Download
ctag issues n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
CTAG Issues PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
CTAG Issues

CTAG Issues

130 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

CTAG Issues

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. CTAG Issues Written Exam and Age RequirementSLA FundingWorker Protection Integration Certified Pesticide Dealers and VendorsCertified ConsultantsOccupational Applicators and Handlers Positive Identification and Test Security Web-Based C&T Plan and Reporting August 2003 http://pep.wsu.edu/ctag

  2. Session One Written Exam and Age Requirement SLA Funding Worker Protection Integration

  3. North American Pesticide Applicator Certification and Pesticide Safety Education Workshop CTAG: Age and Written Exam Requirements Jack Peterson - August 12, 2003

  4. White Paper - Requiring Minimum-Age Requirement for Approval of State Certification Programs Background: Many states do not currently require a minimum age for certification. Federal labor laws are in effect prohibiting certain agricultural employment depending upon age. Two surveys were conducted to assess age requirements for certification. FIFRA and subsequently 40 CFR part 171, do not impose an age restriction. United States Department of Labor (DOL) rules 29 CFR 570.71 prohibits the agriculture employment of children below the age of 16 if the job encompasses handling or applying (including cleaning or decontamination equipment, disposal or return of empty containers, or serving as flagman for aircraft applying) agricultural chemicals with signal words, “Poison”, “Skull and Crossbones” and “Warning”. Further, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FSLA) also has minimum-age requirements for children working in agriculture under the age of 17.

  5. AGE RESTRICTION SURVEY RESULTS • All states responded. • 44% of states have no minimum age limit for private appl. • 40% of states have no minimum age limit for commercial applicators. • For those with certification minimum-age limits: • ·Private applicator (56%) • age 15--1 state, age16--10 states, • age 17--1 state, age 18--15 states • ·Commercial applicator (60%) • age16--6 states, age 18--20 states • SPC may be different N=48P N=50C • No territories included here

  6. SURVEY II 53 responses - 98% recommend a minimum-age requirement. Twenty six responders indicated the minimum age should be 18; twelve indicated it should be 16; a few others indicated it should be lower. When asked if the minimum age should be different for commercial versus private applicators, 26 (49%) of the 53 responded yes; all others took no position. · Private applicator – age 16—18 agree · Commercial applicator – age 18—19 agree · Other responses – 7 responses · No position – 30 responses

  7. Requiring an age restriction facilitates consistency across the country. Several issues need to be considered should mandatory age restrictions become a requirement for approval of a state certification plan. 1.Given DOL rules already in place, should such a requirement be proposed? 2. Several states still have family-operated farms; will states be allowed exemptions to a minimum-age requirement for immediate family? 3. How would certification age restriction rules impact the states? 4. A FIFRA-mandated minimum-age requirement, which is an industry-supported change, should remove impediments and bring about improvements in the C&T program. 5. A FIFRA-mandated minimum-age requirement will help change public perception and demonstrate how C&T protects the public and does not merely exist to license more people as a means to increase sales of pesticides.

  8. Recommendation: The EPA should implement a minimum-age restriction as a requirement for approval of a state plan for the certification of private and commercial pesticide applicators. This should be implemented over a three to four-year period to allow those states that lack the authority to build alliances and to implement the necessary authority or legislation.

  9. Ideas/Comments/Questions

  10. White Paper - Requiring Written Examinations for Approval of State Certification Programs Background: Most states currently require exams to ensure competency. A survey was conducted for this assessment by the CTAG with all but one state responding. The results show that 84% of states require exams for private certification and 94% of states require exams for commercial certification. Those requiring closed-book exams were: 67% for private and 96% for commercial certification; respectively, 83% and 90% required written exams. N=48P N=50C No territories included

  11. It was a common understanding that Section 11 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) prohibited testing of private applicators. Under section (a) CERTIFICATION PROCEEDURE (1) FEDERAL CERTIFICATION – In any State for which a State plan for applicator certification has not been approved…, the Administrator,… shall conduct a program for the certification of applicators of pesticides. Such program shall conform to the requirements…under the provisions of subsection (a)(2) of this section and shall not require private applicators to take any examination to establish competency in the use of pesticides. (emphasis added)

  12. Because this requirement falls under the federal certification portion of FIFRA, states can require examinations of private applicators when not prohibited by state law. Requiring a written closed-book exam will facilitate consistency across the country as well as ensuring competency. Several issues need resolution should mandatory testing become a requirement for state certification plan approval, 1. Will making a written closed-book exam part of the requirements for an approved state certification plan, require changes in federal regulations? If not, how will this be done? 2. Should a state be unwilling or unable to implement such a requirement, is the EPA willing to step in? What other options are available? 3. What problems are created for those states (17%) that currently do not require written or closed-book exams for private applicators? What would be the time frame for implementation of this requirement? What tools are available to help those states develop a quality exam and the associated study materials?

  13. Recommendation: The EPA should implement written closed-book exams as a requirement for approval of a state plan for the certification of private and commercial pesticide applicators. This should be implemented over a three to four-year period to allow those states that currently do not require written closed-book exams to implement the requirement. The national core exam and associated training materials (EPA/PMRA Pesticide Applicator Core Examination) should be available for use by those states not currently requiring testing.

