# ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 40 CFR PART 171: CERTIFICATION OF PESTICIDE APPLICA TORS

Prepared b y BIOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYS IS DIVI SI ON

OFFI CE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460

## TABLE OF CONTENTS

**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ...........**  **1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUC** **TION ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ .**  **1** 1.1 B ACKGROUND ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 1 1.2 P ROBLEM S TATEMENT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 2 1.3 O VERVIEW OF P ROPOSED R EGULATION ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 4 1.4 A FFECTED E NTITIES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4 **CHAPTER 2. REGULATORY OPTIO**  **NS FOR AMENDING THE RULES GOVERNING CERT**  **IFIED PESTICIDE APPL ICATORS** 

**................................ ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ..............**  **1** 2.1 N ON - REGULATORY A PPROACHES TO I MPROVE P ESTICIDE S AFETY ................................ ................................ .................. 1 2.2 P ROPOSED C HANGES AND O THER O PTIONS FOR R EVISING THE C ERTIFICATION S TANDARDS ................................ ................ 4 2.2.1 Enhancement of Private Applicator General Competency Standards
................................ .................... 4 2.2.2 Establish Application Method

-Specific Categories for Commercial and Private Applicators
................. 6 2.2.3 Establish Predator Control Categories for Commercial and Private Applicators to Correspond to Existing Label Requirements
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 9 2.2.4 Security Standards for Certifying or Recertifying Commercial and Private Applicators
......................... 9 2.2. 5 Standards for Supervision of Noncertified Applicators, and Provisions for Commercial Applicator Recordkeeping of Noncertified Applicator Training
................................ ................................ ........................... 10 2.2.6 Age Requirements for Private and Commercial Applicators
................................ ................................ 15 2.2.7 Age Requirements for Noncertified Applicators Applying RUPs under the Direct Supervision of Commercial and Private Applicators
................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 16 2.2.8 Standards for Recertification of Private and Commercial Applicators
................................ ................. 17 2.2.9 General Administrative Requirements for RUP Dealers, States, Tribes, and Federal Agencies
........... 19 **CHAPTER 3. COST ASS ESSMENT, REGULATORY**  **OPTIONS ................................**  **................................ ......................**  **1** 3.1 O VERVIEW ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 1 3.2 M ETHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 1 3.2.1 General Methodology
................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 2 3.2.2 Example Methodology
................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 5 3.3 C OST A NALYSIS D ATA ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8 3.3.1 Commercial certified applicators
................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 8 3.3.2 Noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of commercial certified applicators
.. 16 3.3.3 Private certified applicators
................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 18 3.3.4 Nonc ertified applicators under the direct supervision of private certified applicators
........................ 25 3.3.5 Wage Rates
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 28 3.4 R ESULTS OF THE C OST A NALYSIS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 30 3.4.1 Enhancement of Private Applicator General Competency Standards
................................ .................. 32 3.4.2 Application Method

-Specific Categories
................................ ................................ .............................. 33 3.4.4 Standards for Supervision of Applicators that Apply RUPs under the Supervision of Certified Applicators, Levels of Super vision, and Provisions for Commercial Applicator Recordkeeping of Applicator Training for Applicators that are not Certified
................................ ................................ ................................ ... 39 3. 4.5 Age Requirements for Certified Applicators and Applicators Applying RUPs under the Supervision of Certified Applicators
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 44 3.4.6 Standards for Recertification of Certified Applicators
................................ ................................ ......... 50 3.4.7 Requirements for General Administration
................................ ................................ ........................... 59**CHAPTER 4. COSTS AN D BENEFITS OF THE RE**  **GULATORY OPTIONS FOR AMENDING THE RULES G**  **OVERNING**

**CERTIFIED PESTICIDE APPLICATORS**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ .......................**  **1** 4.1 P ROPOSED AND A LTERNATIVE O PTIONS FOR R EVISING I NITIAL C ERTIFICATION S TANDARDS ................................ ................. 2 4.1.1 Enhancement of Private Applicator General Competency Standards
................................ .................... 2 4.1.2 Establish Application Method

-Specific Categories for Commercial and Private Applicators
................. 3 4.1.3 Standards for Supervision of Noncertified Applicators, and Provisions for Commercial Applicator Recordkeeping of Noncertified Applicator Training
................................ ................................ ............................. 6 4.1.4 Age Requirements for Private and Commercial Applicators
................................ ................................ .. 8 4.1.5 Age Requirements for Noncertified Applicators Using RUPs under the Direct Supervision of Commercial and Private Applicators
................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 9 4.1.6 Standards for Recertification of Private and Commercial Applicators
................................ ................. 10 4.1.7 Security Standards for Certifying or Recertifying Commercial and Private Applicators ....................... 12 4.1.8 Administrative Requirements for RUP Dealers, States, Tribes, and Federal Agencies for Submission, Approval and Maintenance of State Certification Plans
................................ ................................ .................... 13 **CHAPTER 5. COST OF PROPOSED RULE**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ..................**  **1** 5.1 O VERVIEW ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 1 5.2 M ETHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 3 5.3 P RIVATE A P PLICATOR C OSTS OF P ROPOSED R ULE ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 4 5.4 C OMMERCIAL A PPLICATOR C OSTS OF THE P ROPOSED R ULE ................................ ................................ ........................ 20 5.5 S TATE AND G OVERNMENTAL A GENCY C OSTS OF THE P ROPOSED R ULE ................................ ................................ .......... 23 5.6 I MPACT ON E MPLOYMENT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 26 5.7 P OTENTIAL I MPACTS ON S MALL B USINESSES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 30 5.7.1 Methodology
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 32 5.7.2 Private Applicator Establishments
................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 32 5.7.2 Commercial Applicator Establishments
................................ ................................ ............................... 36 5.7.3 Conclusion
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 39 **CHAPTER 6. BENEFITS OF PROPOSED RULE**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ...........**  **1** 6.1. W HICH B ENEFITS C AN B E Q UANTIFIED ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 1 6.2. W HO IS AT R ISK ?
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 2 6.2.1. Occupational Exposure
................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 2 6.2.2. Children and families
................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 3 6.3. W HAT ARE THE R ISKS ?
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 5 6.3.1. Acute Exposures and Human Health Effects
................................ ................................ .......................... 5 6.3.2. Acute and Chronic Exposures and Effects on Children and Families
................................ ...................... 6 6.4. N ON - Q UANTIFIED B ENEFITS OF A VOIDING RUP I NCIDENTS ................................ ................................ ..................... 9 6.4.1. Non
- Quantifiable Benefits from Reduced Ecological Incidents
................................ ............................ 10 6.5. Q UANTIFIED H UMAN H EALTH B ENEFITS OF R EDUCED A CUTE I LLNE SS FROM R ESTRICTED U SE P ESTICIDES ....................... 19 6.5.1. Methodology and Data
................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 19 6.5.2. Underreporting of RUP Incidents
................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 20 6.5.3. Pesticide Incidents Avoided
................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 25 6.5.4. Value of Incidents Avoided
................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 28 6.6. R ISKS TO H UMAN H EALTH FROM C HRONIC RUP E XPOSURE ................................ ................................ ................... 42 6.6.1. Cancer Risks
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 45 6.6.2. N on - Cancer Health Effects
................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 47 6.6.3. Summary of Chronic Exposure and Risks
................................ ................................ ............................. 49 **CHAPTER 7 INFORMATIO N REQUESTED**  **– PAPERWORK BURDEN REQ**  **UIREMENTS ................................**  **................ 1**  **REFERENCES ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ...........................**  **1**1



## Executive Summary This document provides an anal ys is of the costs and the benefits of the proposed changes in the regulations governing the Certification of Pesticide Applicators to meet the requirements of Executive Order 12866 on Re gulatory Planning and Review, the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended b y the Small Businesses Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule establishes requirements for applicators of restricted u se p esticides. Pesticides that EPA has classified as restricted use may pose unreasonable adverse effects to human health and/ or the environment without strict adherence to precise and often complex labeling provisions . To ensure thes e labeling provisions are followed, EPA requires that restricted use pesticides be applied onl y b y applicators who have demonstrated a sufficient level of competency or by individuals under their direct supervision

. EPA is proposing changes to the rule that would improve the competency of certified applicators of restricted use pesticides by : establishing new standards for certification, such as minimum age and examination standards for commercial applicators and more specific requirements for establishin g competency

of private applicators; establishing a uniform national certification period for private and commercial applicators and minimum requirements for recertification programs; and establishing new certification categories to address specific high

- risk uses and application methods. EPA is also proposing changes to the rule that would result in improved competency

of noncertified applicators who appl y restricted use pesticides under the direct supervision of a certified applicator b y : requiring pesticide safety training, establishing standards for supervision, and establishing a minimum age requirement for such noncertified applicators. In keeping with the Agency ’s commitment to work more closely with tribal governments to strengthen environmental p rotection in Indian Country , EPA is also proposing changes that would provide more practical options for establishing certification programs in Indian Country . Lastly , EPA is proposing several revisions to improve overall clarity and organization of the r

ule, and to improve program operation, efficiency and administration by addressing longstanding policy issues raised by

EPA’s state regulatory

partners and other stakeholders regarding rule implementation and requirements for state certification plans. EPA estimates that affected industries w ould face incremental costs of about $ 46.9 million annually from proposed revisions, including costs of $ 19.5 million to private applicators (about 41 % of the total cost of proposed revisions ) and $ 27.4 million to commercial applicators. Revisions to state plans and certification programs, including development of new application method

- specific categories, are likel y to cost about $2.2 million over the first two years after the rule is finalized. The administration of exams or trainings for the new certification and recertification requirements would be ongoing and would cost $107 annually . These two components together, annualized over a 10

- ye ar time horizon, would cost $359,000 annually

. The total annualized cost of the proposed rule is estimated to be $ 4 7 .2 million. Many of the firms in the affected sectors are small businesses, particularl y in the agricultural sector. The average cost per private applicator , ty pically a farm owner or operator is estimated to be $ 40 per ye ar. The estimated average cost per commercial applicator would be about $ 66 per year. Thus, the impact to the average small farm is anticipated to be less than one percent of annual sales while the impacts to small commercial pe st control services are expected to be around 0.1 percent of annual gross revenue. Therefore, EPA concludes that there w ould not be a significant2

impact on a substantial number of small entities. Given these modest increases in per

- applicator costs, EPA also concludes that the proposed rule would not have a substantial effect on employ ment. In estimating costs of the proposed rule revisions, EPA took a conservative approach

– such as using conservative estimate for the number of noncertified applicators

– when faced with uncertainty, and therefore, the cost estimates presented in this economic analy sis represent overestimates of the actual costs of the proposed rule changes

. Table 1 summarizes the results of the cost anal ys is. **Table 1. Costs from Rev isions to the Requirements for Certification of Pesticide**  **Applicators** Private Applicators Commercial Applicators States and Other

Jurisdictions Number Impacted 490,000 414,000 63 Annualized Cost $ 19.5 million $ 27.4 million $ 359 ,000 Per
- Applicator Average: $ 40 Range: $ 0

- $ 201 Average: $ 66

Range: $ 1

- $ 212 n/a
Small Business Impacts No significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

 The rule may affect over 8 0 0,000 small farms that use pesticides , although about half are unlikely to appl y restricted use pesticides

.  Impact less than 0.1% of the annual revenues for the average small entity

. Impact on Jobs The rule will have a negligible effect on jobs and employ ment.

 Most private and commercial applicators are self

- employed

.  In cremental cost per applicator represents from 0.3 to 0.5 percent of the cost of a part

- time employee. The rule changes proposed by EPA w ould improve the pesticide applicator certification and training program substantially . Trained and competent applicators would be more likel y to appl y pesticide products without unreasonable adverse effects and use them properly to achieve the intended results than applicators that have not received training or been certified. In addition to core pesti cide safety

and practical use concepts, certification and training en sures that certified applicators possess critical information on a wide range of environmental issues such as endangered species, water quality , worker protection and protecting non

- targe t organisms such as pollinators. Pesticide safety education helps applicators improve their abilities to avoid pesticide misuse, spills and harm to non

- target organisms. It is difficult to quantify

a specific level of risk and project the human health ri sk reduction that would result from this rule, because people are potentially exposed to such a wide variety of pesticides, and few of these incidents are reported. The proposed changes, however, are designed to reduce human health and environmental expos ure to restricted use pesticides; there is sufficient evidence in the peer

- reviewed literature to suggest reducing such exposure would result in a benefit to public health through reduced acute and chronic illness

.3

Certified applicators , and the noncertified applicators they supervise, would be the primary beneficiaries of the rule. Other beneficiaries would include the public, who can be exposed to RUPs, and the environment, including plants and animals that are not the intended target of RUPs. Although EPA cannot provide quantitative estimates for all benefits of the rule, we do estimate the benefit of reduced acute illness from RUP exposure. We estimate that this rule will result in quantifiable annual benefits of between $20.1 and $ 2 0 .5 million dollars through reduced acute illnesses from RUPs. Over a ten ye ar horizon, the present value of these estimates is between $17 1
. 6 and $17 4
. 5 million with a 3% discount rate, and $141. 3 and $14 3
. 7 million with a 7% discount rate. However, th ese estimates are biased downward by an unknown degree. Pesticide incidents, like many illnesses and accidents, are underreported because sufferers may not seek medical care, cases may not be correctl y diagnosed, and correctly diagnosed cases may not be f iled to the central reporting database. The effect of under

- reporting can be significant. If only 25% of poisonings are reported (within the range of estimates in the literature), the quantified estimated benefits of the rule would be about $80. 5 million annually . Moreover, the approach here only

measures avoided medical costs and lost wages, not the willingness to pay to avoid possible sy

mptoms due to pesticide exposure, which could be substantially higher. In the past, misapplication and misuse of RUPs have resulted in a range of damages to human health, up to and including death. The proposed changes to the rule would result in an estimated reduction of 638 to 762 acute poisonings per year. Inaddition, we expect there would be benefits for which quantifiable benefits cannot be estimated. These b enefits would include reduced chronic illness to applicators from repeated RUP exposure and benefits to the public from better protections from RUP exposure when occup yi ng treated buildings or outdoor spaces, consuming treated food products, and when near areas where RUPs have been applied. The environment w ould also be better protected from misapplication, which will reduce the impact on water and non

- target plants and animals. EPA is not able to pro vide quantitative estimates of the benefits from reducing chronic exposure to pesticides, but there are well

- documented associations between pesticide exposure and chronic health effects in the peer

- reviewed literature. Overall, the weight of evidence sug gests that the proposed requirements would result in long term health benefits to certified applicators, the noncertified applicators they supervise, and their families. These benefits arise from reducing their daily

risk of pesticide exposures but also reduced risk of chronic illness, resulting in a lower cost of healthcare, a healthier society and better quality of life.1 

## ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF **PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 40**  **CFR PART 171: CERTIFICATION OF PESTICIDE APPLICATORS**  **Chapter 1. Intr**  **oduction** EPA is proposing modifications to 40 CFR p art 171 governing the certification of applicators of restricted use pesticides (RUPs). Broadl y speaking, the modifications are me ant to ensure that RUPs are used in accordance with the label to protect the health and safety of applicators, workers, the general public and the environment. This document provides an anal ys is of the costs and the benefits of the proposed changes to the rule. This chapter provides a brief background to the requirements, describes the reasons for EPA’s proposal and the statutory authority , and identifies entities that may be affected b y the rule. Chapter 2 explains the regulatory options EPA consi dered in developing this proposal and discusses qualitatively

the expected benefits of the different options. It qualitatively describe s the benefits of different requirement options in terms of training content, frequency of training and the supervision of noncertified applicators. Chapter 3 presents the cost estimates for the regulatory

options , which mainly

fall on self

- employed certified applicators and employers of certified applicators. Chapter 4 discusses the relative costs and benefits of alternative requirements and presents the rational for choosing which options to propose

. Chapter 5 estimates the cost of the proposed rule. It also estimates the impact of the proposed changes on employ ment and small business. The benefits of the rule, which would accrue primaril y to certified applicators and noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of certified applicators, as well as their families, the public and the environment, are described in Chapter 6. This report is intended to meet the requirements of Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review, the Regulatory Flexibility

Act as amended by

the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act, and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The remaining regulatory

requirements are addressed in the Preamble for this rule. This document also serves as input in preparing any anal ys is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. § 3501

- 21).


### 1.1 **Back ground**  The pesticide worker safety program at EPA in cludes two primary regulations, the Certification of Pesticide Applicators and the Worker Protection Standard. The Certification of Pesticide Applicators regulation, 40 CFR Part 171, establishes national standards for the certification of applicators of R

UPs and the requirements for submission and approval of state plans for the certification of applicators. Programs for the certification of applicators of RUPs are implemented by

all 50 states, four territories (the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands ) , and four2

tribes in accordance with their state or tribal certification plans . Additionally , there are five federal agency

certification programs for the Departments of Agriculture (with two programs) , Defen s e, Energy

and the Interior. All plans are approved b y the Administrator of the EPA and are on file with the Agency

. This economic anal ysis focuses on the proposed revisions to the rules regarding the certificatio n of pesticide applicators. The Worker Protection Standard, 40 CFR p art 170, protects employees of agricultural establishments and commercial pesticide application establishments from exposure to pesticides on farms, forests, nurseries and greenhouses. These two regulations, along with the other components of the Agency ’s pesticide worker safety program, are intended to reduce and prevent potential exposures to pesticides among pesticide applicators, employees, the general public, including vulnerable pop ulations such as children, and to the environment. Proposed revisions to the Worker Protection Standard are the subject of a separate rulemaking ( EPA, 2014a)

. The certification regulation or rule is a means to ensure the competency of people who appl y RUPs. EPA classifies certain products as RUPs because of their toxicity characteristics and/ or their potential to cause unreasonable adverse effects to human health or the environment without strict adherence to often complex label restrictions. The designation of products as RUP restricts their use to certified applicators or persons working under their direct supervision. Approximately

ten percent of all registered active ingredients are classified as RUPs. The designation, however, is product specific; thus, some active ingredients may also be formulated in products that are not RUPs. Most of the designated products are applied in agricultural and industrial settings although some are used in urban, recreational, and residential areas b y certified comm ercial applicators. Applicator certification enables the registration of pesticides that otherwise would not meet EPA safety standards under widespread and commonly recognized practice [FIFRA 3(5)] , allowing the use of RUPs for pest management in agricult ural production, building and other structural pest management, turf and landscape management, forestry , public health, aquatic sy stems, food processing, stored grain, and other areas. Changes to the certification regulation will largel y impact certified applicators, both commercial applicators (who apply

RUPs for hire) and p rivate applicators. Certified private applicators apply RUPs for purposes of producing an agricultural commodity on property owned or rented by themselves or their employers or on th e property of another without compensation (trading of personal services is permitted). Certain proposed revisions may also affect commercial agricultural services, including pesticide dealers, certifying agencies, such as states or tribes, and noncertifi ed applicators working under the direct supervision of certified applicators.


