The National Pest Management Association issued the following response to the U.S. EPA's plans to revise federal pesticide applicator certification and training requirements:
Last month we wrote you about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Endangered Species Protection Program. In this communication, we would like to highlight another major but longer-term initiative on which EPA is working that could impact the pest management industry – revising federal pesticide applicator certification and training regulations.
Known in shorthand as EPA’s 171 regulations in reference to the number the regulation has been assigned in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 171), the current federal certification requirements were first adopted in the mid-1970s and have changed very little in the last 30 plus years. Most, if not, all state pesticide applicator certification and training requirements far exceed the current federal requirements. As you are probably aware, the present federal standard does not even cover the use of general use pesticides; it is only applicable to the use of restricted use products.
The fact is that the federal standards are so badly outdated that even the type of comprehensive overhaul EPA officials are contemplating might not impact pesticide applicators in many states, because of the stringency of their states’ requirements. Still, we felt that the ongoing discussion and development of proposed revisions to the 171s was significant enough to warrant a special communication.
EPA officials have actually been discussing major revisions to the 171 regulations for almost 20 years. More recently, however, consideration of the issue has gotten much more serious and purposeful. Last year EPA staff reached out to a wider group of stakeholders, wrote and widely disseminated numerous discussion papers covering a myriad of certification and training related issues, and established rough timetables for the issuance of a formal proposed regulation. National Pest Management Association (NPMA) staff, in conjunction with NPMA’s Government Affairs Committee, has been working very closely with EPA officials on this issue.
Under the current timetable, which was set in early November, EPA is scheduled to issue a formal proposed rule in December of 2008. Sometime in 2007, EPA officials intend to issue updated discussion papers covering specific certification and training issues.
Below is a listing and brief description of the issues EPA officials have indicated will be addressed in the revisions to the federal pesticide applicator certification and training requirement:
Expand Scope of Certification & Training Regulations: As noted above, the scope of the present federal pesticide applicator certification and training regulations is very narrow, and pertains only to the use of restricted use products by certified applicators (and farmers or private applicators) and persons operating under their direct supervision.
EPA staff is considering expanding the scope of the 171 regulations to include the use of general use products by commercial applicators, persons who mix and load products, and not for hire applicators such as janitors and custodians.
Competency Requirements: Expanding the scope of the 171 regulations to include all occupational users of pesticides would naturally require all of those covered to meet a benchmark or competency standard. Possible standards discussed include the passage of an exam.
Standardizing Exam Development & Administration Requirements: Concerned that pesticide applicator certification exams range in quality and administration, EPA staff is considering defining and requiring minimum standards for a secure and content relevant exam. EPA officials feel such action will ensure comparable levels of competency for all applicators and alleviate the difficulty both states and applicators face in issuing and obtaining reciprocal certifications.
Tightening the Definition of “Under the Direct Supervision: EPA staff feels the current federal definition of “under the direct supervision” may need to be tightened to ensure that persons using restricted use products are properly supervised. A dramatic revision of the current definition may not, however, be necessary if EPA expands the scope of the regulation and establishes rigid competency standards.
Setting Minimum Age for Pesticide Applicators: EPA staff is considering establishing a minimum age for pesticide applicators, possibly 16 or 18 years of age.
Revising Recertification Requirements: EPA staff is also considering defining requirements for recertification of applicators and establishing a process to update the content of recertification programs. One idea that been floated is requiring the retesting of applicators, a concept NPMA has adamantly opposed.
Copies of the initial EPA issue papers including both the revisions to the 171 regulations, as well as revisions to the worker protection standards that apply to agricultural workers can be found at http://www.npmapestworld.org/GovAffairs/EPARCTR.asp. Also available on the NPMA website are a compilation of NPMA comments to EPA on this matter, last month’s Endangered Species Protection Program communication and a memo we sent out to state association leaders in November about possible conflicts between pest control activities and state animal cruelty and utility notification laws. When the revised issue papers are released, we will notify you and post them at the same location.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please feel free to contact either Bob Rosenberg or Gene Harrington at roseneberg@pestworld.org or gharrington@pestworld.org or at (800) 678-6722.