CTAG Executive Summary, Pesticide Safety for the 21st Century

DRAFT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CERTIFICATION & TRAINING ASSESSMENT GROUP

January 1999

Index

* Indicates a long-term proposal that could result in signficant change to the program
[ ] Represents issues raised by CTAG members in their deliberations.

Introduction

Although feedback is sought on all proposals, CTAG especially appreciates comments on proposals marked with an asterisk. These proposals would require extensive dialogue, would be accomplished over the long-term, and could result in significant change. Proposals are subject to change or elimination as a result of stakeholder feedback. If further details of the proposals are desired, readers are encouraged to review the draft CTAG report that explains CTAG member deliberations. The report is available from EPA at 703-305-7666 or on the Internet at http://www.aapse.org/ Input from stakeholders will be added to the final report and was presented at the National Pesticide Applicator Training Conference, August 7-11, 1999 in Portland, Maine.

Background

CTAG consists of representatives from EPA Headquarters and EPA Regional Offices, USDA, Pesticide State Lead Agencies (SLAs), Cooperative Extension Service (CES), Tribes, the Armed Forces Pest Management Board (AFPMB), the Association of American Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO), the Association of Structural Pest Control Regulatory Officials (ASPCRO), and the American Association of Pesticide Safety Educators (AAPSE). In recent years, public needs and demands have begun to exceed the capabilities of the original pesticide applicator certification and training programs established 25 years ago, such that the EPA and USDA National Program Offices (NPOs) felt there was a need to assess the current program operation in order to sustain its future vitality.

A draft CTAG report, entitled "Pesticide Safety for the 21st Century," includes more detail on the background of the CTAG effort as well as a full discussion of all the proposals identified. The draft report is a result of discussions on national program information and other input provided by CTAG members on the strengths and weaknesses and use of resources for their programs. The report also includes appendices listing the individuals that participated in the CTAG effort and other supporting information. This executive summary provides a condensed presentation of the five major CTAG goals identified for the program, and a list of proposals that will enhance the program and move it forward to the 21st century.

Proposals

* 1.1 Initiate a National Consumer Education Initiative. Initiate a nationally organized pesticide education and safety training program targeted to consumers and/or homeowners that provides for safe and effective use of pesticides by this segment of the user community. The program should be comprised of an extensive outreach and education campaign and the development and distribution of appropriate pesticide safety education materials. It should be coordinated in partnership with states, tribes, territories, Extension PSEP coordinators, USDA, industry, and EPA's Consumer Labeling Initiative, in order to maximize acceptance and utility of educational materials and make the best use of EPA and industry resources.

* 1.2 Expand the Regulatory Scope of the Program. Amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and revise 40 CFR Part 171 to expand the regulatory scope of the certification & training program from its current focus on applicators of restricted use pesticides (RUPs) to include regulatory coverage of all applicators who apply pesticides as part of their occupational responsibilities or activities [that could result in pesticide exposures to the public through direct exposure/contact, residues on food or plant materials, or from drift].

Revisions should allow for certain exemptions for small businesses and other situations, but would mandate specific training for applicators applying pesticides in places/areas that may result in high risk exposure (e.g., food processing and/or handling establishments, day care centers, schools, hospitals, etc.). The regulatory expansion would also include provisions for the certification of dealers of "occupational use" pesticides (see Proposal 1.4 below).

[There is concern that official expansion of the program would overburden an already underfunded program. Additional funds would need to be appropriated, and USDA would need to contribute funds in order to cover an expanded regulatory scope. Also, in light of the Food Quality Protection Act, there may be resistance to reopening FIFRA because other areas of the statute could be subject to revision in the process.]

* 1.3 Integrate the Worker Protection Standard Training Requirements With the New Applicator Training Program. In the expansion of the scope of pesticide applicator training programs noted above, provide for integration with Worker Protection Standard training requirements/programs so that pesticide safety education and training are provided for all pesticide user communities, from agricultural workers and handlers to the full spectrum of pesticide applicators.

