CTAG Issues Written Exam and Age Requirement SLA Funding Worker Protection Integration Certified...

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

Session One

Written Exam and Age Requirement

SLA Funding

Worker Protection Integration

North American Pesticide Applicator Certification and Pesticide Safety

Education Workshop

CTAG: Age and Written Exam Requirements

Jack Peterson - August 12, 2003

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.

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

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 agreeCommercial applicator – age 18—19 agreeOther responses – 7 responsesNo position – 30 responses

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.

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.

Ideas/Comments/Questions

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=50CNo territories included

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)

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?

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.

Ideas/Comments/Questions

Session Four

Written Exam and Age Requirement

SLA Funding

Worker Protection Integration

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

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

Ideas/Comments/Questions

WPS Integration

Improved Risk Mitigation Improved Pesticide Security Robust Handler Training

Infrastructure Handler Competency

Assessment Pesticide Handler Identification

WPS Integration

Propose Minimum Standards Forward Recommendations Evaluate Potential Impacts

Proposed Minimum Standards

Pesticide Handlers Aerial Applicators Crop Consultants Researchers

Recommendations

Aerial Applicators Crop Advisors Researchers Pesticide Apprentices Trainers

Potential Impacts

Growers Employers Cooperative Extension State Lead Agencies

Ideas/Comments/Questions

Session Two

Certified Pesticide Dealers and Vendors

Certified Consultants

Occupational Applicators and Handlers

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.

Pesticide DealerShort-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 Vendor

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 Consultant

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 Certified

Occupational Restricted Consultant (mandatory product specific training)

Pesticide Occupational Applicator

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 Certified

Occupational Restricted Applicator (mandatory product specific training)

No supervision Other controls

Pesticide Occupational Handler

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

New Categories

Pest ControlLong TermSewer Root & PipelineWood PreservationMarine Paint Due to EPA restricted use status - create national consistencyRecognize additional workload

Application MethodLong-TermChemigationMist-Blower or Airblast SprayersAerial ApplicationIncrease hazard to the public and environment - create national consistencyRecognize additional workload

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)

Session Three

Positive Identification

And

Test Security

Positive IDand

Test Security

Roger FlashinskiCarl Martin

Positive IDand

Test Security

Roger FlashinskiCarl Martin

CTAGCTAG

Workgroup on C&T Plans

Workgroup on Pesticide Safety

Workgroup on Tiered Classification

Workgroup on Pesticide SafetyWorkgroup on

Pesticide Safety Integrate WPS Training Requirements

Consistency for Certification Standards

Positive ID

Online Testing

Language Standards

Pesticide Security for Transport/Storage

Subgroup Charge

Subgroup Charge

Take an applicator exam

Attend a recertification training session

Purchase a RUP

Determine the implications of requiring positive ID for ALL applicators before they:

Subgroup MembersSubgroup Members

Roger Flashinski, CES, WI (Chair)

Dave Duncan, SLA, CA

Rick Hansen, SLA, MN

Win Hock, Emeritus CES, PA

Al Muench, EPA Consultant

Why the Concern?Why the Concern?

No national standards

Policy rather than rule making

Therefore:

Surrogate substitute for real applicator

Unqualified person could buy RUPs

AdvantagesAdvantages

Person taking the exam is for real

Person buying RUPs is competent

Only qualified applicators supervise others

Stronger pesticide security

Verifying an applicator’s identity assures:

AdvantagesAdvantages

Driver’s license

Passport

Military ID

Immigration green card

Existing U.S. issued photo ID documents:

AdvantagesAdvantages

Cause little inconvenience for the proctor

Incur minimal cost to states

Take minimal effort for retail dealers to confirm buyer’s identity

Positive ID verification will:

LimitationsLimitations

Some religious groups prohibit pictures

Large group meetings may require additional staff

Internet and telephone sales more problematic

Recommendation:Certification and Recertification

Exams

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)

Recommendation:Purchasing RUPs

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)

Recommendation:

Recertification Training Sessions

Recommendation:

Recertification Training Sessions

Attendance roster signed by all attendees

Written monitoring plan to ensure applicator competency and program

integrity

Open Discussion on Positive Identification

Appropriate and/or Practical for Examinations?

Appropriate and/or Practical for Training

Guidance document helpful?

Examination Security--Internal

Testing Center Access Control Closed Book Exams Test Blue Print Distribution Periodic Exam Item Replacement Shuffling Item and Answer Order Policy & Procedures SOP Trained Proctors

Examination Security--External

Blueprint is the “challenge” document No Test or Item Review Separate Application/Testing Procedure Periodic External Auditing Money Handling Procedures Scheduling

Examination Security--Challenges

Cheating Copying Materials Training Content Access Inventory Scratch Paper Calculators/Computers

Examination Security--Challenges

Physical Threats Intimidation Too Helpful Clear Instructions Posted Standards Grading Score Disbursement

Open Discussion on Security

Session Four

Web-Based

C&T Plan

and Reporting

Web-Based C&T Plan and Reporting

Development Colleen Hudak-Wise and Carol Ramsay

Beta-test Rick Hansen & Colleen Hudak-Wise

EPA review Allan Welch

Show and Tell What are the Next Steps?

