FL SDA Comments on EPA’s Plans for Proposed C&T and WPS Rule Changes

Certification & Training Issues

1. Expand users required to demonstrate competency.

• Agree with this proposal and support option 1 - establishing verification of competency appropriate to levels of risk for all occupational users.

All individuals who use pesticides in their occupation should be certified. It will be important to use minimum competency standards and tailor the method for demonstrating competency appropriately for each occupational group. The competency requirements must be meaningful to ensure proper pesticide use but not unnecessarily burdensome. Current capable employees must be able to pass the competency testing or other requirement. Training materials and/or programs must be developed and available to employees who need it. If designed properly, the competency requirements should identify individuals who aren’t able, even with training, to demonstrate competency. Employers will be required to alter duties or reassign, lay off, or terminate those individuals to comply with regulations. Appropriate consideration must be given to this issue so the rule changes don’t create a significant problem for employers or put a signi ficant number of employees out of work. Providing training (only) doesn’t determine competency to ensure protection of the user, environment, and others who may be exposed. Training (only) is most useful in meeting the need to provide information to the user to satisfy their request and needs.

2. Competency demonstration for all who handle or apply RUPs.

• Agree with this proposal and support option 1 – eliminate the “under the supervision” provision.

All individuals who use pesticides in their occupation should be certified. No matter how it’s defined, any provision for supervision does not provide adequate assurance of proper pesticide use. A supervision provision provides a loop hole that allows untrained, incompetent individuals to use pesticides. To protect pesticide handlers, the public, and the environment, the standard should be raised so that any individual using pesticides occupationally must be certified.

3. Competency demonstration for pesticide dealers

• Agree with this proposal and support option 1 – establish verification of competency for dealers through certification, require off-site inventory list and establish minimum security standards.

Pesticide dealers are an influential group since they have input into many pesticide selection decisions as well as other decisions concerning pesticide use. Individuals making or supervising pesticide recommendations and sales should be required to demonstrate competency. Pesticide dealer competency standards would be basically uniform over the nation, so a national training manual or module and competency requirement could be used. For public safety, homeland security, and product stewardship, we also support requiring an off-site inventory of pesticide products (could be done through remote computer server) and minimum facility security standards.



### 14. Ensure competency of trainers

• Agree with this proposal and support option 1 – establish verification of competency for all trainers of pesticide applicators, agricultural pesticide handlers, and field workers.

Trainers need to have documented knowledge of the material presented and proven skills as educators in order to provide effective training. Consideration should be given to accepting documentation of appropriate education and experience as proof of competency. Consideration should also be given to establishing a nationwide database or registry of competent trainers.

5. Minimum age for pesticide users

• Agree with this proposal and support establishing a minimum age of 18 to purchase or use pesticides occupationally or to purc hase or use any of the more hazardous pesticides (restricted use or similar classification) for any use.

6. Require testing for all occupational users to prove competency

• Agree with this proposal and support option 1 – establish competency standards through valid exams for all occupational users, including private applicators.

See related comments in #1 above.

7. Standardize exam development and security requirements

• Agree with this proposal and support option 1 – define and require minimum standards for a secure and valid exam, such as written, closed-book, proctored and requiring positive identification.

8. Establish competency requirements consistent with high risk use

• Agree with this proposal and support establishing additional or replacement (more comprehensive) exams for higher risk occupational uses. Competency requirements

should be tied to the risk level.

9. Ensure continued competency of applicators

• Agree with this proposal and support option 1 – federally establish recertification periods and requirements.

We suggest routinely allowing recertification by either exam or continuing education, with the option to federally require retesting only if necessary for specific circumstances/users/products/categories.

10. Ensure maintenance of current knowledge

• Agree with this proposal and support option 1 – set federal standards for ensuring that applicators maintain current knowledge in the areas of their certification.

11. Promote reciprocity among states – efficiency



### 2• Agree with this proposal and support option 2 – standardize all categories.

More applicators are crossing state lines to work and there is a real and significant need for reciprocity to relieve applicators of the burden of repeating the certification requirements in different states for similar work and to relieve SLAs of the burden of comparing state plans and categories to determine feasibility of reciprocity.

Federal categories should be established to cover all certification needs (for all states, tribes, and federal agencies). Category definitions would need to be defined based on input from all states/tribes/federal agencies so all needs are considered. If states/tribes/federal agencies continue to have their own categories or subcategories of federal categories, the efficiency is lost. That would preserve the current system: each state/tribe/federal agency considering reciprocity would need to review the category descriptions, competency standards, and exams of the other state/tribe/federal agency to determine if standards are comparable and if reciprocity is feasible.

Example: Applicator John Doe holds a current commercial certification with the forest pest control category in State A. In State A this certification allows him to apply RUPs by ground or air to control forest pests. He only makes aerial applications. Mr. Doe has applied for reciprocal certification in State B and says that he needs to apply RUPs by air to control forest pests. State B has a specific category for aerial application as well as a forest pest control category, and John Doe is required to be certified in both categories. State B’s laws and regulations require comparable competency standards in order for State B to grant reciprocity. To determine if Mr. Doe is eligible for reciprocal certification from State A, State B must determine State A’s certification structure (license types and categories), review or verify State A’s competency standards (if State A requires knowledge of aerial application and/or forest pest control for the forest pest control categories), and if the competency standards are similar, review or verify that State A’s exams include questions on aerial application and forest pest control that are comparable to State B’s questions. Then State B must verify Mr. Doe’s certification status. Depending on state requirements or procedures, this may include obtaining exam dates, scores, and documentation; license type and categories; certification and/or license period; recertification dates, method, and documentation; and possibly other information or documentation.

