will submit comments shortly.

		 	

Issue Papers IIIC and VIB: Assure Program Accountability

▪

Issue Paper IVA: Hazard Communication

▪ If not already undertaken, USDA suggests that EPA work with the
Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration on
hazard communication materials. Changes should possibly also await the
completion of the Global Harmonization effort for pesticide labels.
Continued educational efforts and postings to minimize confusion on the
part of farm workers and all other parties is supported.

▪ Under WPS, the farm worker receives training, has access to a safety
poster and information display. Additional information that is provided
to the worker must be understandable.  Information in their native
language and accessibility such as via 800 number can be considered if
not already.

▪ Per Das et.al. (2001) in North Carolina, only 37% stated that their
employers posted information about products in a central location.  It
would appear here that new efforts should be enforcement-related and
focusing on the mandatory WPS posting requirements. 

▪ The issue paper states that the Agency has undertaken several
hazcomm pilot projects and studies.  “The final results from these
various efforts will provide the Agency with better information
regarding the best options and approaches for communicating
pesticide-specific hazards to agricultural pesticide workers.”  A
briefing of the PPDC workgroup on the final results might be beneficial
in determining future options or approaches.

▪ The 2005 Washington Department of Health SAC report, cited in-field
issues which can lead to increased worker exposure: improper use of
equipment (e.g. improper fitting of respirators, facial hair including
beards), improper cleaning of equipment, not changing of respirator
cartridges, the use of improper respirator cartridges, not washing of
hands, and an OP label which did not require the use of respirator). 
Continued educational efforts along these lines is strongly supported.

Issue Paper IVB: Require Timely Training	

▪ USDA strongly supports agricultural worker safety. Because of the
observed downtrends in reported worker illnesses, and because it is not
evident that a shorter time interval before training is needed, USDA is
concerned that a lost or reduction of a grace period would be burdensome
to small farmers if the training requirement is detailed and would take
days to complete.  Video-based refresher training should be part of the
solution.    Continued education and hazard communications efforts are
strongly recommended.

▪ EPA cites Das et. al.  (2001) who reported 313 farmworkers in
California had become ill doing routine farm work between 1998 – 1999.
 It should be noted that the EPA’s reregistration effort had modestly
begun by then. By 2006, many requirements had been imposed to increase
worker safety including: the cancellation of pesticides, cancellation of
many pesticide uses, lowered application rates, increased PPE
requirements including use or respirators, required closed engineering
controls and increase reentry intervals. Workers will be entering fields
with longer REIs determined by EPA to be fully protective.  Major
federal changes should await a determination in the benefits of
reregistration.

▪  The justification for shortening the retraining interval of five
years to three was weak in view of the declining, low numbers of
reported illnesses.  With regard to safety among agricultural workers,
the California Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide Illness
Surveillance Program (PISP) 2004 report notes a “long-term decline
since the 1980s” of suspected pesticide residue injuries to farm field
workers (68 in 2004 versus 350 in some years in the 1980s).”The number
of suspected pesticide residue injuries to farm workers in 2004 remained
low, with 68 cases reported, compared to 58 the prior year and 78 in
2002.”  “The number of suspected or confirmed agricultural drift
illnesses declined for the third consecutive year in 2004 (233 cases and
37 episodes, compared to 256 cases and 33 episodes in 2003; compared to
478 cases and 39 episodes in 2002).”  “Suspected or confirmed,
non-occupational cases have fallen dramatically in recent years, from
522 in 2002 to 249 in 2003 to 71 in 2004.”  

  HYPERLINK "http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/whs/2004pisp.htm" 
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/whs/2004pisp.htm 

▪ Per Das et. al. (2001) in North Carolina, only 37% stated that their
employers posted information about products in a central location.  It
would appear here that new initiatives should be enforcement-related and
focusing on WPS posting requirements. 

▪ Similarly, with regard to enforcement and education, per Das et. al.
(2001), “A survey of California farm workers showed that 57% of the
respondents admitted to receiving training in the safe use of
pesticides.” 

Issue Paper IVC: Require Trainers to Demonstrate Competency	

For family farms, video based training should still be an option. 
Language differences, “trainer availability,” cost-effectiveness,
and consistency in training from recognized competent experts are
accomplished through the use of videos.

