Summary of Potential SER Written and Oral Comments

 Received in Response to SBREFA Panel Outreach Meetings

Worker Protection Standard

	Issue/Potential proposal	Comments	Time or Cost  ($) Related Comment
Alternate proposals	Response/Recommendations

A	REI /Field Posting

REI /Field Posting, continued	Time consuming, difficult , Too expensive
to orally notify and post all applications (Farm)

Supports mandatory posting only for RUP products.  Posting should be at
single, usual point of entry to field (Farm)

Only for double notification – workers read labels so know REIs can
refer to WPS, Retain central posting (AFBF)

Many fields are irregular in shape, no corners, posting is burdensome
(Aerial)

Numerous small fields of different crops also makes posting difficult
(Farm)	Up to 1 hour per application to orally notify and post(Farm)

Costly, time consuming and difficult to enforce.  Should only require
points of entry, not four corners (Ag custom applicator)

Posting all fields could increase cost to about one hour per day effort
and a $25 per day cost.  Small would have higher costs than large
because field size is smaller (thus more fields to post).  More signs
per acre on small than on large farms (Farm)

Impractical to post corners of field, Leads to loss of productivity,
Time consuming to post – hammering stake in ground, attaching sign to
stake. Aerial: would take an employee out of other productive work
(AFBF)

estimate 30 minutes to post a single reusable sign at point of entry. 
Take at least one hour to post four corners.  Some growers have  many
fields resulting in heavy posting burden (Crop advisor)

15 minutes to post a field is too low (Aerial)	Central map with field
marked by flags and requirement for daily worker check in.  Or exempt
small farms, if all workers are certified and notified at time of
application (Farm)

 Posting should be for RUPs only, and at each possible entry point and
each corner. (Farm)

 Farms with less than 10 non-family employees should not be required to
post, just verbal notifications (Farm)

Fewer employees could be orally notified, not posting.  Perhaps
institute worker sign off for oral notification (Farm)

Consider an exception to field posting for farms with a few employees.
Oral notification with central posting is sufficient. (AFB) 

	A	WPS Training/ Retraining Interval	Everyone retrains every year. 
Can’t verify/turnover (Farm)

Retain 5-year interval(Farm)

Retain 5-year interval(Aerial)

Retraining interval should be same as recertification for applicators,
keep at 5 years (Farm)

Most workers trained annually, Retain 5 years – effective and not
unusual burden, Growers do not check for training history (AFBF)

Train annually even if previously trained although some may not (Crop
advisor)	PS Training burden:

30 mins worker

45 mins handler (AFBF)

worker training 30-60 minutes, handler training 45- 60 minutes. 
Material cost is minimal. (Crop advisor)	5 yrs (as is) or when newly
hired Rather than reduce interval, require documentation of training
(Farm)

	A	WPS Training/ Grace period

WPS Training/ Grace period, continued

	Do not eliminate, bad idea.  Too much in first few days(Farm)

Need grace period for flexibility (Farm)

Retain 5-day grace period (Aerial)

Supports retention of grace periods (Ag custom applicator)

Need to retain a grace period for flexibility around busy schedules
(Farm)

Loss of GP would lead to earlier hiring and more cost to grower (AFBF)
Earlier hiring leads to increased input cost by $100 -200 per hire.
(AFBF)



A	Decontamination/ Handler showers	Major burden and employees would not
use(Farm)

Shower is unreasonably expensive(Farm)

Shower not justified (Farm)

Unnecessary(AFBF)

Crop advisor handlers are mobile and shower facilities would be
difficult and costly to provide (Crop advisor)

Ag custom applicators in the Midwest have showers, but are seldom used
(Ag custom applicator)	Shower facility would cost tens of thousands of
dollars (Farm)

Portable showers cost $5000 - $6000.  add cost of water. (AFBF)	Train
handlers on minimizing take-home exposure (Farm)

 Additional PPE for handlers /mixer/loaders (Farm)

Protect better by requiring workers to remove early entry clothing and
footwear – do not allow it to be taken home(AFBF)

	A	PPE /Enclosed cabs and respirators	Cabs should meet standards or
should use respirator. No manufacturers certify cabs for use without
respirator. (Farm)

Wants to use enclosed cab as substitute for respirator (Farm)

Label should specify what is allowed (Farm)

 well maintained cabs with charcoal filters are effective against
exposure (Ag custom applicator)

