### AAPCO Worker Pr otection Committee State Lead Agency Comments
August 29, 2007

C&T 1: Expand scope of applic ators subject to regulation

California Comments: The purpose of proposing a change to federal regulation of certifica tion and training and worker protection is to raise the minimum federal standards th at many states have already moved beyond. Certifying occupational “for-hir e” and “not-for-hire” pesticide users as described in Option 1, goes far beyond raising th e baseline standard and moves to a level of pesticide use certification that is more of an ideal goal. Setting interim objectives or

standards seems more achievable and more appropriate in setting minimum federal standards. C&T 1 would also be more comp elling if it included illness or exposure statistics to help justify the need to esta blish competency requirements for occupational “for-hire” and “not-for-hire” pesticide user s. Implementing Option 3 “Review state regulations and certification pl ans for applicators and consider their approaches as a model for a national baseline.” may be the be st approach because it provides working examples of standards that are bei ng implemented and can work today.

Certifying occupational “for-h ire” and “not-for-hire” pesticide users as described in Option 1 would likely result in a program re quiring a significant increase in resources currently devoted to C&T. For exampl e, California certifies approximately 24,000 commercial applicators operating in agri cultural and landscape environments (non structural) and oversees certificat ion of private applicators at the local level that number slightly less than 20,000. All pest control businesses must have a certified applicator whether they apply restricted or general use pesticides and the applicator may supervise non-certified applicators in the us e of RUPs. California also requires employers to have a written training program for all employees handling any pesticide (exceptions include users of certain vertebrate pest control bait s, antimicrobials and pool chemicals who must comply with a set of industrial safety re gulations enforced by a different agency).

Currently, the population of pesticide users that include private applicators doesn’t require certification when using general use pesticides. Although private applicators are required to maintain the written training program described above for any employees, there is no exam as a competency gauge for using general use pesticides. Establishing a competency requirement, such as an exam for all production and non-production agricultural users (owners or operators of property) would be a significant improvement in establishing competency of pesticide user s. The exam would test for competency of general pesticide safety and label compre hension. This would allow the competent pesticide user (owner or opera tor) to supervis e others involved in pest control just as certification does. Even this step would require significant resource commitment and would likely increase the tested applicators significantly. Th is expansion of competency testing in combination with the requirement for a training program is a significant improvement and does not require measuring co mpetency at the “hose level” with anexam. Effectiveness of the training program would be determined through State and local enforcement programs.

California has taken the traini ng and outreach approach into the urban pesticide use arena as well. The School IPM program is r eaching out statewide to school district maintenance representatives through workshops that describe and demonstrate reduced risk and pest prevention practices. A similar e ffort is underway to tr ain social services workers that interface with child day care f acilities in basic pest prevention and safe pesticide use practices.

Indiana Comments: Indiana believes the agency can’t rely on “industry and private sources” for training materials, exams or other competency gauge s. Several industry sectors may not be prepared to develop such items.

While some additional expansion may be warra nted, I do not believe there is data to support the assumption that ALL occupa tional users need certification.

Support item 4 (page 12): Improve pesticide la beling to address risks from occupational

users.

Page 13, Other questions for consideration:

A- Indiana has difficulty in reconciling the f act that the agency was dissuaded by states that were concerned handlers could not pass an exam and the fact the agency wants to certify occupational users. While being ab le to pass an exam and competency do not always go hand in hand, the inability to pass an exam is reason enough not accept someone as being minimally competent.

B-Easy is better. Indiana is opposed to requi ring the occupational user be fully certified to the standard they have fo r “for hire’ applications.

North Carolina Comments: Option 4 Improve pesticide labeling to addr ess risks from occupational users

EPA must consider revisions to 40 CFR 171 to reflect the widened scope of current programs. EPA should provide an official recognition of the need to ensure that all persons who apply pesticides (not just RUP’s) as part of their occupational responsibilities or activities have received pesticide edu cation and safety training.