Issue Paper IVD: WPS Recordkeeping

	

Issue Paper IVE: Children in Fields

▪ With the 2006-7 completion of the  reregistration of pesticides
registered before 1984,  many pesticides were cancelled or had their
uses rates reduced. Pesticide re-entry intervals were re-evaluated with
the most recent scientific standards. Most REIs were lengthened. Hand
activity was especially scrutinized by EPA’s Health Effects Division. 
Multi-fold safety margins were built into the decision to reregister
these pesticides.  

▪ Rather than addressing children in fields under the Worker
Protection Standard, USDA recommends that educational efforts of
families should be emphasized.  Special consideration should be upon
abiding by mandatory re-entry intervals.   

▪ For this issue paper, EPA cited Guillette et. al (1998), “An
Anthropological Approach to the Evaluation of Preschool Children Exposed
to Pesticides in Mexico.”   The study found that “those children
exposed to pesticides demonstrated comparatively diminished motor skills
and had reduced short-term memory skills, among, other issues.”  This
initial study, involving 33 children from the agricultural area., is
commendable and noteworthy but care should be exercised in extrapolating
this small initial study’s findings into the US context.   

- First, it should be noted that the children in the lower farm areas
were exposed daily to indoor household insect spraying.which could have
played the overriding role rather than on- farm chemical exposure. Per
Guilllete et. al (1998), an initial site visit revealed that household
bug sprays were usually applied each day throughout the year in the
lowland homes. In contrast, the foothill residents maintained
traditional intercropping for pest control in gardens and swatting of
bugs in the home.” The article did not identify which pesticides were
being applied indoors by the families. Malaria is present in the region.
 No organophosphates or carbamates are registered for use in residential
settings now in the US as a result of EPA’s reregistration efforts
which may not be the case in Mexico.

- Unfortunately, for the purposes of this EPA issue, the paper does not
describe how often the children who live in the lowland agricultural
area enter or work in the fields.  Nothing was noted on what REIs are
employed in Mexico versus the US.

- This study conducted in Mexico is an extreme scenario, “Farmers
reported that two crops a year may be planted, with pesticides applied
up to 45 times between planting and harvesting per crop.” A number of
the chemicals specifically mentioned in the article should have little
or no impact on the US which has long banned these chemicals for indoor
use and outdoor use. “Contamination of the resident human population
has been documented, with milk concentrations of lindane, heptachlor,
benzene hexachloride, aldrin, and endrin all above limits of the Food
and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations after 1 month of
lactation.”  Outdoor uses of endosulfan and methyl parathion uses in
the US have been closed reviewed and recently mitigated.  REIs for these
two chemicals exist.  There are no indoor uses for these two chemicals. 

- Unfortunately in this study, no blood or urine samples were taken to
definitely link the observed behaviors to any specific pesticides which
may have been already banned or whose risks have been mitigated in the
US for indoor or outdoor use.  PCBs and dioxins could also have been
measured as stated in the study.  

- The powerful estrogenic effects of environmental mycotoxins should not
be discounted as well.  The agricultural lowlands will have had higher
humidity levels and temperatures than the foothills. The lowlands
farmers may not have been properly storing and drying their corn to
minimize mycotoxin levels.  The agricultural area is 10 – 30 feet
above sea level while the foothills group appears to be 1300 feet (400
meters) above sea level. The foothills weather will be averaging 5
degrees cooler on average with less humidity with more of a difference
depending on the prevailing wind movement. Daily household sprayings in
the lowlands and no pesticide use in the foothills indicates a great
difference in humidity and temperature conditions.

  HYPERLINK "http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2000/108-1/focus.html" 
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2000/108-1/focus.html 

- To date, pesticide exposure studies of U.S. farm worker children
appear to be limited to measuring the general pesticide breakdown
products.  Linking whether the children were actually exposed to potent
pesticide residues would have added more value to these studies. 
Measured exposures to relatively benign non-toxic degradates/metabolites
in the environment are not proof of toxicological harm.  Measurements
should be made of chemical-specific biomarkers.

  HYPERLINK "http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2006/8620/abstract.html" 
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2006/8620/abstract.html 

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYP/is_3_111/ai_100730739" 
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYP/is_3_111/ai_100730739 

▪ There is at least one biomonitoring study showing few appreciable
changes in urinary concentrations in farm spouses and their children
following pesticide application.

