| EPA REVISIONS TO CERTIFICATION AND TRAINING |
|
|
PESTICIDE SAFETY AND REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION PAPERS
Discussion Set #1
Discussion Set #2
Discussion Set #3
Discussion Set #4
Discussion Set #5
NPMA'S COMMENTS
NPMA Comments—October 24, 2006
Pursuant to your request, the purpose of this e-mail is to briefly reiterate the points made on behalf of the National Pest Management Association (NPMA) with respect to the briefing papers presented to the Worker Safety Subgroup, which relate to certification and training (this includes comments on all of the papers that have a potential impact on PCOs and duplicates some comments made in an earlier email).
Overarching principles governing NPMA’s position:
The following general principles guide our responses to many of the questions posed by the Agency in the discussion papers that the Worker Safety subgroup has worked with:
1. We believe that applicator training is the cornerstone of an effective pesticide regulatory program. However well crafted, an applicator that neither understands nor follows a label’s directions is more likely to misapply the product or use it in a fashion that may result in adverse health or ecological impacts.
2. NPMA supports tough, uniform, national standards governing persons that supervise or apply restricted use or general use pesticides, including pest control service technicians and occupational handlers that make applications of pesticides to properties other than their own (i.e. non-commercial applicators like school janitors or hotel maids).
3. NPMA believes it is inherently inefficient and ineffective to have each of 50 states develop and administer its own:
-
Application categories
-
Develop core category competencies
-
Examination development and administration
-
Determination of recertification standards and evaluation of continuing education units
It is common for a person employed by a commercial pest control company to be credentialed in multiple categories in multiple jurisdictions. For example, a service technician in the Washington, DC area may have to be trained, tested and licensed in general household pest, wood destroying insects, food processing and food handling facilities in each of three or four states (including the District). We support the efficiencies that would occur from consolidating these activities. To achieve this goal, either EPA or another national organization would be responsible for the development and administration of the applicator-credentialing program. States would, however, have access to data about applicators and would be able to collect licensing fees and make appropriate licensing decisions. This would, of course, not diminish in any way, the states’ ability to enforce FIFRA and state pesticide laws.
If a national program is not viable or feasible, NPMA would then support having EPA be responsible for the development of uniform categories, content, examination development and recertification CEUs, while the states would have the responsibility for administering these uniform credentialing standards. We further believe that if the Agency adopts this alternative, that it mandates reciprocity between the states.
General
1. NPMA objected to the following (note: your September 6th email to the subgroup indicates these issues will all be addressed prior to the November 8th subgroup meeting):
-
The tone of the rhetoric used to characterize the issue (the tone is apocalyptic and unnecessary).
-
The inclusion of a “do nothing” option (typically the final “do nothing” option suggests that the failure to act will be calamitous, notwithstanding the fact that the regulations being amended have been working for more than thirty years and virtually every state has adopted more protective regulations).
-
The use of poison control center data to justify action (CDC, NIOSH, the American Association of Poison Control Centers and others have taken the position that a call to a poison control center is not an indication of an unacceptable exposure).
2. Though the subgroup represents a broad cross-section of views, a large number of affected stakeholders, whose views may differ from those participating in the subgroup, should be provided with an opportunity to directly interact with the Agency prior to the publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking. NPMA suggests that the Agency convene a stakeholder workshop, following the November subgroup meeting, but prior to the publication of a Federal Register notice.
3. Many of the discussion papers lack adequate specificity to allow us to authoritatively comment. We suggest that the amended papers presented to the subgroup at the November 8th meeting be amended, so that there is greater specificity in the policy options under consideration.
4. Our comments are intended to address the use of insecticides, rodenticides and, to a lesser extent, herbicides and fungicides by certified applicators, persons under their supervision and occupational users performing structural pest control and related services. It isn’t our intention to address uses by others, such as agricultural uses or the use of antimicrobials.
Discussion Paper IA: Competent Users
NPMA supports:
Our support for this significant expansion of the role of the federal government is predicated on the discussion and outcome of many of the papers that will be discussed later in this stakeholder process. Accordingly, we request that this position paper be revisited at the conclusion of the subgroup process.