### 1.2 **Problem Statement** Pesticides, although useful to control pests, can present health risks to people and harm the environment. Pesticides that EPA has classified as restricted use may pose unreasonable adverse effects to human health or the environment without strict adherence to precise and often complex mitigation measures specified on the pesticide label ing . To ensure these measures are followed, EPA requires that these pesticides be applied onl y by applicators who are certified, or by applicators working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator

. Certification serves to3

ensure competency

and, therefore, to protect the applicator, persons working unde r the direct supervision of the applicator, the general public, and the environment through proper use of RUPs. Since the last major revision of the certification regulation in 1978 , poisonings involving RUPs indicate that the requirements are not adequat e. In one of the most significant cases from the mid

- 1990s, there was widespread misuse of the restricted use pesticide methyl parathion, an insecticide used primarily on cotton and other outdoor agricultural crops (Blondell and Spann, 1998) . The improper use of methyl parathion product by a number of applicators across several states led to the widespread contamination of hundreds of homes, significant pesticide exposures and human health effects for hundreds of homeowners and children, and a clean

- up co st of millions of dollars (Karpf, 1997) . The incident resulted in one of the most significant and widespread pesticide exposure cases in EPA’s history , and highlighted the potential problems that can result from the misuse of RUPs. Many states have tak en significant steps to improve regulatory controls of RUPs and changed their enforcement authorities to address the problems identified by the incident. EPA’s own certification standards , however, have not been substantially amended to address the evolving risk concerns

. Because no major revision has been made to the federal regulation in almost 40 ye ars, many

state programs have taken the lead in revising and updating standards for certification and recertification. As a result, the state requirements for certification of applicators are highl y varied, and most states go beyond federal requirements for applicator certification. However, some states support only the federal minimum for applicator certification. This has created an uneven regulatory landscape , so that people face different risks based on where they live, as well as problems in program consistency

. Two kinds of ‘market’ failure may give rise to improper use of RUPs and undesirable effects on humans and the environment: incomplete information and externalities. The former implies that full information about proper use and the consequences of pesticide use is not available to the people who need it. The latter implies that some of the consequences of pesticide use do not fall on the person making use decisions and that, therefore, RUPs may be used in a socially undesirable way

. Applicators may

not have full information about the negative consequences of pesticides or the possible measures that can be taken to avoid such negative outcomes. This may be particularl y true when the adverse effects are not readil y observable, but occur due to chronic exposure. Sy mptoms of acute pesticide poisoning may be confused with general fatigue, heat stress, or other factors. Long

- term or chronic effects of pesticide exposure do not manifest themselves immediately

and applicators may

not be fully

aware the risks they

face. Another factor that contributes to pesticide exposure is that the par ty making the application decision may

not incur the negative effects of an incorrect pesticide application. When someone other than an applicator or decision maker is potentially affected b y the use of an RUP, a classic externality

can result in a diverg ence between the social and private costs in the use of a pesticide. An externality of this ty pe means that applications of RUPs may pose greater risk than is socially desirable. In this case, the greater than optimal risk would not ty pically be faced by an4

applicator deciding to apply , but could be faced by those they

supervise, the general public , and the environment that can be affected b y the RUP application. Although EPA addresses negative externalities from pesticide use when it makes registration decisions and label restrictions, pesticides designated as RUPs generall y pose higher risks than ordinary pesticides. The result of improper use can be more severe, as well, in terms of acute and chronic illness and damage to terrestrial and aquatic ecosy stems that are not the target of the application. The higher risk requires additional safeguards to ensure safe applications to protect both human health and the environment and these additional measures require a higher level of skill than is otherwise required of a pesticide applicator making applications of non

- RUPs
. 

### 1.3 **Overview of Proposed Regulation** Most of the changes EPA is proposing are designed to improve the competence of certified applicators. The proposals jointly address the issues of in adequate information and externalities. The proposals address the problem of inadequate information by defining new certification categories and subcategories that include training or testing on the hazards specific to some application methods. To make s ure the information used by applicators to make application decisions is current and complete, EPA is proposing more rigorous certification standards and more frequent recertification. EPA is also proposing to raise the minimum age for applicators. Age re strictions are meant to protect adolescents, who may be more susceptible to pesticide effects. Adolescents may also be less able to judge the potential risks of exposure, especially the long

- term effects, and take greater risks, which may result in excess exposure to themselves and others. More detail on the proposed changes are available in Chapter 2, or in the preamble.


### 1.4 **Affected Entities** The entities that would be affected b y the proposed changes include commercial and private certified applicators, people who wish to become certified, noncertified applicators, i.e., persons that work under the direct supervision of certified applicators, and states and other entities that certify pesticide applicators. Manufacturers of pesticides and pesticide dealers of RUPs may also be affected. Based on the Certification and Training Plan and Annual Reporting Database (CPARD, 2014), there are nearl y one million pesticide applicators certified to appl y RUPs. About 489,000 are private applicators, who apply RUPs for purposes of producing an agricultural commodity on property owned or rented by him/her or his/her employer, and about 414,000 commercial pesticide applicators, who apply RUPs for hire. States would be affected by the proposed changes if they b ecome final regulations . FIFRA requires that states submit plans for the certification of commercial and private applicators of RUPs to EPA for approval The changes being proposed, if adopted, would necessitate changes to state plans.5

The affected entities are part of a wide range of industries. Because agriculture is a heavy user of pesticides, several subsectors under NAICS code 110000 (agriculture) are likely to be affected. These include oilseed, soy bean and grain farming (NAI CS 111100), nut, fruit and vegetable farming (NAICS 111210 and 111300) greenhouses and nurseries (NAICS 1111400), and other crops (NAI CS 111900), which include s crops like cotton and tobacco . Animal production firms will also be affected, which includes cattle production (NAI CS 112100), pig and hog production (NAICS 112200), poultry and egg production (NAI CS 112300) and aquaculture (NAICS 112400). Other industries classified under agriculture include forestry pest control (NAICS 115000 and 113300), agricultural pest control for plants (NAI CS 115100) and animals (NAICS 115200), demonstration and research pest control (NAI CS 115100 and 611300), soil preparation planting and cultivating (NAICS 115112), and support activities for animal production (NAICS 115210). Utilities may

employ certified applicators for pest management and weed control. These industries include NAICS codes 221121 (electric transmission and control), 221210 (natural gas distribution), and 221300 (water suppl y, irrigation systems and sewage treatment facilities). Firms in the manufacturing and service sectors will also be affected b y various provisions of the proposed changes. These include firms providing pest control services, such as exterminating and pest control services (NAICS 561710), industri al, institutional, structural and health related pest control (also NAI CS 561710), and landscaping services and ornamental and turf pest control (both NAICS 561730). Firms that sell RUPs to applicators will also be affected (NAICS 424910, farm supplies merchant wholesalers). Among the manufacturing sectors, impacts are expected in industries that manufacture pesticides, like NAI CS 325320 (pesticide and other agricultural chemical manufacturing), NAICS 3339900 (seed treatment), and NAI CS 321114 (wood preservation).1



## Chapter**2. Regulatory Options for A**  **mending the Rules Governing Certified Pesticide**  **Applicators** EPA is proposing modifications to the standards for certification of applicators of RUPs. RUPs are ty picall y higher toxicity

pesticides that pose higher environmental or health risks than other pesticides. Only

certified applicators or noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator can legall y apply RUPs. Applicator certification enables the registration of pesticide s that would not otherwise meet EPA’s safety standards , because such pesticides would, without specific and often complex use restrictions, cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment . C ertified applicators have demonstrated a specific level of competency to ensure that a RUP can be used without causing these unreasonable adverse effects

. This chapter provides a summary of the proposed changes to the certification requirements and d escribes how they

will increase pesticide safety by certified applicators and noncertified applicators working under their direct supervision. This chapter also discusses alternative options considered b y EPA. The proposed rule changes are designed to ensure the improved competence of certified applicators through a minimum age requirement, adding categories for certification of specific high

- risk application ty

pes, and imposing more rigorous recertification standards. Under the proposed rule, n oncerti fied applicators working under the direct supervision of certified applicators w ould be provided additional training and protections that should increase their competence and safety and the safety of those around them. Inaddition, there are administrativ e changes proposed that are necessary to support the goals of the revised regulation, such as requirements to proctor certification exams and establish the identity of test

- takers, recordkeeping, updates to state regulatory programs, and other tasks. Th e next section of this chapter describes EPA’s non

- regulatory programs that have been established to improve safety in the use of RUPs. In Section 2. 2 , the individual line items that make up the regulatory

options are described, as well as other alternati ves that were considered. Please refer to the preamble for the Certification of Pesticide Applicators Rule Revisions for a complete discussion of the regulatory options considered under this rulemaking proposal and the rationale for the Agency ’s selecti on of the final proposed options.


### 2.1 **Non -**  **regulatory Approaches to Improve Pesticide Safety** In addition to the regulatory changes EPA is proposing, the Agency has and continues to pursue non - regulatory

approaches to improve the competency of persons certified to use RUPs and those noncertified applicators working under their direct supervision, thereby protecting the applicators, the public, and the environment from pesticide exposure. Since the mid

- 1990s, EPA has continually engaged stakeholders to evaluate the effectiveness of the rule and to determine2

what improvements , if any , are necessary to maintain an effective program that ensure RUPs are used safel y . EPA partners with stakeholders to pursue way s to improve certification programs across the United States. The Certification and Training Assessment Group (CTAG) , composed of representatives from state lead agencies, EPA, USDA, and cooperative extension services, was formed in 199 6
. The purpose of CTAG is to evaluate the current state of the certification programs across states, tribes, and federal agencies, and proposes improvements at both the state and federal level. In 1999, CTAG issued a comprehensive report, Pesticide Safety in the 21 st Century (CTAG, 1999), which recommended improvements for state and federal pesticide applicator certification programs, including specific proposals on how to strengthen the certification regulation. EPA has worked with CTAG and other program stakeholders continually

since issuance of the 1999 CTAG report t o implement many of the non

- regulatory measures identified in the report to improve the applicator certification program. EPA has undertaken several non

- regulatory efforts such as supporting national workshops and professional development programs for state and tribal personnel involved in carrying out certification programs, supporting development of national training manuals and exams, and developing key

guidance documents for certifying agencies. These non

- regulatory activities are discussed in more de tail below. In addition to CTAG, EPA has met with groups including, state regulators, professional pesticide applicator organizations, pesticide manufacturers, farmers, and organizations representing commodity

producers to discuss potential improvements to the rule . Through public meetings and federal advisory

committees, and as individuals and small groups, a broad spectrum of stakeholders provided recommendations to EPA. Some of the recommendations were not related to the regulation, for example, dev eloping national training materials for pesticide applicators, promoting better cooperation between trainers and state regulatory agencies, and re

- evaluating the formula used b y EPA to distribute funds to agencies certifying pesticide applicators. Other recommendation s, such as strengthening the initial certification requirements, establishing a recertification period and standards, and improving protections for persons working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator, could only be accomplis hed b y changing the regulation. F rom these inputs, EPA prepared a report (EPA, 2014c), the National Assessment of the Pesticide Worker Safety Program , in which EPA identifie d activities that it could take to improve applicator competency and to better pro tect human health and the environment from exposure to RUPs. As noted above, EPA has undertaken several non

- regulatory efforts to improv e the program and applicator competency

including a variety of outreach activities designed to strengthen state applic ator certification and recertification programs. EPA works with stakeholders and under cooperative agreements to develop best practices and model programs for state regulatory and training organizations such as criteria for secure exam administration, standards for online recertification training programs, and how to audit applicator training programs for effectiveness. EPA developed the Interim National Program Guidance for EPA Regional Offices on EPA’s Pesticide Applicator Certification Program ( EPA , 2006 ) to clarify provisions in the current rule. The guidance covers administrative requirements for written examinations, legal authorities for3

certification plans, how modifications to certification plans are to be made and reviewed , requirements for state
- tribal agreements for certification, and issues related to tribal certification plans and federal plans for certification of applicators in Indian Country . While this document does clarify

EPA’s interpretation of the regulation, it is solely guidance and does not carry the weight of regulation

. EPA also developed an online tool, the Certification Plan and Reporting Database (CPARD) (http://cpard.wsu.edu/) , which allow s states, tribes, and federal agencies to efficientl y maintain their certifi cation plans electronicall y. The CPARD sy stem also provide s an eas y web

- based reporting s ys tem to submit required annual program certification and recertification reports to EPA electronically , thereby reducing administrative burden and paperwork

. EPA has taken a number of other non

- regulatory steps to improve coordination with stakeholders in the program, including meeting regularl y with stakeholders to review progress on key projects, supporting a biennial national meeting of regulatory program managers and pesticide safety educators, meeting biannually with CTAG, and providing updates to the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee 1 (PPDC) on pesticide applicator certification and training issues. The National Assessment process developed a network of int erested and engaged stakeholders that has strengthened the program and produced new opportunities for collaboration. In cooperation with stakeholders, EPA supported the development of a national core manual and exam for pesticide applicator certification (National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Research Foundation , 2012a). This core manual and exam cover the general competenc i e s a commercial applicator must possess in order to use RUPs safel y and to protect himself, the public, and the environment from exposure to RUPs. In addition, EPA has collaborated with states, applicators, and industry to develop and make available national training materials and exams for aerial (National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Research Foundation , 2011a) , rights

- of

- way ((National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Research Foundation , 2011b) , and soil fumigation (National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Research Foundation , 2012a) pesticide applications. The regulatory changes that EPA is proposing are designed to complement these activities to improve national consistency in pesticide applicator certification and to raise the level of RUP applicator competency to better protect the public and the environment. In many cases, the individual changes that EPA is considering came out of the process of consulting with stakeholders and industry participants. Despite this constant activity by EPA and industry stakeholders, the need for revised regulatory standards remains . Even with the support these non

- regulatory activities provide, there continue to be serious incidents of misapplication of RUPs and other products by certified applicators, resulting in effects on human health and the environment2 . Certain protective changes essential

1 The PPDC is the Office of Pesticide Programs’ Federal Advisory Committee. It provides a f orum for a diverse group of stakeholders to provide feedback to the pesticide program on various pesticide regulatory, policy and program implementation issues. The PPDC meets two or three times per year. 2 See for example the discussion in Section II.B .3 of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or the incident data in Chapter 6 of this document.4

to reducing incidents and improving the safe use of RUPs, such as a minimum age for applicators, certification in specific use categories, and establishing training requirements for noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicator can only be brought about at a national level by regulation change.


### 2.2 **Proposed Changes and**  **Other Options for Revising the Certification Standards**  This section provides a discussion and a general overview of cur rent standards and potential changes to the certification rules. For each of the possible modifications, an identifier is provided (such as Admin

- 04). The proposed regulatory text or the Code of Federal Regulations provide the actual regulatory language. Provisions in the rule where there are no changes considered are not discussed. The preamble to the proposed rule presents additional detail on the rationale for the proposed changes.