* 1.4 Consider Tiered Classification of Pesticides. Consider some method of classifying pesticides in tiers based on the toxicity and assessed risk of the active ingredient and/or uses [and possibly the amount of the product to be used], and aligning the requirements for pesticide education and safety training [and certification/licensing requirements] with the classification of the product. One example of a tiered classification would be:

(1) consumer/homeowner use products;
(2) general or unclassified pesticide products for occupational use;
(3) restricted use pesticide products [based on current RUP criteria] for occupational use; and
(4) restricted "prescription" use products for occupational use.

The "prescription use" category would be reserved for specific risk mitigation situations, and could be one possible approach to preserving certain minor-crop uses of "high risk" pesticide products. By only allowing specified uses based on a particular training and certification level of the applicator, this approach would mitigate the impacts of FQPA and groundwater protection restrictions.

1.5 Change the Name of the Program. Change the name of the C&T program to reflect both the certification component and the scope and extent of pesticide education and safety training activities. A suggested name is the PESTAC Program (Pesticide Education and Safety Training and Applicator Certification Program). [Other suggestions are welcome.]

Goal 2: Provide high quality pesticide education and safety training programs.
Ensure that all pesticide education and safety training programs meet national standards with regard to the content of the programs and the quality of training materials. Ensure that training coordinators for pesticide education and safety training programs possess the knowledge, skills, and abilities to deliver effective training that meets the needs of pesticide users and keeps pace with evolving technological advancements and our changing understanding of pesticide risks.

* 2.1 Update Core Training Requirements and Establish National Model Curriculum. Update the core pesticide education and safety training requirements for certified applicators and service technicians (or for any training program considered in regulatory revisions) to reflect the current needs and desired competency standards for pesticide users. Establish a national model/standard curriculum for the updated core pesticide education and safety training requirements. In addition to existing and newly identified topics, the core requirements should, at a minimum, also include coverage of Integrated Pest Management (both agricultural and non-agricultural/urban IPM) and the ethics of pesticide use decisions and professionalism in dealing with the public. [The national model core curriculum could be mandatory or voluntary. If it were mandatory, the regulations at 40 CFR Part 171 would need to be revised to codify the updated core requirements. There are concerns with the feasibility of requiring a national model curriculum because programs are so varied.]

* 2.2 Provide Mechanisms for Coordinated Development and Review of Training Materials. The NPOs, AAPSE, and AAPCO should form partnerships among states, tribes, territories, industry, professional organizations, and commodity groups to coordinate development and improve the quality of training materials, and offset the burden on individual programs. The NPOs and/or AAPSE should create a national review board for oversight and review of federally-funded/coordinated training materials to raise the standard of quality for all training materials and to eliminate the use of materials with erroneous information. The NPOs and/or AAPSE should also coordinate a mechanism/process for end-user reviews of such training materials to build quality control into the development process.

2.3 Provide Mechanisms to Improve the Skills of Trainers/Educators. The NPOs and AAPSE should establish a mechanism to provide pesticide safety educators with opportunities to update skills and knowledge through periodic training workshops to promote exchanges between senior/junior educators. [A study is being conducted to explore the feasibility of setting up regional/national "Pesticide Education and Safety Training Centers" for trainers and educators to accomplish this objective. State, tribe, and territory regulators may also benefit from similar training.]

2.4 Establish a Network or Resource Pool of Subject Matter and Technology Experts/Specialists. The NPOs and AAPSE should establish and maintain a network of recognized subject matter specialists for certification categories to develop new or update current training materials. A pool of experts in precision agriculture, engineering, program design, and the appropriate use of advanced technology should be identified to train other program coordinators. [Each regional area, either USDA or EPA region, could establish its own network of specialists. A land grant university could be designated as the base of operation. Expertise is especially needed in agricultural engineering. One state has suggested establishing scholarships in needed disciplines.]

2.5 Develop Training Materials in an Electronic and Modular Format. The NPOs should ensure that developers of training materials use modular and electronic formats to facilitate sharing, updating, or modifying information. (A modular format has standardized units that allow one or more units to be updated or modified without having to make changes to the whole document.)