  14. Ideas/Comments/Questions

  15. Session Four Written Exam and Age Requirement SLA Funding Worker Protection Integration

  16. Change 50-50 to 85-15 • “Administration” of C&T Program = SLA • FIFRA language states 50/50 match • Inconsistent with other FIFRA match requirements at 85/15 • 50/50 creates hardships for C&T Programs • Due to regulatory climate at time of provision enactment • Can not be overridden since FIFRA supercedes • Must revise FIFRA language

  17. Change 50-50 to 85-15 • CTAG Recommendation • Supports revision of FIFRA to eliminate statutory requirement for 50/50 match • Supports efforts to bring about change through a statutory amendment • Keep on burner until door opens

  18. Ideas/Comments/Questions

  19. WPS Integration • Improved Risk Mitigation • Improved Pesticide Security • Robust Handler Training Infrastructure • Handler Competency Assessment • Pesticide Handler Identification

  20. WPS Integration • Propose Minimum Standards • Forward Recommendations • Evaluate Potential Impacts

  21. Proposed Minimum Standards • Pesticide Handlers • Aerial Applicators • Crop Consultants • Researchers

  22. Recommendations • Aerial Applicators • Crop Advisors • Researchers • Pesticide Apprentices • Trainers

  23. Potential Impacts • Growers • Employers • Cooperative Extension • State Lead Agencies

  24. Ideas/Comments/Questions

  25. Session Two Certified Pesticide Dealers and Vendors Certified Consultants Occupational Applicators and Handlers

  26. Review Harmonized Concept for Pesticide Classification • Current • Unclassified • General • Restricted Use • Short Term • General use • RUP-2 • RUP-1** • Long Term • Occupational Use • Occupational Restricted • Domestic Low Risk • Domestic High Risk • **very few products • Certification - by passing monitored, closed-book written examination.

  27. Short-Term General Use No change RUP-2 products Licensed Establishment Certified Dealer Can supervise sale RUP-1 products Licensed Establishment Certified RUP-1 Dealer (mandatory product specific training) Supervision not allowed Long-Term Occupational Use Licensed Establishment Certified Dealer Can supervise sale Occupational Restricted Licensed Establishment Certified Occupat. Restricted Dealer (mandatory product specific training) Supervision not allowed Pesticide Dealer

  28. Short-Term (sales) No change Long-Term (sales) Market must be declared Personal use in and around the dwelling Domestic Low Risk No Change Domestic High Risk Licensed Vendor Establishment Certified Vendor Available for consultation Pesticide Vendor

  29. Short-Term General Use and Home and Garden No change RUP-2 products Certified Consultant RUP-1 products Certified RUP-1 Consultant (mandatory product specific training) Long-Term Domestic Use No change Occupational Use Certified Consultant Occupational Restricted CertifiedOccupational Restricted Consultant (mandatory product specific training) Pesticide Consultant

  30. Short-Term General Use and Home and Garden No change RUP-2 products Certified Private Certified Commercial RUP-1 products Certified RUP-1 Applicator (mandatory product specific training) No supervision Long-Term Occupational Use, or Domestic High Risk-if for non-personal use Certified Occupational Applicator Occupational Restricted CertifiedOccupational Restricted Applicator (mandatory product specific training) No supervision Other controls Pesticide Occupational Applicator

  31. Short-Term General Use WPS Agricultural Handler RUP-2 products WPS Agricultural Handler Long-Term Occupational Use, or Domestic High Risk-if for non-personal use Trained Occupational Handler Must work under supervision of certified Occupational Applicator Pesticide Occupational Handler

  32. Pest ControlLong Term Sewer Root & Pipeline Wood Preservation Marine Paint Due to EPA restricted use status - create national consistency Recognize additional workload Application MethodLong-Term Chemigation Mist-Blower or Airblast Sprayers Aerial Application Increase hazard to the public and environment - create national consistency Recognize additional workload New Categories

  33. Open Discussion on Certification and Training • Dealers (short and long-term) • Vendors (long term) • Consultants (short and long-term) • Occupational Applicators (long term) • Occupational Handlers (long term) • New Categories (pest control or application method)

  34. Session Three Positive Identification And Test Security

  35. Positive IDandTest SecurityRoger FlashinskiCarl Martin

  36. CTAG • Workgroup on C&T Plans • Workgroup on Pesticide Safety • Workgroup on Tiered Classification

  37. Workgroup on Pesticide Safety • Integrate WPS Training Requirements • Consistency for Certification Standards • Positive ID • Online Testing • Language Standards • Pesticide Security for Transport/Storage

  38. Subgroup Charge Determine the implications of requiring positive ID for ALL applicators before they: • Take an applicator exam • Attend a recertification training session • Purchase a RUP

  39. Subgroup Members Roger Flashinski, CES, WI (Chair) Dave Duncan, SLA, CA Rick Hansen, SLA, MN Win Hock, Emeritus CES, PA Al Muench, EPA Consultant

  40. Why the Concern? • No national standards • Policy rather than rule making Therefore: • Surrogate substitute for real applicator • Unqualified person could buy RUPs

  41. Advantages Verifying an applicator’s identity assures: • Person taking the exam is for real • Person buying RUPs is competent • Only qualified applicators supervise others • Stronger pesticide security

  42. Advantages Existing U.S. issued photo ID documents: • Driver’s license • Passport • Military ID • Immigration green card

  43. Advantages Positive ID verification will: • Cause little inconvenience for the proctor • Incur minimal cost to states • Take minimal effort for retail dealers to confirm buyer’s identity

  44. Limitations • Some religious groups prohibit pictures • Large group meetings may require additional staff • Internet and telephone sales more problematic

  45. Recommendation:Certification and Recertification Exams • Verify the positive ID of all individuals • Use existing photo ID documents • Exception: • Legitimate religious groups (two forms of non-photo ID documents required)

  46. Recommendation:Purchasing RUPs • Verify the positive ID of all certified applicators • Use existing photo ID documents • Exception: • Legitimate religious groups (two forms of non-photo ID documents required)