### 2.2.1 Enhancement of Private Applicator General Competency Standard s EPA is proposing changes to the standards for initial certification for private applicators of RUPs
. Initial Certification for Private Applicators The changes to the standards for initial certification are designed to more clearl y reflect the knowledge and skills needed by private applicators to apply RUPs safel y. These proposed changes are summarized in Table 2.2

- 1. **Table 2.2 -**  **1. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Com petency Standards for Initial Private Applicator**  **Certification Regulatory**  **Elem ent**  **Current Regulatory**  **Status Proposed Option**  **Alternative Options**

Private Applicators

Initial certification Exam and/or Training options; v aries by state Initial Certification

through e xam or training with approximately 12 hours of content (Private Cert

- 02) Initial Certification

through e xam or training with reduced content (approximately 8 hours of content) (Private Cert

- 01) Initial Certification

through e xam or training with additional content (approximately 16 hours of content) (Private Cert

- 03) Non
- reader certification Non
- readers can receive product specific certification Eliminate non

- reader

provision Retain limited non

- reader certification: valid for single product and single season5

The current regulation contains five topics for private applicators to be covered in training : 1) recognize common pests to be controlled and damage caused b y them, 2) read and understand the label and labeling information, 3) appl y pesticides in accordance with label instructions and warnings, 4) reco gnize local environmental situations that must be considered during application to avoid contamination, and 5) recognize poisoning s ymptoms and procedures to follow in case of a pesticide accident. In contrast, the core standards of competency for commerc ial certification have nine major areas of focus with more specific sub

- points listed under each. Both the proposed and alternative private applicator general competency standards (Private Cert

02, Private Cert

- 01 and Private Cert

- 03) would cover the foll owing topics 1) label and labeling comprehension, 2) safety, 3) environment, 4) pests, 5) pesticides, 6) equipment, 7) application methods, 8) laws and regulations, 9) responsibilities for supervisors of noncertified applicators, 10) professionalism, and 1 1) agricultural pest control. These competency standards substantially parallel the core standards for commercial applicators. Private and commercial applicators have access to the same set of RUPs, and these proposals would ensure a similar level of competency between private and commercial applicators. The Agency plans to maintain the distinction between private and commercial applicator general or “core” competency standards by

requiring private applicator general certification to cover topics related to agricultural pest control and agriculture - specific regulations, such as the Worker Protection Standard. These topics are not covered in the commercial core competency standards. In addition, EPA is not proposing to require that private applicators obt ain an additional category certification in addition to a core certification in order to apply RUPs using routine application methods

. The proposal would clarif y and expand the requirements for initial certification for private applicators. The current r ule allows private applicators to be certified through a “written or oral testing procedure, or such other equivalent s ys tem as may be approved as part of a State plan.” The proposed option (Private Cert

- 02) would enhance the competency standards for private applicators b y specifying minimum standards for an alternate s ys tem equivalent to a written or oral testing procedure. The proposal would require private applicators either to pass a written exam or to complete training that covers the private applicator general standards described in Unit VII.A of the preamble. EPA estimates this results in approximately 12 hours of training content. These more rigorous standards would ensure sufficient training on all of the required competency

standards in order to prevent unreasonable adverse effects to human health and the environment

. The alternatives would require an exam or training on reduced content (Private Cert

- 01) of an estimated 8 hours, or an exam or training on expanded content (Private Cert

- 0 3 ) of an estimated 16 hours for private applicator certification

. The first alternative would be less burdensome on applicants who do not take a written exam, but limited content means that important topics would not be covered as full y during training . The seco nd alternative would impose a higher burden on applicants who do not take a written exam, but the proposed material c ould be covered more in depth. This more substantial training requirement would provide more education contact time, therefore more assura nce that private applicators would be competent to use RUPs appropriatel y. A separate proposal (Private Cert

- 13) would eliminate certification for private applicators who cannot read. Currentl y, non - readers can receive certification as private applicato rs for specific products using tests designed for non

- readers. The proposal would eliminate this possibility

.6

This is important because critical information on pesticide safety is transmitted through the pesticide labeling, which non

- readers would be una ble to obtain from the label. Labeling changes frequentl y and non

- readers may not be able to understand important changes to the labeling for the product(s) they are certified to use, putting the applicators, the environment, and public health at risk. A s an alternative (Private Cert

- 14), the Agency considered retaining non

reader certification, but limiting it to a single product for a single season. Under the alternative, non - readers would be required to undergo certification for each product they intend to use every ye ar. The alternative would retain the flexibility to certify people who cannot read the labeling, but establishes tighter restrictions on the certification to ensure competence and safe application

. 

### 2.2.2 Establish Application Method

- Specific Categories for Commercial and Private Applicators For commercial applicators to be certified , the rule currently requires them to pass at least two written exams
– a core exam, which ensures general knowledge of pesticide safety, as well as an exam in at least one category of RUP use, such as agricultural pest control or ornamental and turf pest control. The existing rule does not establish categories of certification for private applicators. Pesticide application and agriculture both are becoming increasingl y specialized. Improper application may lead to increased risks to the health of the applicator, workers, the environment, and the public. C ertain categories of pesticides and methods of application , including fumigants and aerial applicati on, pose an inherently higher risk of acute injury or death if the applicator does not understand and follow the label ing and appl y the pesticide properl y . These increased risks can be mitigated b y requiring applicators to demonstrate a specific set of co mpetencies related to the ty pe of pesticide and application method being used. Some states have addressed these elevated risks related to applicators by requiring applicators to be certified in specialized categories related to specific application methods . EPA is proposing 3 new federal categories of certification for commercial and private applicators specific to the method of application used: aerial, soil fumigation, and non

- soil fumigation. EPA considered, but is not proposing, a category that would have covered applications via chemigation. These potential changes are discussed in more detail in Unit VIII.A of the preamble. The proposed concurrent categories are shown in Table 2.2

- 2. **Table 2.2 -**  **2. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Application M ethod**  **- Specific Certification Categories for**  **Commercial and Private Applicators Regulatory Elem**  **ent Current**  **Regulatory Status**  **Proposed Option Alternative Options** 

Commercial Applicators
Application Method

Specific Certification Categories 10 commercial applicator categories of certification* New

application method

- specific categories:  Soil fumigation  N on - soil fumigation (Comm Cert

- 0 4 )  Aerial New application method

- specific category:  General fumigation (Comm Cert

- 0 3 ) New application

method

- specific category:  Chemigation (Comm Cert

- 02)7

**Table 2.2 -**  **2. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Application M ethod**  **- Specific Certification Categories for**  **Commercial and Private Applicators Regulatory Elem**  **ent Current**  **Regulatory Status**  **Proposed Option Alternative Options** 

(Comm Cert

- 01)

Private Applicators

Application Method

Specific Certification Categories No categories of certification for private applicators New

application method

- specific categories (certification by exam or 4 hours training):  Soil and non

- soil fumigation (Private Cert

- 10)  Aerial (Private Cert

- 04) New application method

- specific categories (certification by exam or 8 hours training):  Soil and non

- soil fumigation (Private Cert

- 11)  Aerial (Private Cert

- 05) New application method

- specific categories (certification by exam or 4 or 8 hours training):  Chemigation (Private Cert

- 06 or Private Cert

- 07)  General fumigation (Private Cert

- 0 8 or Private Cert

- 0 9 ) *(1) Agricultural pest control (plant or animal), (2) Forest pest control, (3) Ornamental & turf pest control, (4) Seed treatment, (5) Aquatic pest control, (6) Right

- of

- Way pest control, (7) Industrial, institutional, structural and health related pest control, (8) Public health pest control, (9) Regulatory pest control, (10) Demonstration and research pest control Soil fumigation uses a pesticide to control pests or plant pathogens in the soil using a pesticide that either is or becomes a gas. Non
- soil fumigation uses similar pesticides, but for control of pests in other places, such as structural treatment to buildings or to stored commodities . EPA is proposing to create application method

- specific categories for soil and non

- soil fumi gation (Comm Cert

- 04), under which commercial applicators would be certified by passing a written exam administered by

the states. Private applicators would demonstrate competency in these categories b y either passing a written exam (similar to that for c ommercial applicators) administered b y the states or completing a 4 hour training program developed and administered by the states (Private Cert

- 10). EPA considered an alternative that creates onl y one application method

- specific category for general fum igation, which would cover both soil and non

- soil pest control. Under this alternative category , commercial applicators would be certified by passing a written exam developed and administered b y the states (Comm Cert

- 03). Private applicators would demonstrate competency in the general fumigation category by either passing a written exam or completing a 4 hour training program developed and administered b y the State (Private Cert

- 08 ). EPA considered a second alternative to this proposal for private applicators under which they would demonstrate competency

by passing a written exam or completing an 8 hour training program developed and administered b y the states (Private Cert

- 09 ). This alternative , the general fumigation category , would be a more general category and might not adequatel y provide applicators with the specific knowledge and skills necessary to carry out fumigation in different situations. Soil and non

- soil8

fumigation activities are quite different, and competence in one does not guarantee com petence in the other. For this reason, the proposal would create both categories for fumigation. The general fumigation category would also necessarily minimize the detail of the training content, as knowledge of more tasks would be covered. Finally , a general fumigation category would not match the labeling requirements for currentl y registered soil fumigants. The proposed soil fumigation category

would ensure that certification in the category met all existing soil fumigant labeling requirements for app licators to have specific training. A general fumigation category would not be able to cover the soil fumigant requirements in enough detail to meet those label requirements without being too long when combined with the other required material applicable t o structural, grain storage, and commodity fumigation. For these reasons, it is more practical and would result in better safety to establish separate categories for soil and non

- soil fumigation. Aerial application refers to applying pesticides b y aircraf t. EPA is proposing to create an application method

- specific category for aerial application, under which commercial applicators would be certified b y passing a written exam administered b y the states (Comm Cert

- 01). Private applicators would be certifie d by either passing a written exam (similar to that for commercial applicators) administered b y the states or completing a training program of approximately

4 hours developed and administered by the states (Private Cert

- 04). EPA considered an alternative to this proposal for private applicators under which they would demonstrate competency

by passing a written exam (similar to that for commercial applicators) administered b y the states or by completing an 8 hour training program developed and administered by

the states (Private Cert

- 05). Aerial certification would ensure that applicators applying pesticides b y aircraft are able to appl y products safel y and in a manner to manage drift and potential exposure to adjacent areas and b ys tanders. EPA has already developed a certification manual and exam for aerial application that covers the standards being proposed. These materials are available to states

. Chemigation means applying pesticides through irrigation equipment along with irrigation water

. Chemigation has a relatively high potential for environmental contamination if not conducted properl y. Due to the nature of the equipment, chemigation poses additional risks to the applicator or those working under his direct supervision, and t o the environment through water contamination. Chemigation can contaminate ground and drinking water supplies if there is a backflow in the s ys tem, mechanical failure allows pesticide

- treated water to flow directl y into a water suppl y, uncalibrated equipment causes over

- application, or improperly maintained equipment may leak treated water from the chemigation s ys tem. Several states have developed competency

requirements for this kind of appl ication for both commercial and private applicators. Under this alternative category , commercial applicators would be certified by passing a written exam developed and administered by the states (Comm Cert

- 02). Private applicators would demonstrate competency in the chemigation category by either passing a written exam (similar to that for commercial applicators) administered by the states or completing a 4 hour training program developed and administered b y the s tate (Private Cert

- 06). EPA considered a second alternative to this proposal for private applicators under which they would demonstrate competency by passing a written exam (similar to that for commercial applicators) administered by the states or completing an 8 hour training program developed and administered b y the states (Private Cert

- 07). However, most incidents relating to chemigation pertain to chemicals that would be covered under the soil fumigation category , such as metam9

sodium and dichloropropene. Thus, it is unclear that the creation of an additional certification category for chemigation would provide additional benefits

. 

### 2.2.3 Establish Predator Control Categories for Commercial and Private Applicators to Correspond to Existing Label Requirements In addition to the application method

- specific categories, the Agency is proposing to add specific categories for the use of the predacides Compound 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate) and sodium cyanide dispensed through an M

- 44 device. The proposed categories for both commercial (Comm Cert

- 05) and private applicators (Private Cert

- 12), would cover the use of these two specific pesticides which target predators of livestock and are highly dangerous to humans and non - target species. States and federal agencies that allow the use of these prod ucts already have a certification program in place for applicators using the products. The pesticide labeling for each of these products imposes specific requirements for the certification of applicators by any state or federal agency

that allows their use . Thus, this proposal simply codifies the existing labeling requirements. These potential changes are di scussed in more detail in Unit IX of the preamble

. 

### 2.2.4 Security Standards for Certifying or Recertifying Commercial and Private Applicators Under the current federal requirements, p ersons seeking to become certified as commercial applicators must demonstrate their competence b y passing a written exam. Persons seeking certification as private applicators may pass a written exam or by completing an equivalent program administered b y the state. Recertification requirements may include options for exams or training. The Agency

is proposing changes to the requirements for holding the exam and conducting training. These provisions are summarized in Ta ble 2.2

- 4, and discussed in detail in Unit X of the preamble.

**Table 2.2 -**  **4. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Requirem ents for Administering Exams and Training**  **Courses Regulatory Elem**  **ent Current**  **Regulatory Status**  **Proposed Option Alternative Options** 

Commercial Applicators
Require candidates to present identification for exams and training, and proctor exams Some states require identification and others do not. Depending on the state, exams may be w ritten, proctored, and closed book  Identity verification required for

exams  Exams would be proctored and “closed book” No Change10

**Table 2.2 -**  **4. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Requirem ents for Administering Exams and Training**  **Courses Regulatory Elem**  **ent Current**  **Regulatory Status**  **Proposed Option Alternative Options** 

Private Applicators
Require candidates to present identification for exams and training, and proctor exams Some states require identification and others do not. Depending on the state, exams may be w ritten, proctored, and closed book , but some are not  Identity verification required for

exams  Exams would be proctored and “closed book” No Change

EPA is proposing that any person seeking certification or recertification as a private or commercial applicator, whether b y training or exam, would be required to provide proof of their identity . EPA is also proposing to codify EPA’s existing guidance that exams must be written, proctored, and closed book. The value of setting federal standards for examination practices is that states, employers, and the public c ould be confident that all certified applicators will have met a consistent standard without having to verify

the examination practices of each state. Confirming the identity of the test takers would ensure that applicants satisfy the proposed minimum age requirements. It would also help prevent persons from taking a certification exam or training or attending a recertification training session in the place of the actual candidate, thereb y l imiting certification to the candidates who are qualified. In addition to verifying the identity of test takers, the Agency is proposing to codify

existing policy related to the security

of the exam process. The se standards would include requiring that the exam be proctored to prevent cheating and requiring closed

- book exams to ensure that no outside materials would be used in the exam. These changes would also ensure that only competent applicators become certi fied. The states would have to ensure that these standards are met. 

### 2.2.5 Standards for Supervision of Noncertified Applicators, and Provisions for Commercial Applicator Recordkeeping of Noncertified Applicator Training Noncertified applicators using RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicator currentl y have minimal requirements for training or competency. In addition, they also have a high potential for exposure and, if restricted use pesticides are misapplied, they may pose a risk to the public health and the environment. To address these risks , the Agency has proposed changes in the training of the noncertified person, clarification on who can provide that training, and clarification on what it means to be under the direct supervision of a certified applicator.11

These proposals are summarized in Table 2.2

- 5, and discussed in more detail in Units XIand XII of the preamble. **Table 2.2 -**  **5. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Proposals to Ensure the Competency of Noncertified App**  **licators Under the Direct Supervision of a Certified Applicator Regulatory Elem**  **ent Current**  **Regulatory Status**  **Proposed Option Alternative Options**  Noncertified Applicators Under the Direct Supervision of a Commercial Applicator

Com petence of noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of a commercial applicator Noncertified applicators must receive basic information but no formal training on safe pesticide use and protecting themselves and their families from pesticide exposure Com

petency c ould be demonstrated one of three ways:  complete required training (repeat annually), which would include: o Training on pesticide information, application techniques, and how to protect themselves, other people, and the environment before, during, and after making a pesticide application o Training on protecting the family  take Worker Protection Standard ( WPS ) training for pesticide handler (repeat annually)  pass the commercial applicator core exam (every

three years) (Comm Sup

- 01) Supervi sing commercial applicator must maintain records of training for 2 years

(Comm Sup

- 06) Com petency c ould be shown only by passing core exam (Comm Sup

- 02) Supervising commercial applicator wo uld maintain records of noncertified applicator training for 5 years (Comm Sup

- 07)

Guidance provided by supervising commercial applicator to noncertified applicator Supervising certified applicator must provide noncertified applicator guidance on correct application and how to contact certified supervisor In addition to the current requirements,

the supervising certified applicator wo uld :  Provide the pesticide labeling for each application  Provide instructions related to each application  Explain all labeling restrictions

(Comm Sup

- 03)

Communication between supervising commercial applicator and noncertified applicator Supervising certified applicator must explain how noncertified applicator can contact him/her if needed Supervising certified applicator wo uld

ensure noncertified applicator has equipment available for immediate 2

- way communication with supervisor

(Comm Sup

- 05) Supervising certified applicator wo uld have to have direct line of si ght to noncertified appli cator working under his or her direct supervision (Comm Sup

- 04)12

**Table 2.2 -**  **5. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Proposals to Ensure the Competency of Noncertified App**  **licators Under the Direct Supervision of a Certified Applicator Regulatory Elem**  **ent Current**  **Regulatory Status**  **Proposed Option Alternative Options**  Noncertified Applicators Under the Direct Supervision of Private Applicators

Com petence of noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of a private applicator Noncertified applicators must receive basic information but no formal training on safe pesticide use and protecting themselves and their families from pesticide exposure Com

petency c ould be demonstrated one of three ways:  complete required training (repeat annually), which would include: o Training on pesticide information, application techniques, and how to protect themselves, other people, and the environment before, during, and after making a pesticide application o Training on protecting the family  complete WPS hand ler training (repeat annually)  pass the commercial applicator core exam (every

three years) (Private Sup

- 02) Com petency c ould be demonstrated one of two ways:  complete required training (repeat annually), which will include: o Training on pesticide information, application techniques, and how to protect themselves, other people, and the environment before, during, and after making a pesticide application o Training on protecting the family  complete WPS handler training (annually) (Private Sup

- 01)

Guidance provided by supervising private applicator to noncertified applicator Supervising certified applicator must provide noncertified applicator instruction on correct application and provisions on how to contact certified supervisor In addition to the current requirements,

the supervising certified applicator would have to :  Provide the pesticide labeling for each application  Provide instructions related to each application  Explain all labeling restrictions

(Private Sup

- 03)

Communication between sup ervising private applicator and noncertified applicator Supervising certified applicator must explain how noncertified applicator can contact him/her Supervising certified applicator wo uld

have to ensure noncertified applicator has equipment available for immediate 2

- way communication with supervisor

(Private Sup

- 05) Supervising certified applicator wo uld have to have direct line of si ght to noncertified applicator working under his or her direct supervision (Private Sup