Discussion Paper IB: Under the Direct Supervision
Insofar as we support the requirement that persons that work “under the direct supervision” of a certified applicator be adequately trained to ensure they are capable of safely applying pesticides, we do not support requirement that a certified applicator be on-site or a maximum travel time or distance from the person he/she is supervising. We do, however support a requirement that the person being supervised have the ability to immediately communicate with the certified applicator. With the advent of modern communication technology such as radios and cellular telephones, we believe a requirement that a technician possess equipment capable of facilitating immediate communication is effective and sensible.
Discussion Paper IC: RUP Dealers
In general, we do not believe we are in a position to take a position yet on this issue inasmuch as there are a number of questions about what the Agency intends in the policy options it has provided. For example:
-
We are unclear on the meaning of “dealer certification” (does this mean that the company must be credentialed, individuals must be credentialed and, if so, which individuals?).
We believe that this discussion paper should be revisited after the Agency has answered the aforementioned and other questions. We also believe that individuals that represent non-agricultural pesticide dealers should be allowed to participate in the subgroup deliberations, at least for the portion relating to “dealers.”
Discussion Paper IIA: Minimum Age for Applicators
NPMA supports a prohibition against the commercial application of pesticides by persons under the age of eighteen provided that there is an exemption for family businesses. There are nearly 20,000 structural pest control companies in the United States. Almost all of these are family businesses (5 of the 20,000 are publicly traded companies). In most instances, these companies are owned and operated by family members, often 2nd, 3rd or 4th generation family members. NPMA would support an exemption that would allow persons 16 years or older to apply pesticides if the business that employs him/her is owned by his/her immediate family and he/she is accompanied by a certified applicator or a competent service technician.
Discussion Paper IIB: Exams for all Applicators
NPMA generally supports the requirement that persons working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator pass an examination, provided that the exam covers core material (e.g., pesticide safety, label comprehension, etc.) and is not category specific.
Many pest control service technicians operate in multiple jurisdictions. From the above example, a company located in the metropolitan Washington area typically does business in Washington, Virginia and Maryland (and sometimes Delaware or West Virginia). While we support testing technicians for competence, we are concerned that each state will adopt its own test. Having to test each technician in 3, 4 or 5 categories would be untenable and would impose an enormous hardship on pest control companies. We believe the system is more effective if the exam is a uniform national exam, the results of which are honored in any jurisdiction.
Discussion Paper IIC: Standardized Exams
As discussed above, NPMA supports consistency and uniformity of certification categories, content, exams and CEUs.
Discussion Paper IID: Competency Commensurate with Risk
NPMA supports tough standards for all applicators, rendering the need for a competency gauge for high-risk scenarios unnecessary. To the extent that the use of a particular product poses risks beyond those contemplated by general certification standards, NPMA believes this can be addressed by mandatory stewardship provisions on the labels of those particular products (e.g. EPA’s Registration Division already does this for fumigants like methyl bromide and sulfuryl fluoride).
Discussion Paper IIE and F: Period and Gauge for Recertification
NPMA supports option #2, the creation of minimum recertification intervals. However, we do not support retesting of applicators. The first time a person attempts to be certified, they are merely tested. If they can pass the exam, they get their certification. When they go to be recertified five years later, they have the benefit of five years of training, on-site job experience and continuing education credits. It makes little sense to us to create a tougher standard for an experienced applicator that for a first time applicant.
Discussion Paper IIIA: Standard Certification Categories
NPMA supports option #2, uniform certification categories, with states having a very limited ability to add categories where there are truly unique circumstances in that state and where the category is developed in a way to ensure reciprocity in any other state that has the same “unique” circumstance.
Discussion Paper IIIB: Update Certification Plan Requirements
No comment
Discussion Paper IIIC: Assure Program Accountability
No comment.
We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this process and look forward to our continued discussion of these important topics.
NPMA Comments--September 20, 2006
Pursuant to your request, the purpose of this email is to briefly reiterate the points made on behalf of the National Pest Management Association with respect to the five papers discussed during the first two meetings/conference calls of the Worker Safety Subgroup.