Acquavella JF, Gustin C, Alexander B, Mandel JS. Farm Family
Biomonitoring Studies: Implications for Epidemiologic Studies of
Pesticides. Scand J Work Environ Health (accepted for publication).
http://www.farmfamilyexposure.org/html/abstract_3.html

“Our preliminary analysis of biomonitoring data for farmers before,
during and after a pesticide application suggests variation for
different pesticides in: the proportion with detectable urinary
concentrations, urinary level, and patterns of uptake and elimination.
These findings, and the limited predictive modeling done to date,
suggest that chemical specific differences need to be considered in
exposure classification schemes. Our analysis of biomonitoring data for
farm spouses and children found few with appreciable changes in urinary
concentration after a pesticide application. These findings point to the
need to validate assumptions about exposures in studies of individuals
who are not directly involved in pesticide application.”

▪  Farm workers themselves are the most exposed agricultural 
individuals, more so than their spouses and their children.  A US
biomonitoring study of date dusters and harvesters was conducted
involving the measurement of chemical-specific biomarkers residues
instead of general OP degradates. (“Krieger, R. I. and T. M. Dinoff
2000. Malathion Deposition, Metabolite Clearance, and Cholinesterase
Status of Date Dusters and Harvesters” California. Arch. Of Environ.
Contam. And Toxicol. 38: 546-553) The reported urinary levels of
malathion dicarboxylic acid ranged from 4-10 ug/gram creatine.  Per the
Centers for Disease Control, “Such worker values are only slightly
higher than those detected in the NHANES 1999-2000 subsample.”    
HYPERLINK "http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/" 
http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/ .  Furthermore, cholinesterase
measurements in the Krieger study revealed no effect on cholinesterase
activity.  

Issue Paper IVF: Expand WPS Training

▪ Please refer to USDA comments in Issue Paper IVE: Children in Fields
regarding regulatory inclusion of children safety into WPA training
requirements.  USDA is not aware of studies showing that
biologically-active pesticidal metabolites are being carried to the farm
house in amounts of toxicological significance.  

▪ USDA supports ongoing educational efforts through state, federal and
private efforts particularly stressing the washing of hands by workers. 

Issue Paper VA: Clarify Vague WPS Provisions	

▪  Growers need maximum flexibility to reenter their fields to perform
tasks in a timely manner.  Clarifications which will enable their
reentry in a timely manner and which are based on data, without
compromising human health are strongly supported.  Recent risk
mitigation decisions through EPA’s reregistration effort have
significantly increased worker safety.  More detail is needed on the how
the current exceptions are vague which are placing “these workers at
increased risk for pesticide exposure and adverse health effects.” 
Data generated by the Agricultural Reentry Task Force, and peer-reviewed
by EPA, have shown which activities may be classified as “no” and
“low” contact activities which do not jeopardize the well-being of
the farm worker. 

▪ If the Agency wishes to remove the provision that allows for
administrative exceptions, what other process will be in place to
provide for exceptions, should any arise?

▪ The proposal to promulgate restricted entry areas around farms and
forests during aerial applications is not necessary in view of the
continued downward trends in pesticide illnesses. The recently completed
2006-7 reregistration effort is expected to continue the downward trend.
 Hazard communication should continue to be stressed. 

Issue Paper VB: Clarify WPS Entry Exceptions

▪ Growers need maximum flexibility to reenter their fields to perform
tasks in a timely manner.  Clarifications which will enable their
reentry without compromising human health are strongly supported.  Data
generated by the Agricultural Reentry Task Force, and peer-reviewed by
EPA, have shown which activities may be classified as “no” and
“low” contact activities which do not jeopardize the well-being the
farm worker.

Issue Paper VC: Exempt Certified Crop Advisors and Aerial Applicators
from WPS	

▪ USDA would support Option 3 to maintain the current exemptions under
the Worker Protection Standard for certified crop advisors, critical for
successful IPM programs.  Crop advisors are not in fields 8 hours a day
as most field workers so they have a lower risk from pesticide exposure
and they are already well-trained professional personnel.  Certainly,
USDA supports any enhances educational or hazard communication efforts
by NAICC and CCA.

Similarly, aerial applicators should also maintain their current WPS
exemptions.  

 PAGE   

 PAGE   1