- 04)
Existing regulations require that a noncertified applicator using RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicator must be competent, but the rule does not specify how to determine the competency of the non certified applicator. Currentl y the rule does not require any13

training or exam to gauge noncertified applicator competency or ensure an initial level of training/competency . The current rule also does not specify any interval for retraining or instruction for ensuring the ongoing competency of noncertified applicators. Competence of Noncertified Applicators W orking Under the Direct Supervision of a Commercial Applicator The Agency

is proposing to clarify

the ways that noncertified applicators working und er the direct supervision of commercial applicators would be able to demonstrate competence in the absence of certification . They would be able to demonstrate competence by one of three way s (Comm Sup

- 01). First, they would be able to complete proposed training for noncertified applicators, which would include a range of information about the hazards of pesticides, what to do in the case of pesticide poisonings, safety requirements, proper application techniques, how to protect oneself and one’s family from pesticide exposure, and other topics related to the safe use of RUPs. Second, they could complete the WPS handler training (specified under 40 CFR 170). Third, they could pass the certified applicator core exam 3

. The proposed training requirements wo uld be repeated annually ; the proposed option to pass the commercial core exam would be repeated every

3 years. Commercial applicators supervising noncertified applicators would be required to maintain records of the training or completion of the core exam for 2 years (Comm Sup

- 06). An alternative approach, not proposed by EPA, would be to require the training records to be kept for five ye ars (Comm Sup

- 07). An alternative to the proposed option for determining the competence of noncertified applicators w ould be to limit noncertified applicators to onl y those who have passed the commercial applicator core exam (Comm Sup

- 02). This alternative would limit the flexibility of commercial applicators and noncertified applicators working under their direct sup ervision to decide how to meet the qualifications. In addition, it may be difficult for noncertified applicators to pass a written exam, even though they may be competent, leading to fewer available qualified noncertified applicators and increasing the demand for certified applicators to conduct applications. Competence of Noncertified Applicators W orking Under the Direct Supervision of a Private Applicator The Agency

is proposing to clarify

the ways that noncertified applicators working under the dire ct supervision of private applicators can demonstrate competence. They c ould demonstrate competence in one of three way s (Private Sup

- 02). First, they could complete proposed training for noncertified applicators, which w ould include a range of informati on about the hazards of pesticides, what to do in the case of pesticide poisonings, safety requirements, proper application techniques, how to protect oneself and one’s family from pesticide exposure, and other topics related to the safe use of RUPs. Seco nd, they c ould complete the WPS handler training (specified under 40 CFR 170). Third, they could pass the certified applicator core exam , which would make them certified applicators

. The proposed training requirements would be repeated

3 Passing the core exam does not confer certification as a commercial applicator. The applicator must also pass category exam.14

annually ; the prop osed option to pass the commercial core exam would be repeated every 3 ye ars. EPA cannot require private applicators to keep records due to constraints in FIFRA , so EPA is not proposing any recordkeeping by

private applicators to verify that the noncertif

ied applicators working under their direct supervision have qualified under the proposed requirements. An alternative to the proposed option for determining the competence of noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of private applicators w ould be to limit noncertified applicators to only

those who have completed the training proposed under the rule or who have completed the WPS handler training (Private Sup

- 01). This alternative would limit the flexibility of private applicato rs and noncertified applicators working under their direct supervision to decide how to meet the qualifications. Guidance Given To Noncertified Applicators W orking under the Direct Supervision of Commercial and Private Applicators In addition to the general requirement to demonstrate competence through training or examination , the Agency is proposing to add to the instructions that must be given to noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of commercial and private applicators. Currentl y the supervising commercial or private applicator must provide guidance on the labeling requirements and application restrictions and information on how to contact the supervisor. The proposal would require that , in addition to the above, the super vising commercial or private applicator provide a cop y of all applicable labeling to each noncertified applicator for each supervised application; provide specific instructions related to each application, including the site

- specific precautions and how to use the equipment; and explain and comply

with all labeling restrictions (Comm Sup

- 03 and Private Sup

- 03). Communication b etween the Supervising Commercial or Private Applicator and the Noncertified Applicator EPA is proposing to replace the current re quirement for the supervising commercial or private applicator to provide noncertified applicators with directions on how to contact the supervisor (such as directions to a pay phone and a phone number), with a requirement for the supervising commercial or private applicator to ensure the noncertified applicator has the ability to communicate immediately with the supervising applicator (Comm Sup

- 05) for commercial applicators, Private Sup

- 05 for private applicators). Immediate communication between the sup ervising commercial and private applicators and the noncertified applicators working under their direct supervision may be important if the noncertified applicator has questions about the pesticide application or encounters an emergency situation. This immediate communication standard could be satisfied by , for example, cell phones or two

- way radios. EPA also considered a requirement that the supervising commercial or private applicator maintain the noncertified applicator in his or her line of sight duri ng applications. (Comm Sup

- 04 and Private Sup

- 04). Because this requirement would be unworkable on a large site or in hill y, forested, or obstructed view areas, it is essentially a requirement for all persons using RUPs to be certified , which limits flex ibility for certified applicators and increases the number of certified applicators needed to complete certain applications.15



### 2.2.6 Age Requirements for Private and Commercial Applicators A summary

of the age restrictions considered by EPA is shown in T able 2.2

- 6. These potential changes are a result of the need to protect adolescents from RUP exposure and to ensure that RUPS are applied b y competent adults. EPA also considered other age restrictions, outlined below and discussed in more detail in Unit XIII of the preamble.

**Table 2.2 -**  **6. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Age Requirements for Certified Applicators Regulatory Elem**  **ent Current**  **Regulatory Status**  **Proposed Option Alternative Options** 

Commercial Applicators Minimum Age for Commercial Applicators None Commercial applicators wo uld have to be at least 18 years old (Comm Age

- 02) Commercial applicators wo uld have to be at least 16 years old (Comm Age

- 01) Private Applicators
Minimum Age for Private Applicators None Private applicators wo uld have to be at least 18 years old (Private Age

- 02) Private applicators

wo uld have to be at least 16 years old (Private Age

- 01) Private applicators

wo uld have to be at least 1 8 years old , or at least 16 years old for family members on family farms (Private Age

- 03 )
There is currentl y no minimum age for certified applicators, so it is possible for adolescents to handle some of the highest risk pesticides and to supervise noncertified applicators using RUPs. Adolescents may

not possess the judgment and maturity necessary

to ensure they

appl y pesticides properl y. The heightened potential for immature decision making places the applicator and others at significant risk if the pesticides are mishandled. The Agency is proposing to establish a minimum age of 18 for a person to become certified as a commercial (Comm Age

- 02) or private (Private Age

- 02) applicator . EPA also considered establishing a minimum age of 16 for persons to be certified as either commercial or private applicators (Comm Age

- 01 and Priv ate Age

- 01). EPA considered an additional option for private applicators: a requirement for a person to be at least 18 years old, with a minimum age of 16 onl y for private applicators who are family members on family

farms (Private Age

- 03). These changes would increase the protections to child and adolescent applicators. It should be noted that currentl y certified applicators would be able to maintain their certification, but those who do not meet the minimum age would not be allowed to obtain a certific ation.16



### 2.2.7 Age Requirements for Noncertified Applicators Applying RUPs under the Direct Supervision of Commercial and Private Applicators To protect noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of commercial and private applicators as well as to protect the health of others and the environment, EPA is proposing to establish a minimum age for noncertified applicators. The prop osals and alternatives for age requirements for noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of commercial and private applicators are shown in Table 2.2

- 7. **Table 2.2 -**  **7. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Age Requirements for Noncertified Applic ators Working**  **Under the Direct Supervision of Commercial and Private Applicators Regulatory Elem**  **ent Current**  **Regulatory Status**  **Proposed Option Alternative Options**  Noncertified Applicators Working under the Direct Supervision of Commercial Applicators Minimum age of noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of a commercial applicator None Noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of commercial applicators must be at least 18 years old (Comm Age

- 04) Noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of commercial applicators must be at least 16 years old

(Comm Age

- 03) Noncertified Applicators Working under the Direct Supervision of Private Applicators

Minimum age of noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of a private applicator None Noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of private applicators must be at least 18 years old (Private Age

- 0 5 ) Noncertified

applicators working under the direct supervision of private applicators must be at least 16 years old (Private Age

- 0 4 ) Noncertified

applicators working under the direct supervision of private applicators must be at least 1 8 years old , or at least 16 years old if under the direct supervision of an immediate family member (Private Age

- 0 6 ) The proposed minimum age for persons to appl y RUPs under the direct supervision of private and commercial applicators is 18 (Comm Age

- 04 and Private Age

- 05 ) . The alternatives are a minimum age of 16 for noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of both commercial (Comm Age

- 03) and private (Private Age

- 04) applicators. An additional alternative (Private Age

- 06) would require noncertified applicators to be 18, but with an exception for noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of an immediate family member, who must be at least 16 ye ars old in this alternative.17



### 2.2.8 Standards for Recertification of Private and Commercial Applicators The current re certification standards onl y require states to have “provisions to ensure that certified applicators continue to meet the requirements of changing technology and to assure a continuing level of competency and ability

to apply pesticides safel y and properly” as part of their state plans (40 CFR 171.8(a)(2)). Currently , the rule specifies no requirements for the timing, content, or manner to evaluate ongoing competency , undermining the integrity of the applicator certification program. The lack of a national standard has resulted in the development of varying state programs that hinder state

- to
- state reciprocity and do not uniformly ensure that applicators have maintained their competency in core functions and the changing technology of pesticide application . The proposed recertification requirements would establish a maximum duration for certifications, set minimum standards for continuing education programs, and would require positive identification of candidates for recertification. The specific proposal s are summarized in Table 2.2

- 8, with a more complete discussion available in Unit XV of the preamble. **Table 2.2 -**  **8. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Recertification Requirements Regulatory**  **Element Current** 

**Regulatory Status**  **Proposed Option Alternative**  **Options**

Commercial Applicators

Maximum time before recertification None Recertification required every 3 years Requirements: exams for core and each category of certification OR 6 Continuing Education Units (CEUs) for core recertification and 6 CEUs for each category of certification (Comm Recert

- 01) Recertification

required every 5 years Requirements: exams for core and each category of certification OR 6 CEUs for core recertification and 6 CEUs for each category of certification (Comm Recert

- 04) Recertification required

every 3 years Requirement: exams for core and each category of certification (Comm Recert

- 02) Recertification required every 5 year s Requirement: exams for core and each category of certification (Comm Recert

- 05) Private Applicators

Maximum time before recertification None Recertification required every 3 years Requirements: exams for general private applicator certification and each application method

- specific category of certification OR 6 CEUs for general private applicator recertification and 3 CEUs for each Recertification

required every 5 years Requirements: exams for general private applicator certification and each application method

- specific category of certification OR 6 CEUs for general private applicator recertification and 3 CEUs for each Recertification required

every 3 years Requirements: exam or 8 CEUs for private applicators core training and 4 CEUs for category training (Private Recert

- 02) Recertification required every 5 years Requirements: exam or 8 CEUs for private applicators core training and 4 CEUs for category18

**Table 2.2 -**  **8. Current, Proposed, and Alternative Recertification Requirements Regulatory**  **Element Current** 

**Regulatory Status**  **Proposed Option Alternative**  **Options**

application method

specific category of certificati on (Private Recert

- 01) application method

specific category of certification (Private Recert

- 04) training

(Private Recert

- 05)

The primary

change proposed by

EPA would be to establish a maximum certification period of three ye ars. In addition to the fixed time frame, the proposals would establish requirements for recertification, either by passing exams relevant to existing certifications or by completing a specific number of continuing education units (CEUs) to maintain ongoing competency

. EPA proposes to define a CEU as 50 minutes of educational contact time. For commercial applicators, the proposed recertification training requirements would be six CEUs for core certi fication and six CEUs per category of certification (Comm Recert

- 01), with recertification administered b y the states. For private applicators, the recertification training requirements proposed would be six CEUs for general private applicator certificati on and three CEUs per application method

- specific certification (Private Recert

- 01) with materials developed and administered b y the states. Periodic requirements for retraining w ould ensure that certified applicators maintain knowledge of current information about pesticide application practices. EPA has considered several other options to ensure that certified applicators are aware of the most recent information about pesticide safety

. For both private (Private Recert

- 04 ) and commercial (Comm Recert

- 0 4) applicators, the Agency considered the same recertification requirements at five year intervals rather than three years. For private applicators, EPA considered alternatives that require an exam or 8 hour training program for general private applicato r re certification and an additional 4 hours of training per application method

- specific category , where training materials or exams would be the responsibility

of the states. Under these alternatives, recertification would take place every three ye ars (Private Recert

- 02) or every five years (Private Recert

- 05). Although extended training programs would be a larger time commitment for applicators, states and other certifying bodies could substitute an exam for the training requirements. For commercial applicators only , another alternative w ould be recertification at three ye ar intervals but requiring recertification only by passing an exam (Comm Recert

- 02) with states developing unique examinations for both core certification and category certification, rather than offering the option to complete CEUs or pass core and category exams. EPA also considered an alternative with the same requirements, but with recertification at five ye ar intervals (Comm Recert
- 05) The advantage of the proposal is that it would ensure a continuing level of competency among certified applicators, which will help to reduce the risk of RUPs. The alternatives would provide a lower level of confidence in the competence of applicators that have not been recentl y certified , but impo se less burden

.19



### 2 .2.9 General Administrative Requirements for RUP Dealers, States, Tribes, and Federal Agencies There are several proposed requirements that are administrative in nature : new recordkeeping requirements for industry and requirements for s tates to implement the changes in the rule. The Agency is proposing new recordkeeping requirements for dealers of RUPs, shown in Table 2.2

- 9. A more detailed discussion is available in Unit XVI of the preamble. **Table 2.2 -**  **9. Current, Proposed, and Al ternative**  **s to Recordkeeping for RUP Dealers**  **Regulatory Elem ent**  **Current Regulatory**  **Status Proposed Option**  **Alternative Options**

Dealer recordkeeping of RUP sales Not required Dealers wo uld be required to keep records of RUP sales, including:  product purchased  who purchased  date of purchase  applicator’s certification information (Admin

- 01) None considered

Under the proposal (Admin

- 01) , all dealers of RUPS to both private and commercial applicators w ould be required b y the states to keep records of R UP sales, including information on what RUP was purchased , the date of purchase, the identity of the purchaser, as well as information verifying the applicator ’s certification is appropriate to purchase the RUP. The rule would also require the applicabl e States, Tribes, Territories and Federal agencies to engage in several activities to comply with changes elsewhere in the rule. The cost estimates for these administrative burdens are provided Chapter 3 . These would include the certifying agencies revis ing regulations and making any required enabling legislative changes that would be necessary

to bring their certification programs into compliance with proposed requirements as a consequence of the rule changes (Admin

- 02) . They would also include the proc ess of updating their required certification plans that must be revised and submitted to the EPA (Admin

- 03) as a consequence of the rule changes. The Federal agencies and EPA would need to revise their plans and programs as a consequence of the rule chang es (Admin

- 04)

. EPA w ould also need to review and approve all of the revised certification plans that would be submitted to the Agency as a result of the proposed rule changes (Admin

- 06). More information on all of these administrative requirements that would be necessary can be found in the preamble to the proposed rule (Units XVI, XVII, and XIX, respectively)

. There are other administrative requirements that would be imposed by the proposed rule that w ould be required to implement the rule changes that will not be discussed in detail here. These include definitional changes that would clarify terms used in the regulation, and revisions that would clarify

requirements for the content, submission and approval of certification plans by20

states, trib es , and federal agencies. Information on these proposed requirements can also be found in the preamble to the proposed rule (Units XX, XVI, and XVII, respectivel y).1



## Chapter**3. Cost Assessm**  **ent, Regulatory Options** This chapter presents EPA’s estimates of the cost of changes to Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule (C&T) requirements in 40 CFR 171. We estimate the compliance cost of each potential certification and training requirement considered b y EPA and co mpare it to the cost of the current requirements. The difference between the two sets of costs is the incremental cost attributable to the individual requirement. 

### 3.1 **Overview** Individual requirements and the proposed suite of requirements could impose costs on certified applicators, noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of certified applicators , pesticide dealers, and pesticide manufacturers. States would also be impacted by individual requirements and the proposed suite of req uirements, as they

employ certified applicators and would be required to incorporate any new requirements into state law and carry out the proposed certification and training requirements of the rule. The requirements EPA evaluated would require employers of certified applicators and individuals certified as applicators to devote time and resources to the certification and training of using restricted use pesticides (RUPs) , as well as time and resources to the training of noncertified applicators applying RUPs under their direct supervision. In analyzing the cost of these potential requirements, EPA values the time spent in required activities at the wage rate of the individual(s) involved in the task because the requirements implicitly take time from the productive activities of the operation or individual. Some requirements would also require expenditures on travel and materials. Section 3.2 describes the general methodology of cost estimation. In section 3.3, the state

- or jurisdiction

- level data are presented. Section 3.4 presents the results of cost anal ys is. The section is further divided into subsections, in which costs of different groups of proposed and alternative requirements are assessed: 3.4.1 private applicator general competency requirements; 3.4.2 addition of application method

- specific categories for commercial and private applicators; 3.4.3 exam or training requirements; 3.4.4 standard for the supervision of noncertified applicators; 3.4.5 minimum age requirements for certified applicators and noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of certified applicators; 3.4.6 recertification requirements for certified applicators; and 3.4.7 general administration requirements.


### 3.2 **Methodology** This section of the cost analy sis evaluates the expected impacts of the p roposed new certification and training requirements at the actor level (typically a certified applicator, a noncertified applicator working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator , or a state government employee) and extrapolates to the jurisdiction (state, tribe, or territory) and national levels. Id eall y, the cost anal ys is would be conducted with the unit of anal ys is, or actor, being the2

establishments (farm, pest control firm, etc.) that either employ or are owned by

the applicators and bear the cost of the potential rule changes. However, the data on individual applicators cannot be readil y associated with particular establishments. For this reason, in this section of the cost assessment, we use applicators as the unit of anal ys is. Note that this unit of analy sis is not equivalent to who bears the burden of the cost. In particular, a certified applicator may be an employer, an employee, or self

- employed. 