EPA’s label improvement program is the co rnerstone for educati ng the non-RUP user homeowners, and other non-traditional C&T pr ogram persons and should be utilized to this end. State resources are limited. Program expansion to include the non-traditional C&T program person would diminish our already strained program capabilities to meet EPA goals due to limited resources.Option 7 Emphasize Hazard Communication training

Again Hazard communication training can also be provided on the labeling of products. In occupational situations, th e owner generally provides ap plication, equipment training, and other safety training required by DOL OSH. Educa tional and training programs should be conducted by the employer.

Florida Comments: Other questions for consideration:

A. Should agricultural handlers be required to demonstrate competency? The Agency considered this option, but were dissuaded by concerns raised by the states for their ability to pass an exam. Th e same states felt that the handlers were

competent.

In Florida with a Hispanic Trainer doing a bilingual review of the exam material prior to the Handlers taking the exam we have approximately a 25% success rate of Hispanic Handlers taking exams (based on 95 exams taken within the last 12 months given by Cesar Asuaje who is coordi nating this training program).

Considering those results, it would appear that the time and expense that an Employer would have to spend on a Handler, that may or may not be a permanent employee, would be a huge burden. Based on violation rates, it would appear that Handlers are competent. (That is based on possible violations th at would involve an incompetent handler, including report ed exposures to other workers by misapplication, etc.) If it was documented that Handlers are not competent then, reviewing the training material, the amount of required training, and frequency of training versus demonstrating competency through exams might be a more realistic approach.

B. How to best identify occupational pesticide applications that have the potential to impact sensitive populations or environments?

For sensitive environments, one source of information to determine what would be considered sensitive would be the Endang ered Species Act; another source would be

the EPA Clean Water Act. So all surface water could be considered sensitive, and Natural areas where Endangered Species are lis ted would be another possibility. In those situations, using the Primary Cate gories, categories that would include applications to either surface water or a reas most likely to have endangered species such as the Aquatic Category, or the Na tural Areas Weed Management category

would be obvious choices for consideration. Other areas that would be impacted by the Endangered Species or the Clean Water Act such as Right-of-Way and Private Applicators would be dependent on the location of the applications and the labeled products they are using.At this time there are no Restricted Use Pe sticides registered for aquatic application sites in Florida. However, because of th e Aquatic Industry’s initiative we have approximately 2200 applicators licensed in the Aquatic category. It would appear that to have some type of license, whether a certified RUP applicator or a credentialed applicator for GUP applicatio ns would be extremely cost prohibitive for the state lead agencies as well as the Extension offices that assist with the training and in some cases exam proctori ng. This would appear, at least for the aquatic applicators, to be unnecessary. Pr oviding funding to a ssist the industries, such as the aquatic applicators, to increase training would be a more useful use of

funds. Other industries in Florida that might be impacted by the environmental sensitive areas, such as Natural Areas Weed Management and Right of Way would also benefit with a partnership promotin g industry initiatives in training and licensing. Currently Florida has 1858 cert ified Right of Way Applicators and 680 certified Natural Areas Weed Manageme nt, with the Natural Areas Weed Management being the fastest growing category in Florida.

For Sensitive Human Populations, pest cont rol applications would be an obvious choice. In Florida, all persons making app lications to or around homes or businesses are already licensed through competency demo nstration. Therefore, this would be a redundant regulation in Florida.

C&T 2: Protect human health and the envi ronment by ensuring that occupational applicators of potentially harmful pesticid es pass a reliable certification exam that determines their competency to use pesticides safely

California Comments: Option 3 comes closest to an appropriate baseline standard. However, a program that tests and certifies private or commercial su pervisory or responsi ble- level staff and requires an enforceable training program for a ll handlers should be considered adequate.

If there is evidence of failur e of the training program and th e program can’t be improved, testing would be one option to consider. Testing of all for hire applicators would pose a significant resource burden, notw ithstanding the statement made in the issue paper’s cost analysis. It would likely tr iple the demands on DPR’s Licen sing and Certification unit.

Indiana Comments: Agree that written exams are our best met hod for determining competency. However, I am not convinced that all applicators n eed full certification. Additionally I am unconvinced that the agency can adequately de fine sensitive versus non-sensitive sites.