This is not a simple, straight forward task that can be handled by any employee who processes license applications. It requires the time of someone with some meaningful knowledge of federal pesticide C&T requirements vs. state requirements, plus some knowledge of the relationship between EPA and state/tribes/other federal agencies in regard to pesticide applicator certification, plus knowledge of pest control and pesticide application. With the number of requests currently being received for reciprocal certification, it is a significant drain on program resources to hav e an employee with the necessary training and knowledge handle all reciprocal certification requests. You might think it would not be necessary to review each case, since with 50 program reviews a state could determine what’s comparable in all other states. However, states are constantly changing their laws, regulations, and C&T plans, so periodic review is needed.

This problem could be fixed by standardizing categories, competency standards, and exams nationwide. This is a much needed improvement.



### 3In states where there is no requirement to confirm comparable competency standards to grant reciprocity, the process would be easier and more efficient. However, states with burdensome requirements set by statute have no choice but to follow state procedures.

12. Implement consistent requirements for state, tribal, and federal plans – efficiency

• Agree with the proposal to have consistent requirements for state, tribal and federal plans.

This is logical from a risk standpoint, meaningful for consistency for all applicators, and necessary to facilitate reciprocity. We have no input at this time on the proposal to eliminate the option to have EPA administer federal, tribal, and state plans.

13. Ensure program accountability – efficiency

• Agree with this proposal and support either option 1 – add specific reporting requirements to the rule – or option 2 – add requirement to refer to EPA document on measurement reporting requirements in the rule.

The reporting requirements must be meaningful, reasonable to achieve, and clearly stated as a requirement so there is no confusion.

WPS Issues

1. Ensure meaningful hazard communication

• Agree with this proposal and support the option to develop a new, updated hazard communication regulation proposal based on pilot results.

2. Ensure meaningful training

• Agree with this proposal and support option 1 – eliminate the grace period and shorten the retraining period.

The training requirement for ag workers is brief enough to be easily accomplished before workers are assigned to work in treated areas. Having a grace period with abbreviated initial training causes confusion and is unnecessary. Also, the training could easily be repeated annually for all ag workers to ensure continued worker safety and protection from pesticide exposure. A 5-year retraining interval is too long to be effective. Recordkeeping requirements are necessary for enforcement.

3. Ensure competency of trainers

• We agree with this proposal and support establishing verification of competency for all trainers of ag field workers.

Trainers need to have documented knowledge of the material presented and proven skills as educators in order to provide effective training. Consideration should be given to accepting documentation of appropriate education and experience as proof of competency. Consideration should also be given to establishing a nationwide database or registry of competent trainers. Recordkeeping requirements are necessary for enforcement.



### 44. Create a meaningful training verification system

• Agree with this proposal and support option 1 – establish a training verification and tracking system.

Without a workable training verification and tracking system, it’s difficult to determine who has been trained, and enforcement efforts are limited. Consideration should be given to a nationwide online tracking system with traini ng data input by registered trainers so the information is available for read access by all stakeholders, including regulators, educators, ag employers, ag workers, etc.

5. Protect children from pesticide treated areas

• Agree with this proposal and believe it needs more work or discussion to determine the appropriate way to achieve the desired results.

Consideration should be given to adding language to the WPS regulation to prohibit children in WPS covered areas, providing a definition of “child” re pesticide regulation/exposure, and coordinating or comparing requirements with other federal agencies with have similar requirements (if existent).

6. Clarify regulation provisions that are vague

• Agree with this proposal and support option 1 – define and clarify vague provisions to

make them enforceable.

Regulatory and label language is complex and difficult to understand. Simplifying and clarifying the provisions would assist agric ultural employers in complying with the requirements and provide better protection to agricultural workers and handlers.

7. Reclassify coverage of pesticide handlers

• Agree with this proposal and support the option to eliminate handler training requirements from the WPS and establish handler certification requirements in the applicator certification regulations.

We agree with the rationale and issues listed in the Powerpoint presentation.

8. Consolidate exceptions into the regulation – efficiency

• Agree with this proposal and support option 1 – clarify the exceptions and include them as part of the regulation.

9. Clarify coverage of aerial applicators and crop advisors – efficiency

• Agree with this proposal and support removing all references to crop advisors and aerial applicators from the regulation and include them in the applicator certification regulation.

We agree with the rationale provided.



### 510. Simplify regulatory language – efficiency

• Agree with this proposal and support rewording the WPS language throughout the regulation so it is in plain language and understandable.

11. Ensure program accountability – efficiency

• Agree with this proposal and support either option 1 – add a requirement for states to report on needed data which refers to an EPA document describing the data needs for measures – or option 2 – add specific reporting requirements.

The reporting requirements must be meaningful, reasonable to achieve, and clearly stated as a requirement so there is no confusion.

Additional Issues

1. Consider setting security requirements for storage/transportation of high-risk pesticides (at all locations including end users). 2. Consider requiring a background check, proof of U.S. citizenship or authority to work in the U.S., and criteria for denying certification or purchase or high-risk pesticides. 3. In the proposal for dealer certification, consider different types/levels of certification based on the types of products sold (risk level). 4. In regard to recertification of pesticide applicators and reciprocity among states, consider defining parameters for issuing recertification credits and setting the recertification time period and number of credits required for each category. Standardization will facilitate reciprocity and allow one-time approval of training programs nationwide (probably by the state where the training occurs), with other states automatically accepting the approval. Currently, national training conferences must submit their agenda to every state separately, and the approvals may be

different for each state.

4/20/06



### 6