### 3.2.1 Ge neral Methodology EPA’s approach consists of six steps. The first two steps calculate the baseline cost by jurisdiction and the associated cost per actor or ‘unit cost’ of each potential requirement. These costs are estimated b y actor, where actors are typically certified applicators either commercial or private, noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator , and state governments, depending on who would be implicated b y a requirement or aspect of a requirement. These costs are a function of the labor costs to conduct an activity and any required material costs. As noted above, costs are generally a function of the time necessary to meet the requirement and the frequency at which it occurs. The third step multip lies the unit costs by the number of actors in each jurisdiction, and sums across the categories of actors to arrive at the jurisdiction

- level cost of each potential requirement and the associated baseline regulatory costs. In steps four and five, we calculate the present value and then determine the incremental cost of the regulatory changes by taking the difference between the costs for the potential requirements and the baselines at the jurisdiction level. In step six we then sum across jurisdictions t o obtain an estimate of the national costs and determine the annualized value. To better compare the impacts across the various potential requirements and the flow of expected benefits, in step 4, EPA calculates the present value (PV) of jurisdiction and national costs over a ten
- ye ar time horizon. The timing of the requirements depends on the activity that has to occur. For example, the implementation of requirements would require the states to review, revise current regulations and implement the proposed regulations. For some requirements such as age restrictions, there is a three ye ar phase

- in period where applicators who are currently 16 years of age would be allowed to continue working through the sy stem as applicators and therefore could seek c ertifications in new categories before they turn 18. The time horizon is of limited importance as most of the costs will occur annually. Ten ye ars was chosen because it is a typical time frame over which an agricultural establishment might financially am ortize such expenditures. We use a discount rate of three percent, to represent the social discount rate, and seven percent (see Appendix B) to represent the private discount rate as suggested b y the Office of Management and Budget (OMB, 2003). The rest of this section presents the methodology in greater detail, including an example of the methodology

applied to a potential requirement that would require certified commercial applicators who intend to apply RUPs aerially

to be certified in a commercial aerial certification category . Data that are commonly used throughout the estimation are discussed in Section 3.3.2. Data that are specific to individual requirements are included in the discussion of the specific requirement.3

Step 1. Calculate P er- Actor Costs of the Jurisdiction Baselines. For the purposes of cost anal ys is, the U.S. is divided into 52 “jurisdictions,” consisting of 50 states, Puerto Rico, and “Other.” The jurisdiction “Other” includes all territories and tribes, except Puerto Rico. This “jurisdiction” level approach is needed because different jurisdictions currently have different requirements (baselines) for certifying their applicators. We calculate the associated jurisdiction baseline cost of the existing regulatory requirement for each actor in each jurisdiction:

, , a = a ∙ , , a , ∙ Prob ( | )
where cost

r,i, a B t is the expected annual cost of the current requirement r , in jurisdiction i , for an actor, a, in time t ; H r,i, a ,j B t is the time required for activity j in time t under the current requirement; w a is the wage rate for the actor doing the activity ; and Prob t( j | i) is the probability or frequency

of activity j in time t given the jurisdiction. The actor is generally the applicator, who is either obtaining or renewing certification and the activity may be preparing for an exam or taking a training. The probability or frequency

is determined by

the situation. All first

- time applicators must obtain initial certification (Prob = 1), while recertification requirements may be spread over a period of time, e.g. , a three

- ye ar cycle implies that one

- third of the applicators seek recertification every

year and/or applicators tak e about one

- third of required continuing education units (CEUs) every year (Prob = 0.333). Step 2. Calculate Per

- Actor Costs of Potential Requirement. The expected cost of a potential requirements is calculated as:

, a = a ∙ , a , ∙ Prob ( ) where variables are defined as above, with P denoting the potential new requirement. For simplicity at this step, we do not have an index i , denoting a state or region. Since our goal is to determine the increased costs caused b y any potenti al regulatory requirement, we ty

pically restrict H

B r, j|i,a ≤ H

Pr ,j|a , that is, jurisdictions are not anticipated to relax standards if the proposed federal requirement is less stringent. Step 3. Calculate Jurisdiction Costs of Potential Requirement and Jurisdiction Baseline

. To estimate total compliance costs for the potential requirements and compliance costs for the current jurisdiction baseline, we multiply the per

- actor unit costs by the number of affected actors of each type (e.g., first

- time certified private applicators and existing certified private applicators) in the jurisdiction and sum across all ty pes of affected actors:

, = , , a × a ,

a

, = , a × a ,

a4

where RC

r,i X denotes the cost of potential requirement r to jurisdiction i of potential regulations X , for X = B and P ; and N i,a is the number of affected actors in a jurisdiction. Step 4. Calculate Jurisdiction Incremental Costs. As part of this step, we calculate the present value (PV) for both RC B and RC

P . Generally , per- actor costs are constant, but implementation of the regulations will occur only after states and jurisdictions have revised their programs and developed any new training or examination materials. EPA considered whether the number of applicators is changing over time, but the data generall y indicate little or no changes. See Section 3.3 below. The present value of costs is calculated as

, = ,

( 1 + ) where ρ is the discount rate and all other variables are as previousl y defined. We use a time horizon of ten years, but this is not particularly important as most of the per

- actor costs, especiall y baseline costs, will occur annuall y. Given constant annual costs , the PV of jurisdiction costs for the baseline simplifies to

, = , ∙ 1

( 1 + ) and, assuming a two

- ye ar implementation period, the PV of jurisdiction costs for the potential requirements can be calculated as

, = , ∙ 1

( 1 + ) + , ∙ 1 ( 1 + ) We estimate the incremental cost of the potential requirement to each jurisdiction by subtracting the PV of the jurisdiction baseline cost from the PV of the jurisdiction cost of the p otential requirement:

, = , − , where PV(RIC

r,i ) is the present value of the stream of incremental cost of the potential requirement over the regional baseline in jurisdiction i
. Step 5. Calculate National Costs of the Potential Requirement, Jurisdiction Baseline, and In cremental Costs. We sum incremental costs across jurisdictions to obtain national compliance costs for each potential requirement ( NC Pr), the jurisdiction baseline requirements ( NC B r), and the natio nal incremental cost ( NIC r) where

= ,5

and ( ) = − Step 6. Annualize the NPV for RCB, RCP and RIC. The final step is to annualize the NPV for the jurisdiction baseline, proposed and incremental costs over 10 years at the appropriate discount rate. This annualized cost is the estimated per year cost of the requirement.

= ( ) × ∙ ( 1 + )

( 1 + )

− 1


### 3.2.2 Exam

ple Methodology In the following example we appl y the general 6

- step methodology to the potential requirement of initial certification for a commercial applicator ( Comm Cert

- 01) which would require certified commercial applicator s who intend to apply RUPs aeriall y to be certified in a commercial aerial certification category . In this example we are evaluating the costs imposed on commercial applicators, but there are also costs to jurisdictions of developing and administering aerial applicator exams. The costs to jurisdictions are calculated using the same method. Step 1. Calculate the Baseline Unit Costs (Per

- Actor Costs). Based on data from the Certification Plan and Reporting Database 4 (CPARD), 18 states (listed in Table 3.2

- 2), Puerto Rico, and Other currentl y do not require an aerial category certification (CPARD, 2014) . Existing and first

- time aerial commercial applicators in these jurisdictions w ould bear the full impact of the pot ential requirement ( Comm Cert

- 01). The other 32 states have an aerial category

requiring an exam and are in full compliance with the potential requirement. Thus, these 32 states are taken out of the cost anal ys is. Table 3.2

- 1 presents the unit costs, th at is, per

- actor costs for the baseline and potential requirement ( Comm Cert

- 01). Step 2. Calculate the Per

- Actor Unit Costs of Potential Requirement. The actors are the existing and first

- time commercial certified applicators who intend to apply RUPs aerially . Under the new requirement, existing aerial applicators would be required to take an aerial category

exam that requires a total of 6 hours (the preparation time and exam taking time), while first

- time aerial applicators would take an aerial category exam that requires a total of 8 hours (the preparation time and exam taking time). These commercial applicators must also be certified in relevant current certification categories to qualify for the aerial category . The wage rate for existing and first

- time aerial applicators is $21.49 per hour. To calculate the unit cost for existing and first

- time aerial applicators, we multiply the wage rate times the number of hours required of them to complete the certification exam. The unit cost for existing aerial applicators is $129 and $172 for first

- time aerial applicators.

4 CPARD (Certification Plan and Reporting Database) is an electronic database that authorized agencies use to establish and update their certification plans as well as report certifications issued each year.6

**Table 3.2 -**  **1: Unit Cost for Certification of First -**  **Time Aerial Commercial Applicators** Activity Wage Rate Time Frequency Cost

Existing Aerial Commercial Applicator (18 States, Puerto Rico, and Other) Aerial category exam $21.49/hr 6 hours 1 $129

First

- Time Aerial Commercial Applicator (18 States, Puerto Rico, and Other) Aerial category exam $21.49/hr 8 hours 1 $172 Source: Based on wage rate information from "May 2013 National Industry

- Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates" provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics (U.S. Department of Labor 2013a). Step 3. Calculate the Jurisdiction

- level Costs of the Potential Requirement and Baseline. Tables 3.2

- 2 and 3.2

- 3 present regional costs in year three for the regional baseline and cost of the potential requirement, respectivel y. Regional costs are calculated a s unit costs for existing and first

- time applicators multiplied by the number of actors and summed across regions (see Appendix A). **Table 3.2 -**  **2: Jurisdiction -**  **Level Baseline Costs in Year 1**

**Jurisdiction Existing Aerial Commercial**  **Applicators First**  **- tim**  **e Aerial**  **Commercial Applicators Jurisdiction**  **** **level Cost of Baseline**  **(RC B**  **r,i )**  **$1,000** Unit Cost of Baseline (UC B r,i,a) Number of

Actors in Each Jurisdiction (N i,a) Unit Cost

of Baseline (UC B r,i,a) Number of

Actors in Each Jurisdiction (N i,a) Alabama $0.00 20 $0.00 2 $0.00 Arizona $0.00 71 $0.00 8 $0.00 Arkansas $0.00 264 $0.00 32 $0.00 Colorado $0.00 199 $0.00 24 $0.00 Delaware $0.00 41 $0.00 5 $0.00 Idaho $0.00 216 $0.00 26 $0.00 Kansas $0.00 337 $0.00 40 $0.00 Missouri $0.00 237 $0.00 28 $0.00 Nevada $0.00 80 $0.00 10 $0.00 New Mexico $0.00 6 $0.00 1 $0.00 North Carolina $0.00 170 $0.00 20 $0.00 Oklahoma $0.00 408 $0.00 49 $0.00 Oregon $0.00 210 $0.00 25 $0.00 Rhode Island $0.00 15 $0.00 2 $0.00 South Dakota $0.00 389 $0.00 47 $0.00 Tennessee $0.00 86 $0.00 10 $0.00 Washington State $0.00 459 $0.00 55 $0.00 West Virginia $0.00 31 $0.00 4 $0.007

Puerto Rico $0.00 46 $0.00 6 $0.00 Other $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 Source: Number of actors from Certification Plan and Reporting Database (CPARD) 201 4 . Wage rate calculations based on wage rate information from "May 2013 National Industry

- Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates" provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics (U.S. Department of Labo r 2013a). **Table 3.2 -**  **3: Jurisdiction -**  **Level Costs of Proposed Regulation C omm**  **C ert** **- 01 in Year 1** 

**Region Existing Aerial Commercial**  **Applicators First**  **- tim**  **e Aerial Commercial Applicators**  **Jurisdiction -**  **level Cost of Potential**  **Regulatory Requirement**  **(RC P**  **r,i )**  **$1,000** Unit Cost of Proposal (UC P r,i,a) Number of

Actors in Each Jurisdiction (N i,a) Unit Cost of

Proposal (UC P r,i,a) Number of

Actors in Each Jurisdiction (N i,a) Alabama $129 20 $172 2 2,992 Arizona $129 71 $172 8 10,589 Arkansas $129 264 $172 32 39,552 Colorado $129 199 $172 24 29,736 Delaware $129 41 $172 5 6,136 Idaho $129 216 $172 26 32,313 Kansas $129 337 $172 40 50,429 Missouri $129 237 $172 28 35,447 Nevada $129 80 $172 10 11,931 New Mexico $129 6 $172 1 891 North Carolina $129 170 $172 20 25,361 Oklahoma $129 408 $172 49 61,018 Oregon $129 210 $172 25 31,381 Rhode Island $129 15 $172 2 2,203 South Dakota $129 389 $172 47 58,155 Tennessee $129 86 $172 10 12,865 Washington State $129 459 $172 55 68,705 West Virginia $129 31 $172 4 4,654 Puerto Rico $129 46 $172 6 6,907 Other $129 0 $172 0 0 Source: Number of actors from Certification Plan and Reporting Database (CPARD) 201 4
. Wage rate calculations based on wage rate information from "May 2013 National Industry

- Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates" provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Em ployment Statistics (U.S. Department of Labor 2013a)

. Steps 4 and 5. Calculate the Jurisdiction

- level Incremental Costs and the Present Value. Baseline unit costs are assumed to continue unchanged through the ten ye ar time horizon. The number of applicators is also anticipated to remain constant over the time horizon. Under the potential regulation, baseline unit costs would be incurred for the first two years of the horizon at8

which point applicators would face the costs of the potential requirement. Given those conditions, we calculate the present value of the cost streams, shown in Table 3.2

- 4. We then subtract the jurisdiction

- level cost of the baseline from the jurisdiction

- level cost of the potential regulatory

requirement in year three to get the jurisdiction

- level incremental costs (Table 3.2

- 4). Step 6. Annualize the National Costs of the Potential Requirement, National Baseline, and National Incremental Costs. Finally , we sum costs across jurisdictions to obtain national compliance cost for the potential regulatory

requirement, the national b aseline cost, and the national proposal cost. These national

- level costs are presented in Table 3.2

- 4. The costs are presented as present value over a ten year time period with costs starting in year three given a 3% discount rate. **Table 3.2 -**  **4: Annualized Present Value of National**  **- Level Costs of Commercial Aerial**  **Applicator Certification (Comm Cert -**  **01) 1** 

Region National

- level Cost of Baseline PV(NC B ) National

- level Cost of Potential Regulatory Requirement PV(NC P ) Naional

- level Incremental Cost PV(NIC) ($1,000) $1,000$1,000 U.S. (present value) 0 861 861 U.S. (annualized value) 0 98 98 1 Discount rate of 3% over 10 years.


### 3.3 **Cost Analysis Data** In this section, we present the major data elements required for the anal ys is. Data elements include the number of certified applicators b y jurisdiction and age cohort, the number of applicators who would be likely to obtain certification in the proposed new federal categories, the number of a noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator b y jurisdiction and age, and wage rates for the various actors

. 