North Carolina Comments: Matrix Option 2 ensures that a level of pe sticide safety training will be provided for applicators of pesticides. This option takes into consideration the wide variety of job assignments which dictates the risk exposure potential.

While it is apparent that test ing the “not for hire applic ator to non-sensitive sites” (handlers) would not demons trate competency, EPA should consider a pre- and post-evaluation instrument that to be used by the handler’s employer to better assess information retention and material acceptabil ity similar to the private applicator option. Consideration here should be given to the f act that a handler has a higher probability of pesticide exposure based upon a given job assignment.

By EPA’s measure, approx. 78% of states require competency exams for the private applicator. Consideration by EPA to support and strengthen SLA’s efforts by “implementing control elements such as a minimum time devoted to each competency standard, etc.” falls short of several exis ting SLA certification/recertification programs for private applicators. And, with the te sting limitations set by FIFRA, EPA should consider addressing additional resources to the states for program expansion.

Florida Comments: Additional Questions for Consideration:

1. Are there other gauges of competency in addition to written or practical examinations? If so, please provide examples, data on how they might be administered, anticipated burden an d any other relevant information.

I have no suggestions for additional gauges of competency. I do feel that time in

class room can be a substitute in some si tuations for determination of competency. For example recertification of licensure, in that they have already demonstrated
competency.

2. Should different (more specific) CORE ex ams be developed for certain segments of applicators, such as not for-hire in sensitive sites and for-hire technicians?

No, I believe that having one basic CORE fo r all exams sets the base of the gauge of competency. It is also simpler and more stream line, and therefore minimizing

confusion and mistakes.

If for these new categories you chose to in clude additional questions, not specifically a separate exam, but additional questions th at could be included for the credential applicators with information specific to their applications that would be more appropriate then having more then one CORE exam.

Suggested adjustments to be made to CO RE exams would be appropriate along the lines of developing the Nation Pesticide Applicator Certification CORE Manual and Exam. Because pesticide applications are not the same across the 50 states and the holdings, and based on the requirements ma ndated to use the National CORE and Manual, Florida has opted not to use the National CORE Manual or Exam for our certification program. However, in updati ng our CORE exam and manual we did

use the National Model as a resource.

However, without significant additional funding for training, exams (preparation, printing and resources to provide/proctor the exams), and licensing, Florida wouldbe unable to handle the additional applicators. Also in Florida part of this regulation would be redundant with our Entomology and Pest Control Program.

3. Do you see any benefits or drawbacks to al lowing all for-hire users of pesticides to be able to purchase, use and superv ise the use of RUPs after they have demonstrated competency? Why?

By requiring everyone who uses a pesticid e (GUP or RUP) to be licensed would be the most cost effective, simplistic version that would ensure that everyone purchasing a pesticide (GUP or RUP) be competent.

However, without significant additional funding for training, exams (preparation, printing and resources to provide/proctor the exams), and licensing, Florida would be unable to handle the additional applicators. Also in Florida part of this regulation would be redundant with our Entomology and Pest Control Program.

C&T 3 Improve standards for the use of restricted use pesticides by uncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator

Indiana Comments: Not opposed to option 3, as IN currently re quires examination and that supervisors provide specific information to the applicator (technician).

Have strong reservations about creating “levels of supervisio n”. Disagree strongly with “base the required level of s upervision o the specific pesticide applied and use the pesticide labeling to establish the level of supervision.” The agency has never demonstrated the ability to write a label th at can be comprehended by the applicator or that is enforceable. To use the already poor ly written label as a guide to supervision would be building one problem upon another prob lem. The pesticide label is the quick sand foundation of the agency. Do not build upon it.

Having levels of supervision compounds the di fficulty in trying to interpret and enforce a regulation. To have any chance of su ccess, a regulation must be simple.

North Carolina Comments: Minimum training requirements for the uncertif ied applicator working under the direct supervision must be established. Training for th is individual to at least the WPS handler level lessens the possibility of pesticide exposure. This individual is more likely to be in work situations where the certified pesticide applicator (superviso r) is not immediately available during an emergency.