2.6 Establish National Web Site Directory of Training Materials. NPOs and AAPSE should support development of a national Web site to provide information on the existing stock of training materials (status, sources, availability, etc.). The Web site would reduce resources and costs asssociated with developing materials by avoiding duplication of effort.

Goal 3: Maintain the consistency, integrity, and validity of the certification and recertification programs and processes.
Ensure that all pesticide applicators being certified and/or recertified meet national competency standards and occupational prerequisites for applicators.

* 3.1 Establish Prerequisites for Certification. Establish certification prerequisites for applicator certification such as a minimum age requirement, the ability to read and comprehend the English language, and related job experience.

* 3.2 Require Continuing Education Program. Require that all states, tribes, and territories establish a continuing education program as part of an applicator recertification program. [National standards could be set for continuing education credits, units, or hours. In addition to a continuing education program, periodic recertification exams could be required, either for all applicators or only in the case of a violation.]

* 3.3 Require Written Exam for All Applicators. Change FIFRA and regulations to require that competency in the use and handling of pesticides be determined on the basis of written exams for all applicators who seek to be certified through a state, tribe, territory, or federal program to use restricted, general use, or unclassified pesticide products. [Other possibilities would be to eliminate the oral examination option for private applicators and to establish a national limit for the number of times an applicator can retake an exam in a given time frame. Practical exams in which the applicator must show a proficiency in such topics as plant pest identification and/or calibration techniques could also be required.]

* 3.4 Require Use of Validation Process for All Exams. Require that all states, tribes, and territories use a validation process for all certified applicator exams. Exam validation is a process whereby exams are created to test knowledge in tasks necessary to perform an applicator's job. The process includes setting up an exam committee, conducting a survey of applicators, determining skills and knowledge needed to do an applicator's job, determining the number and types of questions linked to each task area, writing questions, and establishing and using cut scores. EPA will be holding a workshop providing interested states, tribes, and territories with tools on how to use the exam validation process. [Use of the process could be made voluntary, or could become part of each program's performance partnership grant with EPA.]

* 3.5 Facilitate Establishment of Reciprocity Agreements. The NPOs could coordinate workshops to promote discussion of reciprocal agreements, and establish a workgroup to focus on long-term program changes to facilitate reciprocity agreements. Some of the other CTAG proposals could help alleviate reciprocity issues. In addition, a coordinated Web site should include each program's categories and definitions. [Reciprocity agreements in general are problematic due to differences in state, tribe, and territorial laws.]

3.6 Establish a National 5-Year Maximum Recertification Period. Establish regulatory requirements for a national maximum certification period of five years for all certified applicators. Develop regulatory requirements for recertification programs and options. States, tribes, and territories would be able to establish a certification period of five years or less.

3.7 Upgrade Content of Certification Exam. Revise regulations to require states to upgrade the content of certification exams to an accepted minimum standard. Exams should, at a minimum, be required to test the content of the subject matter listed in 40 CFR 171 under standards for private and commercial applicators. [The standards for private and commercial applicators could be revised and updated as well.]

3.8 Update Exams Along With Materials. States should update examinations in a timely manner as training manuals and materials are being revised. This proposal requires close coordination among agencies involved in the education and certification programs.

3.9 Establish an Exam Database. The NPOs should work with AAPCO and ASPCRO to coordinate the development of a national, voluntary, secure database of examination questions. It would be desirable to include only those questions that are a result of the exam validation process. [Security issues are a concern.]

3.10 Provide Funding for Purchase of Electronic Grading Machines. EPA should provide a one-time increase in funding for the purchase of electronic grading machines so that applicator testers can receive exam feedback. [Alternatively, AAPCO and AAPSE could seek funds from industry sources for the purchase of software or scanners as needed.]

3.11 Maintain Information on Licensing Software. The NPOs should collect and maintain information on licensing software and facilitate the use of computerized tracking systems for states, tribes, and territories. The NPOs should also work with states, tribes, and territories to develop a standard set of tracking fields for the licensing software to satisfy EPA reporting requirements.

