1 Pesticide Worker Safety Program: Enhancements in Protections Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee Worker Safety Subcommittee Working Session June 14, 2006

2 PPDC Subcommittee Working Session Overview Summary from Feb 27 meeting and update of issues The Need for Regulatory Change Role of PPDC subcommittee Workgroup charge/ request for feedback Review of current issues Comments and determination of level of discussion Applicator certification issues Worker protection issues New issues Process and schedule

3 Enhancements in Protections – Why?  The agricultural worker protection rule (40 CFR Part 170) and the regulation for the certification of pesticide applicators (40 CFR Part 171) have both been in effect for many years.  Old regulations  Our understanding of pesticide risks has changed  Circumstances of pesticide use have changed  The regulations are in need of updating and modification  to achieve their public health and environmental protection goals,  meet evolving demands and improved understanding of risks,  and satisfy statutory mandates  Implementation experience and significant stakeholder input has identified regulatory deficiencies that should be addressed.

4 Role of PPDC Subcommittee  Consultation (Advice as input to deliberations) Primary identification of issues Supply supporting documents and/or information Review documents and drafts at critical junctures  Coordination Provide information about process and content to those you represent Solicit their input Encourage their comments

Areas for Change Applicator Certification Regulation (40 CFR 171) Protective: Appropriate Coverage & Raise Competency  Expand users required to demonstrate competence  Better define “under-the-supervision” **  Require RUP dealers to prove competency  Require applicators training workers to be competent **  Set minimum age for occupational users  Require testing for occupational users **  Set standard requirements for testing  Competency requirements consistent with risk  Define requirements for recertification of applicators  Establish process to update content of recertification programs Efficiency  Update plan requirements for states/tribes/territories **  Develop standard certification categories  Assure program accountability

6 Protective: Inform Workers  Ensure meaningful hazard communications  Ensure meaningful training – content, grace period, training interval **  Require trainers to demonstrate competence  Establish training reporting as verification **  Protect children from pesticide-treated fields Efficiency  Clarify vague WPS provisions  Clarify exceptions  Exempt certified crop advisors & aerial applicators  Require handlers to demonstrate competency  Express regulation in plain language  Assure program accountability Areas for Change Ag Worker Protection Regulation (40 CFR 170)

7 Request for Feedback from February Meeting Questions / Discussion Are there any clarifying questions? Did we miss anything? Other potential issues? Are there reactions to specific proposals? Do you have documentation to support proposals? Ranking of issues for further discussion

8 Comments Received  Comments  American Assoc. of Pesticide Safety Educators  Individual pesticide State Lead Agencies  Farm worker representative  Grower representative  Registrant representative  EPA’s Office of Children’s Health Protection FACA committee  Criteria used to identify level of need for discussion  Broad concern: needs subcommittee conference call discussion  Mixed views: hold side discussions with members  Support: comment during public comment period

9 Points to consider  Determine which issues warrant conference call discussion Limited time to conduct conference calls, suggest five 2- hour calls before early fall New issues may warrant conference calls as well Do you have any information or supporting documents to add to an issue? Requires commitment to reviewing issue papers and submitting comments in writing  Did we miss anything?  Do any other issues need conference calls beyond those already identified?

10 Summary of comments and level of discussion needed on Applicator Certification regulation change Level of need for discussion IssueNature of Comments Broad concern: hold conference calls -Expand scope of users-Expressed concern about concept & need for different options Mixed views: hold side discussions -Require RUP dealers to prove competency -Require competency gauge of all occupational users (options for private) -Define requirements for recertification of applicators -Establish process to update content of recertification programs -Assure program accountability -Need more options -High impact on resources -Need flexibility -Need other options, unclear if necessary to do -Resolve through grant negotiations General support: comment during public comment period -Establish consistent cert. categories -Set standard requirements for testing -Better define “under-the-supervision” -Establish minimum age -Establish competency requirements consistent with level of risk -Update plan requirements -Support but need flexibility -Support but high impact -Need to define -Support but vary on how -Support

11 Summary of comments and level of discussion needed on WPS regulation change Level of need for discussion IssueNature of comments Broad concern: hold conference calls -Ensure meaningful hazard communications -Require handlers to demonstrate competency -High impact -Need evaluation Mixed views: hold side discussions -Require trainers to demonstrate competency -Establish training verification system -Assure program accountability -Need other options -High impact -Use grant process instead General support: comment during public comment period -Ensure meaningful training -Protect children from pesticide treated fields -Clarify vague WPS provisions & exceptions -Exempt certified crop advisors & aerial applicators -Express regulation in plain language -Support -High benefit -Support, but differences on how -Support

12 Discussion of New Issues  Questions  Reactions/thoughts of subcommittee members  Legal authority  Agency responsibility  Rule change necessary (or training, technical assistance)?  Relative priority, risk, program need?  Availability of information

13 New Issues/Scope Suggestions ProblemProposed resolutionProposed byDetails WPS covers a limited scope of workers exposed to pesticides WPS expansionSLAs FJF  Large-scale research plots  Livestock agriculture  Lawn and landscape maintenance Non-English speaking handlers may not understand label requirements Adopt bilingual product labels or have translation available upon request FJF Handlers need more protection from OPs & carbamates Adopt nationwide ChE monitoring program FJFEmployers pay medical monitoring costs. SLA investigate 20% ChEI cases Handlers may be overexposed to pesticides. Dirty work clothes may result in take-home exposure Shower and laundry facilities at all workplaces FJF  All workers should launder clothes at work  Handlers need shower access WPS assessments identified gaps in the 11 safety training points General training improvement issue EPA National Assessment Specific pesticide hazard information How to protect the family from exposure How to report suspected pesticide illnesses

14 Process Schedule JunSecond meeting of PPDC workgroup JulFirst draft of regulatory language Review draft economic analysis Jul - DecOngoing stakeholder involvement NovEPA preliminary options selection meeting DecFinal EPA review Redraft proposed regulation Feb 07Draft regulation to OMB Aug 07Publish proposed regulation for public comment