Special training emphasis may need to be placed on certain aspects of training based upon the job/tasks, for example drift mana gement and emergency spill cleanup and containment procedures.Consideration should be given by EPA to design a pre- and post trai ning assessment tool to gauge competency based upon job responsib ilities, general pesticide safety and emergencies procedures.

Florida Comments: Questions for review

1. Private versus commercial applicators

Some States currently have di fferent “under the supervision” requirements for private and commercial applicators. Uncertified applicator s in the agricultural setting applying the “under the direct supervision: are handlers applying UTS of private applicators. The WPS currently requires that handles receive training in 40 CFR 170.230 “Pesticide safety training for handlers.”

Is this adequate? The agency is gather ing information from the state plans and regulations related to these questions.

Yes, it would appear that based on violatio n rates, pesticide safe ty training and UTS is working. We are not noting signif icant violations in areas that would

demonstrate that the Handlers are not receiv ing appropriate training or supervision of applications. Violations that might demonstrate a lack of competency of the Handlers or an inadequate supervision wo uld include significant rate of worker and/or handler exposure to pesticides or label rate violations. These are not the largest percentage of violations being no ted in Florida. During a routine or for cause inspection in Florida a percentage of workers are interviewed, with all efforts being made to interview the workers in their native language. We are not reporting workers stating that they have been expose d to pesticide applications. During every pesticide use inspection conducted in Fl orida a minimum of one Handler is interviewed, and we are not documenting violations that woul d demonstrate that training or UTS is not working. Rather, it would appear that it is working, especially in the areas involving restricted use pesticides, in that the applicator understands that they have a level of liabi lity for all RUP applications made under

their license.

In Florida the Cooperative Extension Agen cy in connection with the University of Florida and the Florida Department of Agriculture are making efforts through hiring a bilingual WPS coordinator (empl oyed by FDACS) to work with the three agencies, and UF/IFAS employing bilingual trainers to work with the industries assisting in training Workers and Handlers and have a program training Handlers in bilingual programs to attempt to in crease the Handler’s comprehension of English so that they can pass their exams to obtain certification for the application of RUPs. In conjunction with the WPS requirement for safety training, this will hopefully minimize the need for UTS thro ugh education and licensing, as well as increasing the number of licensed applicat ors to be available in situations where

UTS will be needed.At this time we have a low rate of successful passage of these Handlers (approximately 25%), however, this program is only a little over a year old at this point. However, based on the WPS requi rements for training of all Handlers and the new bilingual studies we have seen an increase of Handlers attempting to take

the exams for certification.

2. Tiered requirements

Under the 1990 C&T proposed revisions, the pr oposal to amend “application under direct supervision” was for tiered requirements, ba sed on EPA review of the uses and their risks. Again, further review of stat e regulations should inform this option.

Should experience be considered as a com ponent of competency? For example, an applicator with 5 years experience may requi re less supervision than a new hire. If different levels of competency are acknowledged, appropriate levels of supervision could be assigned.

Yes, experience should be considered as a component of competency. A business is not going to continue to employ people to wo rk with pesticides that do not continue to demonstrate competency. So, the market itse lf has a self regulating aspect to it.

In Florida we have a growing number of Handlers that are now working with FDACS, UF/IFAS to attend bilingual training s to prepare to take their RUP license.

Most of these are Handlers that often h ave 5 years or more experience (usually much more then 5 years). Using experi ence as one of the tools for a tiered requirement for direct supervision would be a useful tool to th e agriculture industry

in that it would assist the owners and licensed applicators to focus more of their supervision on those Handlers with the least amount of experience. It would also assist in promoting the industry to support those Handlers with 5 or 10 or more years of experience to attend trainings to assist to prepare the Handlers in passing their exams and becoming licensed applicators, minimizing the need for direct supervision.