### 3.3.1 C ommercial c ertified applicators States and other certifying jurisdictions ( e.g. , Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, other territories and several tribes) report the number of certifications issued and maintained to the Certification Plan and Reporting Database (CPARD). EPA used data reported from 2008 to 2013 to determine the number of certified applicators that would be affected by changes to the certification programs (CPARD, 2014). Table 3.3

- 1 presents the number of commercial applicators used in the analy sis, including first

time applicators (those obtaining an initial certification), existing applicators (those who would recertify), and the average number of certifications held by existing applicators. Commercial applicators must be certified in a core set of requirements and obtain at least one category , based on area of specialization, such as agriculture, forestry , and turf. Over time, many commercial applicators become certified in multiple categories. As shown in Table 3.3

- 1, the average9

number of category

certifications ranges from nearly one in Tennessee to a high of 3.6 certifications per applicator in Wyoming. Any changes in recertification requirements will affect all the category

certifications an applicator holds. EPA uses a simple average over the 2008 to 2013 period to estimate the number of commercial applicators impacted b y the rule. With the limited series of data available, trends are difficult to determine. We regressed the logarithm of the number of commercial applicators in the U.S. against a time trend. For first

time applicators, the coefficient on time implied a two percent annual rate of growth, but the es timate was not statistically significant. For existing applicators, the coefficient on time was also around a two percent annual growth rate and the estimate was statistically significant. We decided to use the simple average for both groups, implying no growth, due to the limited number of observations and some problems with the data. Several states did not begin reporting to CPARD until 2010 and others initially reported only

certifications issued, not the number of applicators. **Table 3.3 -**  **1: Commercia**  **l Applicators, by Jurisdiction** Jurisdiction First

- Time Applicators Existing

Applicators Average

Categories/Applicator Alabama 330 3,772 1.1 Alaska 105 560 1.4 Arizona 865 6,240 2.3 Arkansas 439 3,893 1.4 California 3,689 32,546 1.5 Colorado 691 3,209 2.7 Connecticut 124 2,686 1.5 Delaware 154 1,812 1.6 Florida 1,702 15,303 2.6 Georgia 1,478 9,700 1.3 Hawaii 116 1,151 1.3 Id aho 423 3,578 3.0 Illinois 3,277 12,053 1.5 Indiana 1,180 8,945 1.5 Io wa 1,497 11,904 2.3 Kansas 875 5,148 1.7 Kentucky 2,907 10,022 1.4 Louisiana 591 3,907 1.7 Maine 176 1,437 2.2 Maryland 472 4,084 1.4 Massachusetts 201 1,986 1.5 Michigan 2,013 12,803 2.3 Minnesota 1,850 8,375 1.4 Mississippi 304 2,742 1.3 Missouri 834 6,814 1.6 Montana 278 2,133 1.3 Nebraska 1,102 8,609 1.410

Nevada 300 1,390 2.2 New Hampshire 313 949 1.9 New Jersey 585 8,452 1.6 New Mexico 654 1,723 2.3 New York 1,252 17,653 1.5 North Carolina 1,361 17,012 1.5 North Dakota 428 4,889 1.7 Ohio 1,403 11,565 2.3 Oklahoma 1,538 9,002 2.8 Oregon 477 4,396 2.2 Pennsylvania 2,277 13,850 1.8 Rhode I sland 53 606 1.9 South Carolina 753 5,009 1.6 South Dakota 814 4,943 1.7 Tennessee 1,328 13,051 1.0 Texas 1,716 17,478 2.0 Utah 929 3,389 2.1 Vermont 146 848 1.7 Virginia 1,159 6,325 2.0 Washington 1,370 14,343 2.5 West Virginia 240 1,747 1.5 Wisconsin 1,623 11,287 1.2 Wyoming 339 1,572 3.6 Puerto Rico 330 5,559 1.5 Other Jurisdictions 243 2,134 1.0 **U.S. 49,300**  **364,579 1.8**  Source: Certification Plan and Reporting Database (CPARD) 201 4
. Data on the age distribution of certified applicators is not available. Because it is important to know the number of certified applicators that may be subject to an age restriction, EPA estimates the number of commercial applicators. Due to restrictions on adolescents regarding driving, and the availability

to work due to education requirements, as well as general liability concerns, it is unlikely that there are commercial applicators under the age of 16. For those that are 16

- 17 years old, EPA assumes that 0.2 percent of new commercial applicators are 16 ye ars old and 0.3 percent are 17 ye ars old. This assumption follows the anal ys is of the Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard (EPA, 2014a). Data from the National Agricultural Worker Survey (DoL, 2005) indicated that just over two percent of on

- farm pesticide handlers were under 18 ye ars of age. EPA assumed that commercial pesticide handling establishments would be less likely to employ

adolescents in such a capacity and es timated that about one percent of commercial handlers would be under 18. Here, we assume it is even less likely that commercial establishments would hire adolescents to apply RUPs. Further, 33 states prohibit certification for those under 18. The estimat ed number of commercial certified adolescents in shown in Table 3.3

- 2. EPA assumes that 90 percent of certified 16 year olds return to work as 17 year olds.11

**Table 3.3 -**  **2. Estimated Number of Commercial Applicators under 18 Years of Age**

. Jurisdiction 16 Y ear Old First

- Time Applicators 17 Year Old

First

- Time Applicators 17 Year Old

Existing Applicators Alabama 0.7 0.6 1.0 Alaska 0 0 0 Arizona 0 0 0 Arkansas 0 0 0 California 7.4 6.7 11.1 Colorado 1.4 1.3 2.1 Connecticut 0 0 0 Delaware 0 0 0 Florida 0 0 0 Georgia 0 0 0 Hawaii 0 0 0 Id aho 0 0 0 Illinois 6.6 5.9 9.8 Indiana 2.4 2.2 3.5 Io wa 0 0 0 Kansas 0 0 0 Kentucky 5.8 5.2 8.7 Louisiana 0 0 0 Maine 0 0 0 Maryland 0 0 0 Massachusetts 0 0 0 Michigan 0 0 0 Minnesota 3.7 3.3 5.6 Mississippi 0 0 0 Missouri 0 0 0 Montana 0 0 0 Nebraska 2.2 2.0 3.3 Nevada 0.6 0.5 0.9 New Hampshire 0 0 0 New Jersey 0 0 0 New Mexico 1.3 1.2 2.0 New York 0 0 0 North Carolina 0 0 0 North Dakota 0 0 0 Ohio 2.8 2.5 4.2 Oklahoma 3.1 2.8 4.6 Oregon 0 0 0 Pennsylvania 0 0 0 Rhode I sland 0.1 0.1 0.2 South Carolina 0 0 0 South Dakota 1.6 1.4 2.412

Tennessee 0 0 0 Texas 3.4 3.1 5.1 Utah 1.9 1.7 2.8 Vermont 0 0 0 Virginia 0 0 0 Washington 0 0 0 West Virginia 0 0 0 Wisconsin 3.2 2.9 4.9 Wyoming 0 0 0 Puerto Rico 0.7 0.6 1.0 Other Jurisdictions 0.5 0.5 0.7 **U.S. 49**  **45 74**  Source: EPA estimation. Zeros indicate states that have imposed a minimum age requirement. EPA also estimates the number of commercial applicators that will obtain and retain certification in potential new, application

- specific categories. Table 3.3

- 3 presents the expected number of applicators in the aerial and chemigation categories. Many states already

have developed an aerial category

and seven states have a ch emigation category . For those states, EPA uses the average number of applicators, as reported to CPARD between 2008 and 2013. In order to estimate the number of existing aerial applicators in states without an aerial category , we regressed the number of aerial applicators in states for which we had data against the number of certifications issued in agricultural plant protection, forestry , and turf categories, the number of acres of agricultural crops treated b y air, and several dummy variable for different parts of the country . Data on acres treated by air comes from an annual market survey (proprietary) of pesticide use. Observations were for each state and year. The estimated coefficients were used to predict the number of existing applicators in the rest of the states. For the states with an aerial category , first time aerial applicators averaged 12 percent of existing applicators and that average value was used to predict the number of first time aerial applicators in the other states. Similarly, we estimated the number of commercial applicators who would obtain certification in chemigation based on a regression of observed certifications against the number of agricultural plant protection certifications, crop acres treated by commercial applicator s with chemicals often applied via chemigation, and dummy variables to account for different agricultural practices, notably intensive production where chemigation might be through drip irrigation and more extensive sy stems of flood or sprinkler s ys tems. Given that only seven states have a chemigation category , the results are not robust, but for lack of better information were used to predict commercial chemigation certifications that might be obtained. On average, the observed number of new chemigation certifications was about seven percent of existing certifications and that value was used to predict the number of first

- time certifications in other states.13

**Table 3.3 -**  **3. Expected Number of Commercial Applicators in Aerial and Chemigation Categories.** 
Jurisdiction First

- Time

Applicators, Aerial Existing

Applicators, Aerial First

- Time

Applicators, Chemigation Existing

Applicators, Chemigation Alabama 2 2 20 2 21 Alaska 2 1 5 0 0 Arizona 1 2 8 71 1 9 Arkansas 1 2 32 264 1 17 California 2 54 448 4 57 Colorado 1 2 24 199 1 15 Connecticut 2 0 2 0 0 Delaware 1 2 5 41 2 22 Florida 2 38 318 2 30 Georgia 2 34 285 2 31 Hawaii 1 8 0 6 Id aho 1 2 26 216 2 29 Illinois 2 33 271 0 6 Indiana 2 32 267 0 6 Io wa 2 90 749 1 19 Kansas 1 2 40 337 1 8 Kentucky 2 8 71 1 10 Louisiana 2 46 381 1 12 Maine 3 27 0 0 Maryland 2 6 46 1 20 Massachusetts 2 2 16 1 8 Michigan 2 10 80 1 9 Minnesota 2 46 383 0 4 Mississippi 2 29 238 1 18 Missouri 1 2 28 237 1 7 Montana 2 2 13 1 10 Nebraska 2 63 525 0 6 Nevada 1 10 80 1 8 New Hampshire 1 2 2 15 0 0 New Jersey 2 10 81 2 22 New Mexico 1 2 1 6 1 12 New York 2 6 50 1 12 North Carolina 1 2 20 170 2 33 North Dakota 2 43 357 1 15 Ohio 2 11 92 1 17 Oklahoma 1 2 49 408 2 31 Oregon 1 2 25 210 2 24 Pennsylvania 2 8 71 1 10 Rhode I sland 1 2 2 15 0 0 South Carolina 2 10 85 2 2214

South Dakota 1 2 47 389 1 13 Tennessee 1 2 10 86 2 24 Texas 64 533 2 28 Utah 2 6 48 1 12 Vermont 2 1 8 0 0 Virginia 10 84 3 37 Washington 1 2 55 459 5 71 West Virginia 1 2 4 31 1 9 Wisconsin 8 68 0 4 Wyoming 5 43 2 30 Puerto Rico 1 2 6 46 0 5 Other Jurisdictions 1 2 0 0 0 0 U.S. 1,074 8,950 57 817 Source: CPARD (2014) and EPA estimation. 1 No commercial aerial category; estimated number of applicators. 2 No commercial chemigation category; estimated number of applicators. Table 3.3

- 4 presents the expected number of commercial applicators who have or would obtain certification in soil and non

- soil fumigation. Seventeen states have a soil fumigation category from which we can extrapolate to other states. As with aerial application and chemigation, we estimate a regression model where the number of applicators with a soil fumigation certification is hy pothesized to be a function of the number of applicators in agricultural plant protection, forestry , and turf, as well as the crop acres treated commercial with fumigants. Data on crop treatments come from a proprietary market survey

conducted annually . Initial certifications in soil fumigation average 11 percent of the ex isting certifications. Most states have a category for non

- soil fumigation; some even have separate categories for fumigation of structures and fumigation of commodities. The regression model for non

- soil fumigation included the number of applicators in agricultural plant protection and in the industrial, institutional, and structural category . The latter is quite broad and we included a dummy variable for states issuing more than 3,000 certifications in that category as many states subdivide it into more specialized areas. We also included a variable for acres of grain harvested, as an indicator of commodity fumigation, but the estimated coefficient was not significant. Initial certifications in non

- soil fumigation average eight percent of the existing certifications. **Table 3.3 -**  **4. Expected Number of Commercial Applicators in Soil and Non -**  **Soil Fu**  **migation Categories .** 

Jurisdiction First

- Time

Applicators, Soil Fumigation Existing

Applicators, Soil Fumigation First

- Time

Applicators, Non
- Soil Fumigation Exi sting

Applicators, Non
- Soil Fumigation Alabama 1 2 18 4 50 Alaska 1 2 0 0 0 0 Arizona 1 4 38 18 221 Arkansas 4 40 11 13815

California 2 47 431 300 3,751 Colorado 1 0 0 9 107 Connecticut 0 2 1 19 Delaware 9 80 7 86 Florida 12 112 516 6,452 Georgia 1 10 90 23 285 Hawaii 1 5 50 19 233 Id aho 2 24 223 15 181 Illinois 1 10 18 224 Indiana 1 8 74 30 374 Io wa 1 53 478 48 602 Kansas 1 2 7 60 52 648 Kentucky 1 3 24 45 563 Louisiana 1 2 3 25 14 169 Maine 1 0 0 7 87 Maryland 1 0 0 111 1,387 Massachusetts 1 0 0 3 38 Michigan 1 2 16 148 25 307 Minnesota 2 20 26 328 Mississippi 1 1 14 5 63 Missouri 1 7 59 34 430 Montana 1 2 0 0 0 0 Nebraska 1 8 37 463 Nevada 1 0 0 3 42 New Hampshire 1 0 0 1 8 New Jersey 1 2 17 10 126 New Mexico 1 1 11 5 63 New York 78 709 14 178 North Carolina 4 40 14 171 North Dakota 1 6 41 510 Ohio 6 54 27 331 Oklahoma 1 12 112 60 756 Oregon 22 198 14 181 Pennsylvania 2 17 40 495 Rhode I sland 1 0 0 1 10 South Carolina 1 2 16 15 185 South Dakota 1 5 17 219 Tennessee 1 2 1 5 24 298 Texas 1 19 175 84 1,045 Utah 1 0 0 9 111 Vermont 1 2 0 0 0 0 Virginia 8 73 15 184 Washington 69 624 12 150 West Virginia 1 0 0 3 39 Wisconsin 8 70 15 19416

Wyoming 1 3 29 3 43 Puerto Rico 1 2 1 12 0 5 Other Jurisdictions 1 2 0 0 0 0 U.S. 459 4,174 1,803 22,543 S ource: CPARD (2014) and EPA estimation. 1 No commercial soil fumigation category; estimated number of applicators. 2 No commercial non

- soil fumigation category; estimated number of applicators. EPA considered a general fumigation category that would cover both soil and non

- soil fumigation. No state currently has such a category

on which to base estimates of the number of applicators implicated. Considering how different the methods and purposes of soil and non

- soil fumigation are, EPA assumes that there would be no overlap in the number of applicators seeking certifications between the categories. Thus, the expected number of applicators that would seek a certification in a general fumigation category is simply the sum of the number of applicators in the soil and non

- soil categories. 

### 3.3.2 Noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of commercial c ertified applicators Data on the number of noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the dire ct supervision of certified applicators (UTS applicators) are not available. However, based on the state regulations, it appears that four states (Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and South Dakota) do not allow noncertified applicators to apply RUPs. The number of UTS applicators in those states is set to zero. Data are available, b y state, on employment in occupations related to pest control (BLS, 2014b). EPA took the total number of people employed as pest control workers in the A gricultural S upport S e ctor , the Structures and Buildings and Turf Sector , the Construction Sector , and in Federal, State, and Local Governments , averaged over 2012 and 2013, and subtracted the number of certified applicators in the state to estimate the number of UTS applicator s. This approach sometimes resulted in negative numbers. For example, in the case of Kentucky, BLS reports an average of 8,720 people employed in non

- agricultural pest control. However, Kentucky reports an average of 13,973 certified commercial applicat ors over the same period. As an alternative, EPA calculated the number of UTS applicators assuming three UTS applicators for every

existing commercial applicator. In the case of Kentucky , the six

- ye ar average number of certified commercial applicators is 10,022, resulting in an estimate of 30,066 UTS applicators. As a refinement, we made a calculation where different categories of applicators would have different numbers of UTS applicators. For example, there may be three UTS applicators for every appli cator in the turf category (e.g., a golf course or landscaping enterprise) but public health applicators would not have UTS applicators. This approach resulted in an estimate of 27,907 UTS applicators in Kentucky . If the estimated number of UTS applicato rs in a state using the BLS data was less than half that calculated from the simple three UTS applicator per certified applicator, which occurred in 29 states, we used the lower of the two numbers calculated b y assumption. For Kentucky, we used the estimate of 27,907 UTS applicators. In 15 of the 29 states for which the BLS data appeared to undercount the number of UTS applicators, we used the simple assumption of three UTS applicators for each certified commercial applicator. Estimated numbers of noncer tified applicators are presented in Table17

3.3

- 5. The total number of noncertified applicators in the U.S. is estimated at nearl y 950,000 people. The number of noncertified adolescents appl yi ng RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicator i s also of interest, given that EPA is proposing a minimum age. According to the Current Population Survey (BLS, 2014a), in 2013, about 77,000 people were employed in pest control occupations within the category of Building and Grounds Cleaning and Mainten ance, of which 1,000 were aged 16 to 19, or 1.3 percent of the workforce. This category is representative of the turf and ornamental and the industrial, institutional, and structural category which houses the majority

of certified applicators. We therefo re apply this percentage across all states to estimate the number of noncertified 16 and 17 year olds applying RUPs under the direct supervision of a commercial applicator. Since the BL S data includes 18 and 19 year olds, we are likely overestimating the number of adolescents applying RUPs. Several states have set a minimum age of 18 for applying RUPs, as shown by the estimated zero adolescents in the state. **Table 3.3 -**  **5: Estimated Number of Noncertified Applicators**  **A pplying RUPs under Direct**  **Supervision of Certified Commercial Applicators, by Jurisdiction** 
Jurisdiction Noncertified Applicators UTS of Commercial Applicator 16

– 17 Year Old Noncertified Applicators Alabama 9,035 117 Alaska 1,265 16 Arizona 13,384 174 Arkansas 7,121 93 California 73,702 958 Colorado 14,367 187 Connecticut 10,096 131 Delaware 5,437 71 Florida 65,193 848 Georgia 17,289 225 Hawaii 3,710 48 Id aho 10,735 140 Illinois 18,259 237 Indiana 26,531 345 Io wa 0 0 Kansas 15,443 201 Kentucky 27,907 363 Louisiana 8,861 115 Maine 2,828 37 Maryland 16,465 0 Massachusetts 18,817 0 Michigan 38,410 499 Minnesota 0 0 Mississippi 5,710 74 Missouri 19,996 26018

Montana 3,663 48 Nebraska 23,028 299 Nevada 7,617 99 New Hampshire 0 0 New Jersey 18,904 0 New Mexico 2,762 36 New York 52,958 688 North Carolina 51,036 663 North Dakota 13,381 174 Ohio 34,695 451 Oklahoma 27,005 351 Oregon 13,188 171 Pennsylvania 41,549 540 Rhode I sland 3,035 39 South Carolina 8,723 113 South Dakota 0 0 Tennessee 23,325 303 Texas 55,148 717 Utah 10,167 132 Vermont 2,543 0 Virginia 21,550 0 Washington 43,030 559 West Virginia 4,451 0 Wisconsin 30,041 391 Wyoming 4,715 61 Puerto Rico 16,678 217 Other Jurisdictions 3,531 46 **U.S. 947,275**  **11,237** S ource: EPA estimation based on BLS (2014a and 2014b).