Questions the need for respirators instead of enclosed cabs (Aerial)

Roadside applicators should not have respirator requirements (Landscape
maintenance)

Encourage improvement of enclosed cab filtration (Farm)

	B	General	Flexibility is key, Define small by # employees, Oppose
curtailment of use of ag chemicals w/o research/scientific data showing
injury(AFBF)

Small farms could be defined by having 75% of labor and management by
family.  Short term workers (e.g., harvest) should not have to be
trained, unless an RUP has been used recently. (Farm)

	B	Crop Advisor Employees	Opposes any change to the current exemption
for protections during the REI.  Do not believe will reduce risk and
will be extra burden. (Crop advisor)	Estimate that a consultant would
have additional cost of  $2000 to $6000 per year. (Crop advisor)	If
employee exemption is revised, allow for incidental entry, such as time
limited entry without PPE (Crop advisor)

	B	 REI/ Notifications for early entry	Does not use exceptions to REI
(Farm)

Rarely needs to use early entry, but no need for written notification
(Farm)



	B	REI/ Records	Careful records of worker entry should be kept by grower
 (Farm)



	B	Posting content	Signs do not need to have specifics. Specifics may be
misinterpreted by workers. Skull and crossbones would be less effective
than current symbol (Farm).	Signs become consumable rather than reusable
(Farm)

Posting pesticide name and REI expiration would add 30 minutes per field
(Crop advisor)



B	Application entry restricted area	This restriction would not work, due
to conflicts with neighboring producers on different schedules (Farm)

No impact to aerial applicator (Aerial)

Not possible because of nearby residences (Farm)

Opposed – arbitrary and not based on science, Loss of productivity in
adjacent fields. (AFBF)	Result in significant economic loss(AFBF)



B	Hazard Comm /MSDS	This is a burden and no one ever asks for MSDS(Farm)

MSDS’s are not always available, so not a good idea(Farm)

PPE is on label.  No other document needed. (AFBF)

Filing and making available MSDS is burdensome (Crop advisor)

Posting MSDS would be possible, but would never be used by workers
(Aerial)	Will add hours of time for finding and printing, as well as
additional file space(Farm)

No burden to maintain MSDS file, since already required (Aerial)	Allow
some time period for supplying MSDS Database online for retrieval (Farm)

	B	WPS Training/ Trainers	Owner or employee does training (Aerial)



	B	WPS Training /Records	Do not supply training verification cards to
employees. Not aware of federally funded training resources (Crop
advisor)	Estimate that records would take 30 minutes per training
session (Crop advisor)



B	Safety Poster /Content and location

Poster at decon site should not cost much (Crop advisor)



B	Decontamination/ Eyeflush water	Excessive amounts of water not
justified (Farm)



	B	Decontamination/ Mix/load site water	Excessive amounts of water not
justified (Farm)



	B	Application Restrictions/ Application entry restricted area	Little
impact as long as reasonable distance (Farm).



	B	Application Restrictions/ Cholinesterase monitoring	Unnecessary,
label PPE should be sufficient (Farm)

Use of cholinesterase inhibiting chemicals has declined to less than 2%
of treatments in corn and soybeans, so testing is not useful (Ag custom
applicator)	Time consuming and expensive (Ag custom applicator)	Require
baseline for those who apply on regular basis for more than 30 days (Ag
custom applicator)

	B	PPE /Cab maintenance and records	Supports requirement for keeping
maintenance records (Farm)





	B	PPE /Respirators/ Medical monitoring	Medical monitoring and fit
testing are a major burden (Farm).	My applicators complete questionnaire
that is reviewed, some have follow-up medical visit, with little cost
difference (Structural pest control)



C	Hazard Comm/ Records





C	WPS Training/ Contents





C	Emergency Info





C	PPE /Closed Sys. 







Certification Rule

	Issue/Potential proposal	Comments	Time or Cost ($) Related Comment
Alternate proposals	Response/ Recommendations

A	Commercial applicator competency /Minimum Age	Not over 14 for
commercial applicators, if can pass test (Landscape maintenance)

Commercial applicator 18, children of farmers age 16(Farm)

Supports 16 – 18 (Farm)

Minimum age for pilot’s license is 18, so no impact of 18 for aerial
applicator (Aerial)

Supports 18 as minimum age (Structural pest control)

One cannot understand the concept of safe and accurate application until
age 18 (Ag custom applicator).

