View
223
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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.