Working in conjunction with the agricul ture industry in these areas would be a more cost effective way to increase safe ty and bring about compliance versus mandating licenses, that at this time, many of our Handlers are unable to pass. To attempt to mandate that everyone using a pesticide be licensed would be cost prohibitive without significan t increase in funding. Howe ver, providing a portion of that money assisting in funding more pr ograms working with Handlers and other unlicensed applicators, especially those with significant experience (5 years or more) would be a more cost effective way to achieve compliance. Working with the experienced Handlers by giving them an opportunity to increase their knowledge along with their experience helps to ma ke them a more valuable employee to the owner, which in turn hopefully will prom ote the industry in supporting their longterm employees efforts to increase thei r knowledge and become licensed, which should minimize the need for direct supervision.

C&T 5: Establish a minimum age for occupational pesticide applicators

California Comments: Option 1, to establish a minimum age of 18 to purchase, handle or apply pesticides occupationally, is the most appropriate option. The issue paper establishes a strong case for not allowing minor children to purchase, ha ndle or apply pesticides. Reasons include children’s sensitivity to hazardous chemicals, federal labor law that prohibits children under 16 working in agriculture from applying Ca tegory I or II toxicity pesticides with the exception of those working on family farm s, and no exception for children under age 16 involved in non-production agricultural and n on- agricultural pesticide applications.

Children under the age of 18 are not responsible for their acti ons therefore violations of laws and regulations would invol ve parents or guardi ans and add a level of complexity to enforcement and collection of penalties.

Indiana Comments: Have no objection to a minimum age, however I do not want to see multiple ages or exemptions for farms, family businesses etc. Again, keep it simple. If an age limit is warranted due to toxicological concerns, it is warranted for farms and family businesses. If training and testing suffice to assuage concer ns regarding exposure, then the age limit

should be at the lower end of the s cale (16), regardless of the chemical.

North Carolina Comments: Option 4 provides for the minimum age of 18 to purchase, handle or apply pesticides occupationally. It also allows for an ex emption allowing private applicators no younger than 16 in specific situations.

The minimum age requirement should be established as a prerequisi te for applicator certification along with the ability to read and comprehend the English language in addition to having related job experiences. Spec ific guidelines/ definitions for hardship exemptions must be clearly st ated to assure consistency.

States must have the ability to develop th e exemption process with oversight by EPA and, to apply all regulations to th e exempted private applicator.

Florida Comments: Questions for consideration:

1. Why would you support or not support an exemption for family farms?

I would support the exemption for family farm s. In most cases it would appear that children growing up on the family farm are work ing in a limited known environment. Because they have grown up on the family farm th ey will most likelyhave experiences in that business that ho pefully provides them with more informed decision making processes based on that experience.

Also this will minimize any hardship to th e family business, which by definition is only made up with immediate family memb ers, and therefore a much smaller pool

of resources.

2. Do you have a suggested definition of family farm besides the Fair Labor

Standards Act definition?

No, I think keeping th e family farm exemption limited to immediate family is the best way to ensure that those people who are exempted from certain WPS requirements have experience from grow ing up on the family farm, and would therefore the experience, and be in a lim ited known environment to allow for hardships to families, and at the same time provide the most regulation for health

risks.

3. Should a family exemption extend beyond agricultural use? How would it be

defined?

No, by definition this limits pesticide applications to the families own farm (property) and would not incl ude for hire applications. Allowing an exemption for

children to assist in the fami ly farm, takes into account that the child has experience working on that establishment and applications will be made in a limited known environment. Extending that applicatio n to other family businesses that could include for hire applications made in all environments would go against the

documentation for health risks.

C&T 6: Standard Exam Development and Administration Requirements (Standardize exam requirements)

Indiana Comments: Supports secure exam requirements (option 1).

Still maintain that states know what is c ontent relevant, through the process of exam development.

Other questions: Support electronic testin g, provided adequate security and proctoring is available.

North Carolina Comments: Section 11 of FIFRA requires revision to requ ire that competency in the use and handling of pesticides will be determined on the basis of a written examination.

More than 78% of the state programs ha ve testing developmen t and administration requirements in place. The ag ricultural industry a nd general public have adapted to thismeans of determining competency and credibility to protect human health and the environment. If EPA is prepared to sta ndardize exam development and administration requirements, then EPA should strongly consid er revising the FIFRA to better reflect and

address the need to meet na tional competency standards.