### 3.3.3 Private c ertified applicators The number of private certified applicators is also reported to CPARD by the states. The total number of private certified applicators in the U.S. from 2008 to 2013 was regressed against a time variable. The estimated coefficient on time for the number of initial certifications was negative, while that for existing applicators was positive, but neither was statistically significant. Given the limited time series and conflicting results, EPA estim ates the number of private applicators affected b y changes to the Certification regulations as the simple average over the 2008 to 2013 period, i.e. , no trend over time for either first

- time or existing private applicators. Table 3.3

- 6 presents the numbers for certified private applicators in each jurisdiction. **Table 3.3 -**  **6: Private Applicators, by Jurisdiction**  **Jurisdiction First**  **- Tim**  **e Applicators Existing Applicators**  Alabama 561 5,40219

Alaska 9 80 Arizona 84 389 Arkansas 1,485 19,512 California 1,622 16,979 Colorado 393 5,656 Connecticut 21 543 Delaware 70 676 Florida 340 3,704 Georgia 1,669 18,010 Hawaii 31 413 Id aho 139 3,474 Illinois 1,074 16,223 Indiana 796 12,208 Io wa 873 22,104 Kansas 1,107 13,833 Kentucky 2,572 10,733 Louisiana 374 7,241 Maine 76 1,099 Maryland 108 3,212 Massachusetts 84 1,045 Michigan 497 7,165 Minnesota 669 16,690 Mississippi 1,344 9,597 Missouri 1,628 19,499 Montana 258 6,033 Nebraska 767 21,052 Nevada 48 248 New Hampshire 33 469 New Jersey 200 1,569 New Mexico 225 2,478 New York 246 6,805 North Carolina 470 15,781 North Dakota 923 10,757 Ohio 279 14,524 Oklahoma 1,563 12,295 Oregon 185 4,093 Pennsylvania 665 17,441 Rhode I sland 6 180 South Carolina 732 5,745 South Dakota 2,151 14,543 Tennessee 404 10,522 Texas 3,031 40,170 Utah 279 1,384 Vermont 42 520 Virginia 863 5,53120

Washington 669 13,148 West Virginia 79 1,198 Wisconsin 1,071 12,816 Wyoming 388 4,267 Puerto Rico 746 15,982 Other 96 238 **U.S. 34,039**  **455,278** Source: Certification Plan and Reporting Database (CPARD) 201 4
. As with commercial applicators, CPARD does not provide information on the age of private applicators. Since private applicators are often the owner or operator of a farm, EPA bases its estimates of adolescent applicators on the number of principal operators under the age of 25, as reported in the 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2014c). We assume a nearl y normal distribution, where 0.5 percent of principal operators under the age of 25 are 14 and obtain initial certification as a private applicator, 0.75 percent are 15 and 16 and will be certified, and one percent are 17 ye ars old with certification. This would be an overestimate of principal operators, as the distribution is probably heavil y skewed toward operators in their early 20s rather than mid

- to late

- teens. Further, not all principal operators will be certified applicators since not all farms use pesticides, much less RUPs. However, there are other situations where an adolesc ent may be a certified operator. Many states have age restrictions, however, typically either 16 or 18 ye ars of age and we adjust our estimates accordingl y. Where the minimum age is 16, we assume that all adolescents who would otherwise have obtained cer tification by

that age will do so. Table 3.3

- 7 presents the estimated adolescent private applicators. Included is an estimate of adolescents hired as a private applicator. The above approach applies to family members onl y. Hired adolescents on farms is likely very rare. According to the National Agricultural Worker Survey (DoL, 2005), only

about 2.3 percent of those handling any kind of pesticide were under 18 and fewer would handle RUPs. We assume that hired 17 year - olds may obtain certification, at a rate of 25 percent of the number of family members obtaining certification at that age. **Table 3.3 -**  **7. Estimated Number of Private Applicators under 18 Years of Age**

.

Jurisdiction First

- Time Applicators, Family Existing Applicators, Family First

- Time

Appl icators, Hired < 16 YO 16

- 17 YO < 16 YO 16

- 17 YO 16

- 17 YO Alabama 0 0 0 0 0 Alaska 0 0 0 0 0 Arizona 1.1 0.6 0.6 1.8 0.1 Arkansas 1.5 0.7 0.7 2.6 0.2 California 1.9 1.1 1.1 3.3 0.2 Colorado 1.2 0.6 0.6 2.0 0.1 Connecticut 0 0 0 0 0 Delaware 0 0.1 0 0 0 Florida 0 0 0 0 0 Georgia 0 1.6 0 1.0 0.1 Hawaii 0 0 0 0 021

Id aho 0 0 0 0 0 Illinois 0 5.6 0 3.5 0.4 Indiana 2.4 1.3 1.3 4.3 0.3 Io wa 0 0 0 0 0 Kansas 2.8 1.5 1.5 4.6 0.3 Kentucky 0 4.4 0 2.7 0.4 Louisiana 0 1.6 0 1.0 0.1 Maine 0 0.6 0 0.5 0 Maryland 0 0.9 0 0.5 0.1 Massachusetts 0 0 0 0 0 Michigan 0 0 0 0 0 Minnesota 3.3 1.7 1.7 5.6 0.4 Mississippi 0 0 0 0 0 Missouri 0 0 0 0 0 Montana 0 1.3 0 0.8 0.1 Nebraska 0 4.9 0 3.1 0.4 Nevada 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 New Hampshire 0 0 0 0 0 New Jersey 0 0 0 0 0 New Mexico 1.7 1.0 1.0 2.8 0.2 New York 0 1.9 0 0 0.2 North Carolina 0 2.4 0 1.5 0.2 North Dakota 0 0 0 0 0 Ohio 3.6 1.8 1.8 6.2 0.4 Oklahoma 3.4 1.8 1.8 5.9 0.4 Oregon 0 0 0 0 0 Pennsylvania 0 4.6 0 2.9 0.4 Rhode I sland 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 South Carolina 0 0 0 0 0 South Dakota 2.0 1.1 1.1 3.4 0.2 Tennessee 2.0 1.1 1.1 3.4 0.2 Texas 6.3 3.2 3.2 10.6 0.7 Utah 0 0.9 0 0.5 0.1 Vermont 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 Virginia 0 2.0 0 1.2 0.2 Washington 0 1.9 0 1.3 0.1 West Virginia 0 0.6 0 0.5 0 Wisconsin 0 3.8 0 2.3 0.3 Wyoming 0 0.6 0 0.4 0.1 Puerto Rico 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0 Other 1.3 0.7 0.7 2.2 0.2 U.S. 34.6 58.4 18.8 83.0 7.1 S ource: EPA estimation.22

EPA also estimates the number of private applicators that will obtain and retain certification in potential new, application

- specific categories. Table 3.3

- 8 presents the expected number of applicators in the aerial and chemigation categories. Wisconsin is the only state that has established a private aerial category and they have no t reported any certifications. Hawaii, Id aho, Nevada, and Wisconsin require certification in chemigation for private applicators and Wyoming has recently

imposed a similar requirement. Private aerial application is likely very rare. EPA simply

assumes that there will be one private aerial applicator in a state for every 100 commercial applicators. As with commercial applicators, we assume that new certifications will be 12 percent of existing certifications based on the observed ratio between new and ex isting certifications nationall y. We also estimated the number of private applicators who would obtain certification in chemigation in relationship to the number of commercial applicators certified in chemigation. We constructed a state

- specific ratio by comparing crop acres treated with chemicals used in chemigation by

commercial applicators to that treated by the farmer. This ratio ranged from a low of 1.5 (50 percent more acres treated b y farmers than b y commercial applicators) in Illinois to a high o f 47.6 in Georgia. Data on acres treated are from an annual proprietary market survey of pesticide users. Where data from the survey were missing (Alaska, Hawaii, and the New England states), we used the estimated coefficient on agricultural plant certif ications from the commercial applicator equation to calculate chemigation certification as a proportion of all private certifications (0.9 percent). As with commercial chemigation certifications, new certifications are calculated as seven percent of existing certifications. **Table 3.3 -**  **8. Expected Number of Private Applicators in Aerial and Chemigation Categories.** 
Jurisdiction First

- Time Applicators, Aerial Existing

Applicators, Aerial First

- Time

Applicators, Chemigation Existing

Applicators, Chemigation Alabama 1 2 0 0 42 605 Alaska 1 2 0 0 0 0 Arizona 1 2 0 0 9 135 Arkansas 1 2 0 2 6 80 California 1 2 0 4 8 115 Colorado 1 2 0 1 5 68 Connecticut 1 2 0 0 1 13 Delaware 1 2 0 0 5 69 Florida 1 2 0 3 12 173 Georgia 1 2 0 2 103 1,478 Hawaii 1 0 0 1 14 Id aho 1 0 2 74 1,053 Illinois 1 2 0 2 1 9 Indiana 1 2 0 2 1 15 Io wa 1 2 1 7 2 31 Kansas 1 2 0 3 2 24 Kentucky 1 2 0 0 2 2823

Louisiana 1 2 0 3 6 80 Maine 1 2 0 0 1 15 Maryland 1 2 0 0 3 40 Massachusetts 1 2 0 0 1 17 Michigan 1 2 0 0 2 31 Minnesota 1 2 0 3 1 11 Mississippi 1 2 0 2 10 136 Missouri 1 2 0 2 1 16 Montana 1 2 0 0 13 179 Nebraska 1 2 1 5 1 11 Nevada 1 0 0 5 66 New Hampshire 1 2 0 0 1 12 New Jersey 1 2 0 0 3 44 New Mexico 1 2 0 0 3 45 New York 1 2 0 0 3 41 North Carolina 1 2 0 1 34 485 North Dakota 1 2 0 3 9 128 Ohio 1 2 0 0 2 31 Oklahoma 1 2 0 4 7 96 Oregon 1 2 0 2 12 177 Pennsylvania 1 2 0 0 4 51 Rhode I sland 1 2 0 0 1 10 South Carolina 1 2 0 0 37 528 South Dakota 1 2 0 3 2 32 Tennessee 1 2 0 0 23 323 Texas 1 2 1 5 12 174 Utah 1 2 0 0 2 25 Vermont 1 2 0 0 1 13 Virginia 1 2 0 0 11 155 Washington 1 2 0 4 24 340 West Virginia 1 2 0 0 2 23 Wisconsin 0 0 6 79 Wyoming 1 2 0 0 4 57 Puerto Rico 1 2 0 0 2 34 Other Jurisdictions 1 2 0 0 0 0 U.S. 8 65 519 7,415 Source: CPARD (2014) and EPA estimation. 1 No private aerial category; estimated number of applicators. 2 No private chemigation category; estimated number of applicators. Table 3.3

- 9 presents the expected number of private applicators who have or would obtain certification in soil and non

- soil fumigation. Five states (Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) have a private soil fumigation category . For the remaining states, we estimate existing applicators using the estimated coefficients from the regression model for commercial applicators, where the number of applicators with a soil fumigation certification is a24

function of the number of private applicators in the state and the crop acres treated with fumigants b y the farmer. Data on crop treatments come from a proprietary market survey conducted annually . Initial certifications in soil fumigation are 11 percent of the existing certifications, as with commercial soil fumigation. Seven states (Arizona, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, North D akota, Penns ylvania, and Utah) have a category for non

- soil fumigation. As these states also have a commercial non

- soil fumigation category , EPA calculated the ratio of private to commercial certifications. The ratio varies from about 0.1 to almost 2.0, with an average of 0.6. The number of private certifications in states without the category

was estimated as the number of commercial certification multiplied by the average ratio or the ratio of a state with similar agronomic characteristics, following the Farm Resource Regions defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (ERS, 2000). Initial certifications in soil fumigation average 11 percent of the existing certifications, as with commercial certifications in this category

. **Table 3.3 -**  **9. Expected Nu mber of Commercial Applicators in Soil and Non**  **- Soil**  **Fu migation Categories.** 

Jurisdiction First

- Time Applicators, Soil Fumigation Existing

Applicators, Soil Fumigation First

- Time

Applicators, Non
- Soil Fumigation Existing

Applicators, Non
- Soil Fumigation Alabama 1 2 18 163 2 31 Alaska 1 2 0 0 n/a n/a Arizona 1 5 47 2 29 Arkansas 1 2 76 686 7 85 California 1 2 102 923 27 332 Colorado 1 2 20 178 5 66 Connecticut 1 2 0 0 0 2 Delaware 1 2 0 1 1 10 Florida 1 2 35 315 46 571 Georgia 1 2 85 774 3 34 Hawaii 2 3 27 2 21 Id aho 1 2 23 205 2 22 Illinois 1 2 59 533 2 20 Indiana 1 2 44 396 3 33 Io wa 1 81 734 4 53 Kansas 1 2 50 457 5 57 Kentucky 1 2 38 346 4 50 Louisiana 1 2 25 226 4 56 Maine 1 2 2 16 1 8 Maryland 1 2 10 92 10 123 Massachusetts 1 2 2 14 0 3 Michigan 1 2 27 246 3 37 Minnesota 1 8 3 39 Mississippi 1 2 34 307 3 3925

Missouri 1 2 73 666 3 38 Montana 1 2 20 186 n/a n/a Nebraska 1 2 77 704 3 41 Nevada 2 21 5 60 New Hampshire 1 2 0 0 0 1 New Jersey 1 2 4 33 3 42 New Mexico 1 2 7 65 7 90 New York 1 2 23 212 5 60 North Carolina 1 2 81 733 8 105 North Dakota 1 38 347 80 1,005 Ohio 1 2 52 475 2 29 Oklahoma 1 2 45 405 5 67 Oregon 1 2 18 160 5 60 Pennsylvania 9 79 13 165 Rhode I sland 1 2 0 0 0 1 South Carolina 1 2 23 212 9 114 South Dakota 1 2 52 475 2 26 Tennessee 1 2 37 340 2 26 Texas 1 2 149 1,355 7 93 Utah 1 4 32 5 60 Vermont 1 2 0 0 0 0 Virginia 1 2 19 175 9 113 Washington 1 2 70 636 7 92 West Virginia 1 2 2 19 2 24 Wisconsin 2 5 42 2 23 Wyoming 1 2 14 125 0 5 Puerto Rico 1 2 58 524 0 0 Other Jurisdictions 1 2 0 0 0 0 U.S. 1,619 14,716 325 4,061 Source: CPARD (2014) and EPA estimation. 1 No private soil fumigation category; estimated number of applicators. 2 No private non - soil fumigation category; estimated num ber of applicators. 

### 3.3.4 Noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of private c ertified applicators The number of noncertified applicators applying RUPs on farms is likely to be a function of farm size, where farm size is measured b y valu e of sales. Most smaller farms would not need more than one applicator, in general, and even larger farms would probably not have a large enough demand for RUPs that they would need to rely

on a certified applicator. We assume that one of every two private applicators on a farm with sales between $100,000 and $1 million per year will have an applicator under his or her supervision to apply RUPs, while private applicators on farms with more than $1 million per year in sales will, on average, have one noncertified applicator under his or her supervision. We obtain the number of farms, by sales, in each state from the 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2014c). From a special tabulation of data from the 200726

Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008), we have a natio nal estimate of the proportion of farms in each sales class that utilize pesticides. Using this national figure, we estimate the number of farms in each state that use pesticides. For example, nearl y 80 percent of farms with sales between $100,000 and $1 million per year used pesticides in 2007. We therefore estimate that nearl y 80 percent of farms in that sales class in every state used pesticides in 2012. In the case of Alabama, this means that we estimate that, out of 3,445 farms with sales between $ 100,000 and $1 million, 2,753 will use pesticides. Following this procedure with other size classes of farms gives us an estimated 16,630 farms using pesticides. Those in the $100,000 and $1 million sales class account for 16.6 percent of those farms and , we estimate, 16.6 percent of certified applicators. By

our previous assumption of half those applicators have someone under their supervision, 8.3 percent of Alabama private applicators will have someone under their supervision. Another 7.0 percent of Alabama private applicators are estimated to be on farms with more than $1 million in sales and will have someone appl yi ng RUPs under their supervision. Therefore, we estimate that the number of noncertified applicators in Alabama is 15.3 percent of the 5 ,402 certified private applicators, or 827 noncertified applicators. Table 3.3

- 10 presents estimates for all the states and jurisdictions. Finally , we estimate the number of noncertified adolescents that may apply RUPs under the direct supervision of a p rivate applicator. To estimate the number of noncertified adolescent family members who might appl y RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified private applicators, we follow a procedure similar to that of estimating adolescent certified private appl icators. In this case, we base the estimates on the number of second and third farm operators under the age of 25, as reported in the 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2014c). We again assume a nearl y normal distribution, where 0.5 percent of second and third operators under the age of 25 are 14, 0.75 percent are 15 and 16, and one percent are 17 ye ars old. To estimate the number of noncertified non

- famil y adolescents appl yi ng RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified private applicators, we rely on data from the National Agricultural Worker Survey

(DoL, 2005). According to the survey , 0.4 percent of pesticide handlers were under 16 and 1.9 percent 16 and 17 year old. We multiply these percentages by

the total number of applicators UTS in each st ate to obtain the estimates shown in Table 3.3

- 10. Finally , some states have age restrictions precluding adolescents from applyingRUPs. This is shown in Table 3.3

- 10 where there are zero adolescent noncertified applicators. The exception is Alaska, whi ch does not have a restriction but where our procedure above resulted in an estimated zero applicators younger than 16 years of age. **Table 3.3 -**  **10: Estimated Number of Noncertified Applicators**  **A pplying RUPs under Direct**  **Supervision of Private Applicators, by Jurisdiction** 

Jurisdiction Noncertified

Applicators UTS of Private Applicator Noncertified Applicators, Family Noncertified Applicators, Hired < 16 YO 16