Web-Based State Plan and Reporting - GOAL

C&T Plan and Report website http://cru.cahe.wsu.edu/candt/logon.cfm

Plan meets FIFRA and 40CFR171 Administration, authority, conformity, categories,

examinations, supervision, reciprocity

Reports exceeds FIFRA and 40CFR171 Applicator totals, category totals,

certification/license cycles, recertification, regulatory activities, and participation, monitoring, enforcement related to certification

Web-Based State Plan and Reporting

Development TeamDebbie Danford (TX) Carol Ramsay (WA)

Co-Chairs

Gina Davis (MI) Donnie Dippel (TX)

Colleen Hudak (NC) Jack Peterson (AZ)

Randy Rivera (TX) Allan Welch (EPA-10)

Kevin Keaney (EPA) Jeanne Heying (EPA)Richard Pont (EPA) Monte Johnson (USDA)

C&T Plan/ReportingProject Development

All on the same template Once entered, only need to update Plan

web page sections where changes occurred and enter annual report

Convenient, streamlined tool for submitting and assessing of Certification and Training Plans Meets all 40CFR171 requirements

Identied additional elements

C&T Plan/ReportingProject Development

Satisfy annual reporting requirements Current Form, Old 5700-33H form,

40CFR171 requirements Eliminate quarterly reporting Strive to achieve more consistent reporting

Comparable among states Web database “rolls” forward data that

does not change

C&T Plan/ReportingProject Development

Facilitate annual review by EPA Consistent format among states Changes to plan Reporting items Noted EPA review dates Deadlines

Information gathering by EPA

C&T Plan/ReportingProject Development

Development Process Assessed FIFRA and 40 CFR 171

documents Assessed annual reporting documents Produced an Excel Spreadsheet

Separated major Plan/Report elements Discussed criteria for consistency

reported items would be as similar as possible

Set limitations for responses

C&T Plan/ReportingProject Development

Development Process Added web-based ideas to

spreadsheet Radio buttons (select one only) Check boxes (select all that apply) Text boxes (for short answers) PDF loads (for extended documentation)

PREP Course to discuss

C&T Plan/ReportingProject Development

Development Process Turned over to Programmer

Excel spreadsheet 40CFR171 help button information General help information

C&T Plan/ReportingProject Development

Development Process Programming

Intent for database and files to be on EPA Computer

Had to use “older” applications to develop web pages Frames is not really frames

C&T Plan/ReportingProject Development

Development Process Programmer and states worked

together to produce beta-version Andrew Thostenson, Colleen Hudak-

Wise, Rick Hansen, Gina Davis, Richard Pont, Allan Welch, Carol Ramsay

Web-Based State Plan and Reporting

Beta-test Team

Colleen Hudak-Wise & James Choate (NC) Rick Hansen (MN) Ed Crow (MD)Andrew Thostenson (ND) Buzz Vance (NE)Randy Rivera (TX) Margaret Tucker (WAKathy Dictor (VA) Clark Burgess (UT) Allan Welch (EPA-10) Richard Pont (EPA)

Beta-Testing

Some states completed to this point Others added some information Comments

Fairly straight forward to work through Will take several sittings to get all initial data in Adobe Acrobat needed for many SLA’s who do

not have software to write PDF files

Beta-Testing

Comments Since striving for national consistency, a

few items are awkward, but doable Web pages not set in stone, open to

tweaking in the future General help buttons have been added

for clarification and guidance Printed guidance document prepared

Beta-Testing

Once data is entered, fields are dynamic and can be updated (additions, deletions)

EPA Review

Web-database does cover all the required items in FIFRA and 40CFR171

Annual reporting, not quarterly All state data within in Region (nationally)

will be in the same format Simplification will facilitate EPA Region

approvals of C&T Plans Reports can be generated within the web

database (further development needed)

Show and Tell

Overall Look and Navigation Help Menus Check boxes and radio boxes Text Boxes, Number boxes Pulldown menus Loading PDF files Read the DIRECTIONS and

REQUESTS carefully!

Basic Navigation

Navigation Menu

Working Page

Cookie TrailHeader

Help

Help

Help

Logout Button

Two places on page to Logout Cookie Line Logout Button

Must Logout if you want immediate access Will lock you out for small amount of

time If idle for 20 minutes, it will close

Sections

Report YearContact InformationPart I - The PlanPart II - The ReportUtilitiesMenu Page

LogonState Name-Abbreviation

Report YearFirst Screen

Contact Information

Part I - The Plan

Plan Administration ExaminationsAgencies Other

CertificationLegal Authority CertificationPersonnel State ReciprocityFunding Proposed

ChangesConformity Direct

SupervisionCompetency Standards Training

Agencies

Competency Standards

Pulldown Menu

Examination per Category

Duplicate - Edit - Delete

Part II - The Report

Applicator Totals Participate/Monitor

County by Category Enforcement

Applicator Cycles Communication

Recertification Additional Info

Regulatory Activities

Utilities

Complete Listing Entry Counts Report Period

Menu PageAlternate Navigation Method

PDF Files are Key

Method to produce PDF files Adobe Acrobat Macintosh OS X Other software Internet sites

Encourage attendance to Mike Weaver Adobe Acrobat Talk. Good basics to assist with completing the Plan, plus some other positive attributes of Adobe Acrobat that you will use, if you have it.

Troubleshooting

Interpretation and Clarification Richard Pont, US EPA Carol Ramsay, Wash. St. University

Computer difficulties Carol Ramsay (Kathleen Duncan)

C&T Plan/ReportingProject Development

Next Phase Reporting items

For EPA Headquarters and Regions State sharing of information Public viewing of information *some reports on current system to

show and tell what can be done

C&T Plan/ReportingProject Development

When the Rubber meets the Road CTAG Board Meeting discussions

Tweaking a few pages Deadline for first Plan Deadlines for first Annual Report Training opportunities Adobe Acrobat

Open Discussionon Web-based Plan & Reporting

Benefits of template Impacts on your program Timeline to work on web template EPA anticipation of mandatory reporting Purchase of Adobe Acrobat 6.0 for PDFs Possible workshops or C&T Plan managers

and EPA Region review staff.