Most states attempt to incl ude the subject matter listed in 40 CFR 171 in the exam. This inclusion is not required. Certification exams should reflect, at a minimum, the content matter of the CFR. Training should better reflect CFR content subjects. Training materials should be developed when new categories are established or additional conditions are placed on certain pesticide us e and definitely as the technology changes. With that stated, training materials an d certification exams should be updated simultaneously. This would require close c oordination between agencies, but it would assure that exams accurately test topics that are covered by training manuals and sessions. Implementation of this validation process test s knowledge in tasks necessary to perform as an applicator.

Training materials and programs produced by in dependent organizations must also be considered here. EPA should give considera tion to develop a process that allows for consistent review and oversight of such mate rials. In doing so, states, pesticide trainers and educators would more likely accept the materials.

Reciprocity agreements would be more read ily accepted nationally if the ground rules for

certification are established with similarities.

Florida Comments: Additional Questions for Consideration:

1. Are there other options to standardize ex am development and administration that

were not considered?

Another option then the one presented is to allow states to use the National Pesticide Applicator Certification Core Manual and Exam as a basis to be adjusted on an as needed basis per state to adjust as regul ations and pesticide applications vary per state. By requiring the National Manual and Exam to be used as is or not at all, forced Florida to opt for the not at all.

2. Why would you support or not support electroni c testing at remote sites, such as departments or mother vehicles? Are there controls that should be implemented if this option is considered?

I would not support electronic testing at rem ote sites because of ea se of access to the applicator. Using a site such as a motor ve hicle office would be a great hard ship on the applicator, in that they would have to make an appointment to the convenience of the motor vehicle office, not the grower. In Florida these offices are already beyond maximum capacity, and therefore, even with an appointment, an applicator wishing to take an exam would be looking at loosing a complete day to try and getan opportunity to take the exam. I can not name any agency in Florida that would

be able to handle the additional burden of providing computers and staff for testing of applicators.

At this time we are still using paper tests and contract UF/IFAS to proctor the exams. Using the Extension Offices, the grower is able to attend training programs to review materials to assist with taking the exam as well as follow up training to renew their license. They have the resou rce of the Extension Agent and in most cases an extensive library of material relat ed to their industry for assistance in all aspects of the applicators business. And fina lly is a familiar location that is usually in the general area as the agriculture establ ishment. If the extension office had the availability of computers, then I would s upport a choice to growers for a paper exam or an electronic exam. However, without significant a dditional funding for computers, software, etc. this would not be feasible.

C&T 7: Better Protect Human Health and the Environment by Establishing National

Standards for Recertification that Cover Co re Competencies as well as the Changing Field of Pesticide Application ( Period and gauge for recertification)

Indiana Comments: Disagree that both core and cat egory requirements are necessary for recertification. A recent Indiana work group concluded that core material was routinely covered in nearly all recertification programs.

Oppose agency requirements for recertification (class content, number of hours etc.).

Agree that positive identification should be required for participants. Online certification permitted only if identification can be verified (live web casts with proctor, for example).

Support a 5-year certif ication cycle.

North Carolina Comments: Consideration for revising the 40 CFR 171 to address a recertif ication period would better support EPA’s goal to protect human health and the environment.

Option 1: Set a federa l recertification period... Implementing federal standards for recertifi cation would ensure that all pesticide applicators meet national competency standa rds, raise the standards of applicators, mitigate exposure risks, and increase the public’s confidence. This standard should establish an acceptable range for any national certification period w ith clearly stated recertification options, in order to take into account the disparities among State program resources throughout the Nation. At a minimum, prerequisites for recertification could be established as suggested below.

Continuing education program is value added to the competency of applicators by allowing them to select courses that specifica lly target educational needs pertaining to the safe use of pesticides, technology, applic ation techniques, an d industry networking.Applicators would be required to obtain a specific number of category-specific credits and core credits to satisfy the requirements of recertification duri ng the recertification period. Continuing certification credit cannot roll over into the next period. Failure to obtain the appropriate number of credits must retest.

Another feasible alternative would be to require that any program approved for continuing certification credit should c over both “core” and “c ategory specific” information. States should be given this as an option.