3.12 Develop or Improve Web Pages. The NPOs, with the assistance of AAPCO and AAPSE, should develop guidance and encourage each state, tribe, and territory to become part of, or develop its own, Web page on pesticide applicator certification program offerings. [Currently, two pesticide coordinators have received a grant to work with programs to update or create Web pages.]

3.13 Share Policies and Experiences on American Disabilities Act. States, tribes, and territories should share policies and experiences regarding accommodations provided to potential applicators with disabilities. The NPOs and AAPCO could facilitate the sharing of such information either informally or on a national Web page. The purpose is to assist programs in establishing policies to provide accommodations for applicators determined to be eligible, while protecting the state, tribe, or territory from legal challenges. [Professional licensing organizations suggest that programs use their own attorneys to make decisions on a case-by-case basis.]

Goal 4: Ensure that adequate and equitable funding is available to pesticide safety education, training, and certification programs.
Ensure that pesticide education and safety training programs have adequate resources to meet the needs of the public and the clients being served by the program. Ensure that the distribution of federal funds which support the programs is equitable and based on factors that reflect true program workloads and outputs.

* 4.1 Change the Federal Funding Formula for Distributing C&T Funds to State Lead Agencies (SLAs). EPA should pursue changing the federal funding formula that determines how C&T funds are distributed to SLAs. Although CTAG is interested in reviewing the entire formula with stakeholders, of particular concern is to replace the 5% factor based on the number of farms with a factor that more adequately reflects program workload and best serves all programs. The factor could be based on the number of all applicators including registered technicians, the number of commercial applicators, or other combinations. [Note: The grant regulations at 40 CFR 35.115(k) require EPA to base the C&T funding formula on the number of applicators and farms, so implementing this proposal would most likely entail regulatory revision. It is possible, however, that this proposal could be implemented in the short term by using a flexible definition of "farm" or by reducing the weight applied to number of farms.]

Current funding formula to SLAs:
EPA awards approximately $3 million to pesticide State Lead Agencies each year.

Funds are distributed to SLAs using the following formula:
$23,000 to the Pacific Islands
$17,000 to Colorado to administer the state commercial applicator certification program
$57,000 to EPA Region 8 to administer the Colorado private applicator certification program
$22,000 to each state (except Colorado and Wyoming), the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

The remaining funds are awarded according to the following formula:
5% based on number of farms
40% based on number of private applicators
10% based on number initially certified in the fiscal year
10% based on number of private applicators holding a certification in the fiscal year
20% based on number recertified in fiscal year
40% based on number of commercial applicators
10% based on number initially certified in the fiscal year
10% based on number of commercial applicators holding a certification in the fiscal year
20% based on number recertified in fiscal year 15% for EPA Regional discretionary funds

* 4.2 Change the Federal Funding Formula for Distributing C&T Funds to the Cooperative Extension Service (CES) Program Offices. USDA should pursue changing the federal funding formula that determines how C&T funds are distributed to CES program offices. Although CTAG is interested in reviewing the entire formula with stakeholders, of particular concern is replacing the 20% factor for farms with a factor based on the number of acres treated, agricultural acres, or pounds of active ingredient used. [It has been suggested that the 20% factor for farms should be replaced with the total number of applicators. Also, the factor based on the number of private and commercial applicators trained since the inception of the program may be a disadvantage for those programs that began participating late in the federal program.] EPA passes approximately $2 million to USDA Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service (CSREES) via an inter-agency agreement to support applicator training by Cooperative Extension Services. USDA does not contribute any funds for the same purpose. USDA distributes EPA funds to CES using the following formula:

Current funding formula to CESs:
$15,000 base for each state or territory, plus:
10% based on number of private applicators trained since inception of the program
10% based on number of commercial applicators trained since inception of the program
40% based on number of commercial applicators currently certified on record
20% based on number of private applicators currently certified on record
20% based on number of farms

* 4.3 Assess a Pesticide Registration Fee to Help Cover Program Costs. EPA should pursue the establishment of a fee on pesticide registrations that would be used to cover part of the costs of the pesticide education, safety training, and applicator certification programs. [The fee could be established on a tier system whereby restricted-use pesticide fees would be higher than for general or unrestricted pesticides.]