General
1. NPMA objected to the following (note: your September 6th email to the subgroup indicates these issues will all be addressed prior to the November 8th subgroup meeting):
-
The inclusion of a “do nothing” option (typically the final “do nothing” option suggests that the failure to act will be calamitous, notwithstanding the fact that the regulations being amended have been working for more than thirty years and virtually every state has adopted more protective regulations) , and
-
The use of poison control center data to justify action (CDC, NIOSH, the American Association of Poison Control Centers and others have taken the position that a call to a poison control center is not an indication of an unacceptable exposure).
2. Though the subgroup represents a broad cross-section of views, a large number of affected stakeholders, whose views may differ from those participating in the subgroup, should be provided with an opportunity to directly interact with the Agency prior to the publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking. NPMA suggests that the Agency convene a stakeholder workshop, following the November subgroup meeting, but prior to the publication of a Federal Register notice.
3. Many of the discussion papers lack adequate specificity to allow us to authoritatively comment. We suggest that the amended papers presented to the subgroup at the November 8th meeting be amended, so that there is greater specificity in the policy options under consideration.
4. Our comments are intended to address the use of insecticides, rodenticides and, to a lesser extent, herbicides and fungicides by certified applicators, persons under their supervision and occupational users performing structural pest control and related services. It isn’t our intention to address uses by others, such as agricultural uses or the use of antimicrobials.
Discussion Paper IA: Competent Users
NPMA supports:
Our support for this significant expansion of the role of the federal government is predicated on the discussion and outcome of many of the papers that will be discussed later in this stakeholder process. Accordingly, we request that this position paper be revisited at the conclusion of the subgroup process.
Discussion Paper IB: Under the Direct Supervision
Insofar as we support the requirement that persons that work “under the direct supervision” of a certified applicator be adequately trained to ensure they are capable of safely applying pesticides, we do not support requirement that a certified applicator be on-site or a maximum travel time or distance from the person he/she is supervising. We do, however support a requirement that the person being supervised have the ability to immediately communicate with the certified applicator. With the advent of modern communication technology such as radios and cellular telephones, we believe a requirement that a technician possess equipment capable of facilitating immediate communication is effective and sensible.
Discussion Paper IC: RUP Dealers
In general, we do not believe we are in a position to take a position yet on this issue inasmuch as there are a number of questions about what the Agency intends in the policy options it has provided. For example:
-
We are unclear on the meaning of “dealer certification” (does this mean that the company must be credentialed, individuals must be credentialed and, if so, which individuals?)
We believe that this discussion paper should be revisited after the Agency has answered the aforementioned and other questions. We also believe that individuals that represent non-agricultural pesticide dealers should be allowed to participate in the subgroup deliberations, at least for the portion relating to “dealers.”
Discussion Paper IIA: Minimum Age for Applicators
NPMA supports a prohibition against the commercial application of pesticides by persons under the age of eighteen provided that there is an exemption for family businesses. There are nearly 20,000 structural pest control companies in the United States. Almost all of these are family businesses (5 of the 20,000 are publicly traded companies). In most instances, these companies are owned and operated by family members, often 2nd, 3rd or 4th generation family members. NPMA would support an exemption that would allow persons 16 years or older to apply pesticides if the business that employs him/her is owned by his/her immediate family and he/she is accompanied by a certified applicator or a competent service technician.
Discussion Paper IIB: Exams for all Applicators
NPMA generally supports the requirement that persons working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator pass an examination, provided that the exam covers core material (e.g., pesticide safety, label comprehension, etc.) and is not category specific.
Many pest control service technicians operate in multiple jurisdictions. For example, a company located in the metropolitan Washington area typically does business in Washington, Virginia and Maryland. While we support testing technicians for competence, we are concerned that each state will adopt its own test. Having to test each technician in 3, 4 or 5 tests would be untenable and would impose an enormous hardship on pest control companies. We believe the system is more effective if the exam is a uniform national exam, the results of which are honored in any jurisdiction.
We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this process and look forward to our continued discussion of these important topics.
|