Florida Comments: Questions for Stakeholder Consideration

1. What do you think is an appropriate recertification period? Why?

Four years. I also think that the certific ation period and expiration of the license
should be the same. Some states certify Applicators for one time period but then
their licenses expire every 12 months. This is extremely difficult to deal with in the
cases of reciprocal licenses, so Florida set our policy that a reciprocal license will
only be good as long as the license expiration date.

I think 4 years is reasonable length for an applicator to hold a certificate for the use
of RUPs. Generating licenses once a year could bring in more income to the state,
but would be an onerous burden on the applicator as well as the certification staff.
Two years is the same situation. Five years is getting onto the lo ng side if you need
to take action against an applicator. Four years also seems like a fairly standard
time period, and also relates well into thos e states that have cooperative agreements

with Universities.

2. Should private & commercial applicators have the same recertification period & Requirements? Why or why not?

Yes, Reasoning behind this, is because we have applicators that may hold more then
one category in their commercia l license. For example, we have many applicators in
Florida who hold Aquatic, Right of Way, Na tural Areas, Forestry and Ornamental
& Turf Categories. Having different recertification period s for different categories
would be onerous on both the applicator and the certification staff in trying to
recertify licenses. I agree that some categor ies such a fumigation have the potential
to pose a higher risk to humans, and A erial, Aquatic or Natural Areas have the
potential to pose a higher environmental risk , but this is a certification to apply and
supervise the application of Restricted Use Pesticides, and by holding all applicators
to the same high standard will help us to assure that we do all we can through
licensing and education to minimize the potential of human hazard and

environmental hazards.3. Do you support separate requirements for recertification in core competencies versus category-specific information? Why or why not?

No, I feel that testing initially to issu e a certification/license allows us to set
minimum standards for competency. However, once an applicator has
demonstrated that competency, I believe th at promoting an applicator to take CEU
courses so that they are exposed to th e newest and most up-to-date information
concerning their industry is a better way to protect the applicators, the industry and
the environment. Technology is a drivin g force allowing the industry to provide
safer chemicals, application/mixing equi pment and provide quicker feed back on
potential problems. Through CEU programs it assists the applicators to take the
time from their business to attend program s and to learn this information. In
Florida applicators have the choice to renew through re-testing (which is the same
test they may have taken when they obtain ed their license) or obtaining CEUs. By
far the majority of our recertification of a pplicators is through CEUs. Because this
is not a perfect world and we are working with industries that are affected greatly
by natural as well as man made forces, it may not always be possible for an
applicator to obtain all of the needed CE Us to renew, and in those cases it is
important that they are able to continue their license and mainta in their business by
retesting. The concept of testing to demonstrate minimum competency in core
information as well as in category exams shou ld exist for both initial certification as

well as for recertification. First reaction is to require a different test and a higher
level of competency for those recertifyin g, however, everyone who is certified to
apply RUPs should be able to demonstrat e the same high level of competency.
Because our certification period is 4 years, it is possible that they will be taking a
new test if they choose to recertify by testin g. It is also highly unlikely that because
they passed the test 4 years earlier, that they would necessarily have any advantage
in retaking the test, and again.

4. Should positive identification be required of participants in recertification programs?

Yes, to ensure that the person who is ei ther retesting or attending CEU programs is the same person who originally obtained the license. There are many different locations in the state where an applic ator can attend CEU programs for their recertification or to retest, and because of the number of applicators in the state every applicator can not be known by the trainers or exam administrators. This would assist in minimizing cheating.

5. Should online recertification programs be pe rmitted? Under what circumstances?Yes, because of location, work responsibilit y, etc., not all applicat ors have the ability to attend enough CEU programs to renew thei r license with all the categories. Also, by allowing online recertification programs, we are allowing our applicators to take training to not only recertify their license, but also to promote applicators to keep up to date on the latest information in their industry. There are problems with

online recertification in that there is no way to ensure th at the person taking the

online class is the actu al applicator. However, I feel that the benefits of online classes outweigh the negative of those who choose to get around the system.