No minimum, just written test (Farm)

Supports 18 as minimum age (Structural pest control)

Commercial – 16 or 18 OK(AFBF)

minimum for pilots makes this moot for aerial applicators (Aerial)



	A	Private applicator competency /Minimum Age

Private applicator competency /Minimum Age continued	Law sets minimum at
age 18 for non farm.  Farm children should be certified when pass test
(Farm).

Supports 16 (Farm)

One cannot understand the concept of safe and accurate application until
age 18 (Ag custom applicator).

No minimum, need to use family (Landscape maintenance)

Privates should be 15 or 16, not 12

Private – 16 OK(AFBF)

	Would be forced to hire certified applicators or older workers. Could
delay applications, affecting yield (Farm)

Cost to replace lost family worker: salary, unemployment and workman’s
comp taxes, loss of reliability (AFBF)



A	Application of RUP’s under the supervision of a certified applicator
/Minimum Age	Support for training or requirement for presence of
certified applicator (Landscape maintenance)

Minimum age of 16 for an apprentice program, but not working alone
(Structural pest control)

One cannot understand the concept of safe and accurate application until
age 18 (Ag custom applicator).

No minimum, need to use family (Farm)	Would be forced to hire certified
applicators or older workers. Could delay applications, affecting yield
(Farm).



A	Application of RUP’s under the supervision of a certified applicator
/Communication method	Radios and cell phones are problem in some remote
areas.  Generally supports good communication.  Insurance companies also
support (Farm)

Supports communication method rather than on-site presence(Farm)

Supports requirement for instant communication (Ag custom applicator)

While desirable, not always possible (Structural pest control)	Most, if
not all, have two-way radios or cell phones, so no additional cost, For
full coverage, could add several hundred if not thousands of dollars in
equipment and future subscriptions. (Farm)	Issues that may come up and
need communication should be covered in training.(Farm)

Should consider distance rather than communication requirement (Farm)

	B	General	Commercial applicators are extensively trained and face
tougher enforcement than private applicators, though may apply to
comparable acreage.  Since both commercial and private applicators are
applying the same products, training should be similar.  Ability to read
and understand label in English should be required. (Ag custom
applicator)	Do not see any additional burden, as requirements already
exist in state (Structural pest control)



B	Commercial Categories	Supports sub categories (Farm)

Supports categories except 1080 & M-44, as these do not pose human risk
(Farm)

WA does not have aerial applicator category and they should add it.
There should also be reciprocity between states (Aerial)

Already have similar state requirements, supports national
standardization (Farm) 

Do not require states to adopt categories if they have no use(AFBF)

Applicators in new categories should be tested (Aerial)

	B	Commercial applicator competency /Exam Administration	Support
proposal for improved exams, and in English.  Supports testing as way to
facilitate movement of applicators between states (Landscape
maintenance)

Need provisions for continued review of tests (Structural pest control)

More difficult tests lead to more cost for grower and state, States
should retain flexibility for exam type(AFBF)	No cost for exam in IL and
tests are closed book and proctored (Aerial)



B	Commercial applicator competency /Recertification Req’s	Already have
3 yr. interval in effect (Landscape maintenance)

  Requirements for recertification should be tailored to categories
(Wood treatment)



	B	Private applicator competency /Exam requirements (if state chooses)
Tests should have open and closed book parts (Farm)	In MN, 3 hours to
travel and take test (Farm)



B	Application of RUP’s under the supervision of a certified applicator
/General 	All aerial applicators are certified, so no under-the
supervision applicators (Aerial)

In Iowa, commercial applicators do not have employees under the
supervision (Ag custom applicator)



	B	Application of RUP’s under the supervision of a certified
applicator /Training content	Supports training requirement, if certified
applicator can do training (Farm).	Off- farm trainers would add
unnecessary expense (Farm).	Certified applicator should determine if
individual is competent.  Would rather just have individual certified
(Farm).

	B	Application of RUP’s under the supervision of a certified
applicator /Label with applicator	Should not have to carry labels, too
many labels (Landscape maintenance)

Label should not have to be carried by applicator, but available at the
site (Farm)



	

C	

Application of RUP’s under the supervision of a certified applicator
/Training Records





C	Recertification







Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  11 

Summary of SER comments

October 16, 2008