* 4.4 Explore Non-Traditional Sources for Program Funding. State, tribe, and territorial programs should explore non-traditional sources for funding to reduce reliance on general revenue funds. Programs should consider "fee- for-service" options and industry and trade-association partnerships to help cover the cost of development of educational materials, projects, and/or advanced technology demonstrations.

* 4.5 USDA should provide funding to the Cooperative Extension Service (CES) Program Offices. USDA should expand its leadership role in coordinating administrative, technical, and support roles related to pesticide management. It should provide funding, at least equivalent to EPA, for pesticide education and training programs outside the scope of PSEP. Farmworker training, pesticide recordkeeping programs, and health care professionals would benefit from increased funding opportunities. Pesticide misuse in urban and suburban settings can injure or kill homeowners and their pets, and cause environmental degradation as a result of runoff from lawns and gardens. Competitive research grants should be initiated for protective clothing and equipment (PPE) for applicators and farmworkers. Safer methods of handling and disposing of pesticides should be investigated.

4.6 Provide Information on Use of EPA Regional Discretionary Funds. The EPA regional and headquarters offices need to coordinate to provide information to states, tribes, and territories on projects funded with regional discretionary funds.

4.7 Clarify and Adopt a Common Definition of "Certified Applicators" for Reporting Purposes. The NPOs should clarify and adopt a common definition of "certified applicators" to be used by all programs when reporting accomplishments. When conducting reviews, EPA regional offices need to verify reporting information since these reporting numbers affect future funding levels.

4.8 Share Information on Supplemental Funding. The NPOs should facilitate the sharing of information on how various programs are successfully generating supplemental funds to support their certification programs. AAPCO and/or AAPSE could also facilitate this sharing of information by having sessions devoted to this topic at their national meetings.

Goal 5: Improve the efficiency of program organization and operations.
Ensure that the operation of pesticide education and safety training and applicator certification programs is coordinated through the National Program Offices (NPOs) to improve cooperation among implementing agencies and to provide for consistent evaluation, management, and marketing of the program.

* 5.1 Develop National Tool to Measure and Evaluate Program Success. Develop a national survey instrument to enable states, tribes, and territories to evaluate their programs and measure applicator knowledge and behavioral change. A national survey instrument would avoid duplication across states, tribes, and territories, and could also be used to develop national program reports that capture program impacts and accomplishments. The NPOs and/or AAPSE could oversee development of the survey instrument, which would be developed with the technical assistance of state program coordinators, a statistician, and education specialists.

* 5.2 Improve Capabilities for Assessing Program Effectiveness. Develop national program guidance for the C&T program that directs training coordinators, pesticide regulatory officials, and appropriate insurance representatives to determine compliance issues that should be addressed in training. The guidance should also direct programs to use applicator feedback in evaluating program effectiveness.

5.3 Improve Program Cooperation Among Implementing Agencies. The NPOs and EPA regional offices should work with states, tribes, and territories through the cooperative agreement oversight process and regional meetings to facilitate cooperation between implementing agencies. The NPOs and EPA regions should encourage regular meetings with SLAs and CES, provide programs with opportunities to learn how to improve communication and cooperation, and promote examples of success stories.

5.4 Fund Pilot Projects That Provide Program Evaluation Tools. The national program should fund pilot projects that explore innovative evaluation mechanisms for C&T programs that could be used as models for programs.

5.5 Encourage Monitoring of Training Programs. The NPOs should include language in national guidance that directs or at least encourages programs to monitor certification and recertification training meetings for content and delivery as part of the national effort to assure effective quality training.

5.6 Require Annual Review of State Plans. The NPOs should include language in national guidance that directs EPA regional offices to conduct an annual program evaluation and review of the state, tribe, or territory C&T Plan.

5.7 Effectively Market the C&T Program and Promote Accomplishments. The NPOs should develop an explicit strategy and/or mechanisms to adequately represent the C&T program accomplishments and highlights such that stakeholders (both internal and external) would have an improved understanding of the total scope and importance of the program and its accomplishments. The NPOs should also explore options to effectively "market" the C&T program.