- 17 YO < 16 YO 16

- 17 YO Alabama 827 0 0 0 027

Alaska 10 0 0.2 0 .0 0.2 Arizona 44 7.2 10.2 0.2 0.8 Arkansas 4,512 11.2 15.8 18 .0 85.7 California 4,790 12.8 18.2 19.2 91 .0 Colorado 1,029 7.3 10.3 4.1 19.6 Connecticut 56 0 0 0 0 Delaware 279 0 0 0 0 Florida 526 10 .0 14.1 2.1 10 .0 Georgia 4,040 8.2 11.6 16.2 76.8 Hawaii 35 0.7 1.1 0.1 0.7 Id aho 801 6.3 8.9 3.2 15.2 Illinois 5,007 11.6 16.3 20 .0 95.1 Indiana 3,105 16.6 23.3 12.4 59 .0 Io wa 0 0 0 0 0 Kansas 3,367 10.3 14.5 13.5 64 .0 Kentucky 1,083 17.1 24 .0 4.3 20.6 Louisiana 1,226 5 .0 7 .0 4.9 23.3 Maine 128 1.6 2.4 0.5 2.4 Maryland 750 3.8 5.4 3 .0 14.3 Massachusetts 124 2.3 3.4 0.5 2.4 Michigan 1,446 12.7 18 .0 5.8 27.5 Minnesota 0 0 0 0 0 Mississippi 1,729 6.5 9.3 6.9 32.9 Missouri 2,680 22 .0 30.9 10.7 50.9 Montana 1,484 4.7 6.7 5.9 28.2 Nebraska 7,685 0 12.6 0 146 .0 Nevada 56 1 .0 1.4 0.2 1.1 New Hampshire 36 1.5 2.3 0.1 0.7 New Jersey 238 0 0 0 0 New Mexico 253 5.5 7.8 1 .0 4.8 New York 1,389 11.1 15.6 5.6 26.4 North Carolina 3,685 9.8 13.8 14.7 70 .0 North Dakota 4,043 5.1 7.3 16.2 76.8 Ohio 3,028 23.7 33.3 12.1 57.5 Oklahoma 1,437 17.5 24.7 5.7 27.3 Oregon 669 8 .0 11.4 2.7 12.7 Pennsylvania 3,451 24 .0 33.8 13.8 65.6 Rhode I sland 17 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.3 South Carolina 783 5 .0 7 .0 3.1 14.9 South Dakota 0 0 0 0 0 Tennessee 865 15.3 21.7 3.5 16.4 Texas 3,846 42 .0 58.9 15.4 73.1 Utah 178 4.8 6.8 0.7 3.4 Vermont 89 0 2.3 0 1.7 Virginia 668 10.5 14.7 2.7 12.728

Washington 2,733 7.1 10.1 10.9 51.9 West Virginia 69 5 .0 7.1 0.3 1.3 Wisconsin 3,045 18.8 26.6 12.2 57.9 Wyoming 964 2 .0 3 .0 3.9 18.3 Puerto Rico 3,324 1.0 1.4 13.3 63.2 Other Jurisdictions 49 6.0 8.6 0.2 0.9 **U.S. 81,678**  **403.1 584.5**  **289.9 1,525.5**  S ource: EPA estimation.


### 3.3.5 Wage Rates Wage rates are used to estimate unit costs for the baseline and potential requirements. The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Occupational Employ ment Statistics (OES) data series for national industry

- specific occupational employ ment and wage estimates are used to determine hourly wage rates of affected actors. Wages vary by jurisdiction, but EPA used the natio nal average wage rates. This would result in the over (under)

- estimation of impacts for the low (high) wage jurisdictions. However, the differences in wages across jurisdictions should largel y cancel out at the national level. Costs of obtaining data fo r all categories of wages by jurisdiction and incorporating them into the impact analysis would have been extremely high. Finally , it would not have been consistent with how the paperwork burden is calculated for the ICRs, which is done at a national leve l. Wage rates of commercial applicators For commercial applicators 18 years and over, we obtain unloaded mean wage rate ($14.82) for Pesticide Handlers & Applicators ( Standard Occupational Code 37

- 3012 ) from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor S tatistics (BL S, 2013 a). Commercial applicators are paid benefits that amount to 45% of the unloaded wage rate (BLS , 2013b), which is added to the unloaded wage rate to obtain the loaded wage rate of $21.49. We assume that commercial applicators aged 16 or 17 years are paid the loaded wage rate that is 75% of the loaded wage rate for commercial applicators 18 years an d over. That is, the loaded wage rate for commercial applicators aged 16 or 17 is $16.12. Wage rates of private applicators The unloaded hourl y wage rate for private applicators is from the BLS employ ment category

11

- 9013 (Farmers and Ranchers), which has a wage rate of $35.83. Private applicators are paid benefits that amount to 45% of the unloaded wage rate (BLS , 2013b), which is added to the unloaded wage rate to obtain the loaded wage rate of $51.96. In addition to the age groups used for comm ercial applicators, we include a third age group of private applicators

— those who are under the age of 16. We assume that all operators are over the age of 18, while hired applicators can be in any of the three age groups. We also assume that underage private applicators under 16 years old are paid a wage that is 50% of the operator wage29

rate, and that private applicators aged 16 or 17 years old are paid a wage 60% of the operator wage rate. Thus, private applicators under 16 ye ars old are paid the loaded wage rate of $25.98 and private applicators aged 16 or 17 ye ars old are paid the loaded wage rate of $31.18. Wage rates of noncertified commercial applicators that apply RUPs under the direct supervision of certified applicators The loaded wage rate f

or all noncertified commercial applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of certified applicators is based on the national mean unloaded hourly wage rate of $12.65 for the emplo ym ent category 37

- 3011 (Landscaping and Groundskeeping Workers) , a s reported in the OES data series for May 2013. Commercial noncertified applicators are paid benefits that amount to 45% of the unloaded wage rate (BLS , 2013b), which is added to the unloaded wage rate to obtain the loaded wage rate of $18.34. We assume that there are no noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of certified applicators under age 16. Noncertified commercial applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of certified applicators aged 16 or 17 ye ars old ar e assumed to earn 75% of the adult wage rate or $13.76. Wage rates of noncertified private applicators that apply RUPs under the direct supervision of certified applicators For noncertified private applicators appl yi ng RUPs under the direct supervision of certified applicators, we have identified the same three age groups as those for private applicators. For noncertified private applicators 18 ye ars and over, we obtain unloaded mean wage rate ($14.82) for Pesticide Handlers & Applicators ( Standard Occupational Code 37

- 3012 ) from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BL S, 201 4d), to which is added 45% in benefits to obtain the loaded wage rate of $21.49. EPA assumes that wage rates for private applicators under age 16 and 16

- 17 years - o ld are, respectivel y, 50% and 60% of the average wage rate for a noncertified private applicator applyingRUPs under the direct supervision of certified applicator. Assuming that private applicators are paid benefits that amount to 45% of the total remuneration, we calculate average loaded wage rate for noncertified private applicators under age 16 to be $10.75 and for those aged 16 or 17 to be $12.89. The loaded average overall wage rates for each age group and labor category appear in Table 3.3

- 11.30

**Tab le 3.3**  **- 11:**  **Applicator Loaded Average Hourly Wage Rates, by Age Group** Labor Category Under age 16 Age 16 to 17 18 years or older Commercial applicators Certified No commercial applicators in this age group $16.12 $21.49 Noncertified applying RUPs under the direct supervision $13.76 $18.34 Private applicators Certified $25.98 $31.18 $51.96 Noncertified applying RUPs under the direct supervision $10.75 $12.89 $21.49 Source: Based on wage rate information from "May 2013 National Industry

- Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates" provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics (BLS 2014d). Wage rates for state costs Wage rates for state implementation costs are organized into three groups: Senior Technical, Junior Technical, and Clerical. Unloaded wage rates for these three groups are obtained from BL S (BL S, 2014c) for 11

- 0000, Management Occupations ; 19

- 0000, Life, Phy sical, and Social Science Occupations ; and 43

- 0000, Office and Administrative Support Occupations , respectivel y. We then load the unloaded wage rates with benefit rate of 45% to obtain loaded wages. Table 3.3

- 12 presents the wage rates for each group of state costs. **Table 3.3 -**  **12: Wage Rates for State Costs**  Senior Technical Junior Technical Clerical Unloaded Wage Rate ($/hr) 39.78 27.20 18.76 Benefits Factor 1.45 1.45 1.45 Loaded Wage Rates ($/hr) 57.69 39.44 27.21 Source: Unloaded wage rates and benefits factors are obtained from BLS Employer Costs for Employee Compensation

- May

2013 (BLS, 2014c)). 

### 3.4 **Results of the Cost Analysis** This section provides EPA’s cost estimate for each potential requirement that was considered for inclusion in the proposed revisions to 40 CFR Part 171. The estimated cost of each potential requirement i s provided at the national level. The annualized costs of Step 6 (see the 6

- step methodology

above) are presented in this section. Additional details on the calculation method, data, and cost results are provided in Appendix A. In the information given below, and in Appendix A, EPA gives cost estimates by affected group. These groups include pesticide applicators who are certified and private, commercial, and state employees who do not have certification. These applicators are e ither employed b y, or the owners of farms, commercial pest control firms, railroads, state governments, and a plethora of other private, commercial, and public entities that apply restricted use pesticides. Pesticide31

dealers and registrants are also impac ted b y the potential requirements. State governments are required b y many of the potential requirements to implement the changes by changing state regulations and state plans and to carry out many of the activities under the potential requirements includin g training, administering exams, and development of training and examination materials. A summary , including cost, of each potential requirement is given by category below. We provide a brief summary

of the cost of each potential requirement in tabular f orm by affected entity . The data presented in these tables are the present value of the cost over the ten

- ye ar time horizon and provide national level costs considering the jurisdiction baselines (NC B ) and national level costs for the potential requirements (NC P ). This is followed by the national level incremental costs (NIC) from the national level cost for the potential requirement to the current national level cost of the jurisdiction baseline. Tables are followed b y a brief description of the costs o f the potential requirements. A description of estimation method and data are also given when the presentation of this information is helpful for the reader to understand the cost results. Industry and state cost are presented together for each potenti al requirement. Cost results follow a similar grouping as they do in the preamble of the rule. The sections are enhancement of private applicator competency standards and addition of private applicator categories, additional concurrent certification categ ories for commercial applicators, predator control category for commercial and private applicator certification, examination and alternate certification method security standards for commercial and private applicators, standards for supervision of noncerti fied applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of certified applicators, levels of supervision, and provisions for commercial applicator recordkeeping of applicator training for noncertified applicators appl yi ng RUPs under the direct supervisi on of certified applicators, age requirements for certified applicators and noncertified applicators appl yi ng RUPs under the direct supervision of certified applicators, standards for recertification of certified applicators, requirements for submission, a pproval and maintenance of state certification plans, and federal agency certification plans; tribal certification plans; and EPA

administered federal certification plans. Affected entities will have two years to become compliant with the potential regulatory requirements. As a result, most costs for the current and potential regulatory requirements start in Year 3 of the anal ys is. Costs incurred before Year 3 include state costs to rewrite regulations and develop training programs and examination materi als. Some potential regulatory requirements provide options for compliance to the implementing jurisdiction. For instance, a potential requirement may call for first

- time private applicators to pass a written exam or complete a 12

- hour training course for initial certification. To estimate the unit cost of the potential regulatory requirement, we calculate the cost for an actor to comply with the more expensive option (e.g., a 12

- hour training course is more costly than a written exam). However, EPA a ssumes that some regions will choose the less expensive option under the potential regulatory

requirement. For example, we assume that regions currentl y offering an exam for initial certification of private applicators will continue to offer an exam. Hen ce, we calculate these regions’ unit costs of the regional baseline in the context of their compliance with the less expensive option.32



### 3.4.1 Enhancement of Private Applicator General Competency Standards The potential requirements in this category would enhance private applicator core competency standards and certification requirements to more clearl y reflect the knowledge and skills needed by private applicators to apply restricted use pesticides safel y and effectively . However, EPA believes the current requirements for commercial applicator general competency are adequate and thus they

are not revised. Table 3.4

- 1 below presents national

- level Baseline, Total, and Incremental industry costs for each potential requirement. The table is followed by a brief description of the costs of the potential requirements. **Table 3.4 -**  **1: Annualized Costs of Enhancing Private Applicator General Competency Standards**  **1**

Potential Regulation Ty pe of Cost National Cost of Potential Regulatory Requirement (NC P ) ($000) National Cost of

Baseline (NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000) Certification of Private Applicators
Exam or 8

- hour training for private certification Industry costs (Private Cert

01) 19,051 17,072 1,979 State costs: develop exam or training (Private Cert

- 01) 3 0 3 State costs: administer exam or training (Private Cert

- 01) 75 40 35

Exam or 12

- hour training for private certification Industry costs (Private Cert

02) 20,752 17,072 3,681 State costs: develop exam or training (Private Cert

- 02) 4 0 4 State costs: administer exam or training (Private Cert

- 02) 101 40 61

Exam or 16

- hour training for private certification Industry costs

(Private Cert

- 03) 26,038 17,072 8,966 State costs: develop exam or training (Private Cert

- 03) 20 0 20 State costs: administer exam or training (Private Cert

- 03) 127 40 86 1. Costs are presented in terms of present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. Certification of Private Applicators (Private Cert

- 01,

- 02, and

- 03) The potential requirements include different training and examination options for persons seeking initial certification as private applicators. The EPA’s proposal, Private Cert

- 02, would require a written exam or completion of a 12 hour training course. Industry incremental costs are $3.7 million for the 12 hour training.33

The potential requirement Private Cert

- 01 would require a written exam or completion of an 8 hour training course for initial private certification. The national incremental cost for the industry is $2.0 million annually

. The potential requirement Private Cert

- 03 would require a written exam or completion of a 16 hour training course, with industry incremental costs of $9.0 million. These are high cost requirements, but many state s have similar requirements and are in compliance as high baseline costs indicate. For the EPA’s proposal (Private Cert

- 02), state costs are $4 thousand for developing the exam or the trainings and $61 thousand to administer the exam or 12

- hour training. For Private Cert

- 01, state costs are $3 thousand for developing the exam or the trainings and $35 thousand to administer the exam or 8

- hour training. For Private Cert

- 03, state costs are $20 thousand for developing the exam or the trainings and $86 thous and to administer the exam or 16

- hour training. States can choose between requiring certification training for the specified time period or a written certification exam for each of the potential requirements. 

### 3.4.2 Application Method

- Specific Categories **3.4.2.1 Establish Additional Concurrent Certification Categories for Commercial Applicators**  The potential requirements would establish additional, concurrent certification categories for commercial applicators using restricted use pesticides in fumigati on (including soil and non

- soil fumigation), chemigation, aerial application, and demonstration and research such as university projects. Potential requirements address the elevated risks associated with certain application methods and promote consistency in protections across jurisdictions. The potential requirements propose the following commercial certification categories: aerial, chemigation, fumigation, and predator control. Table 3.4

- 3 presents the number of commercial applicators in each of these groups within the proposed certification categories at the national level. See Chapter 3.3.1, Tables 3.3

- 3 and 3.3

- 4 for state

- level estimates.34

**Table 3.4 -**  **3: Commercial Applicator Numbers by Potential Category Region**  **First -**  **tim e**  **Certifications Existing** 

**Certifications Total** 

**Certifications** Commercial Applicator Certifications in the Proposed Aerial Category 1,074 8,950 10,023 Commercial Applicator Certifications in the Proposed Chemigation Category 57 817 875 Commercial Applicator Certifications in the Proposed General Fumigation Category 2,263 26,718 28,981 Commercial Applicator Certifications in the Proposed Non

- Soil Fumigation Category 1,803 26,718 28,521 Commercial Applicator Certifications in the Proposed Soil Fumigation Category 459 22,543 23,002 Source: CPARD 201 4 and EPA estimations. The establishment of additional concurrent certification categories for commercial applicators would impose costs on individuals or employers of individuals who apply restricted use pesticides using methods included in the new concurrent certification categories. Jurisdictions administering certification programs are also affected by these potential requirements. The cost of establishing additional concurrent certification categories for commercial applicato rs would be significant for both applicators and jurisdictions. Table 3.4

- 4 below presents national

- level baseline, total, and incremental industry costs for each potential requirement. The table is followed b y a brief description of the costs of the p otential requirements.
**Table 3.4 -**  **4: Annualized Costs for Establishing Additional Concurrent Certification Categories for Commercial Applicators**  **1**

Potential Regulation Ty pe of Cost National Cost of

Potential Regulatory Requirement (NC P ) ($000) National Cost of

Regional Baseline (NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000)

Add commercial aerial category Industry costs (Comm Cert

- 01) 215 117 98 State costs: administer exam (Comm Cert

- 01) 1 0.5 0.5 State costs: develop exam (Comm Cert

- 01) 9 0 9

Add commercial chemigation category Industry costs (Comm Cert

- 02) 18 1 16
State costs: administer exam (Comm Cert

- 02) 0.10 0.01 0.09 State costs: develop exam (Comm Cert

- 02) 43 0 4335

Add commercial general fumigation category Industry costs (Comm Cert

- 03) 659 0 659 State costs: administer exam (Comm Cert

- 03) 3.6 0.1 3.5 State costs: develop exam (Comm Cert

- 03) 53 0 53

Add commercial non

soil fumigation categories Industry costs (Comm Cert

- 04) 368 236 131 State costs: administer exam (Comm Cert

- 04) 1.7 0.6 1.1 State costs: develop exam (Comm Cert

- 04) 7 0 7
1 Costs are presented in terms of present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years

. Establishing Additional Concurrent Certification Categories for Commercial Applicators (Comm Cert

- 01 , - 02,

- 03, and

- 04) Potential requirements would require that commercial applicators who intend to apply aeriall y, by chemigation, or through fumigation must be certified in a specific commercial category by passing a written exam. Potential requirements would also include commercial soil and non

- soil fumigation categories. Commercial applicators who want to certify in the aerial category would also need to be certified in either agricultural plant pest control; forest pest control; ornamental and turf pest control; aquatic pest control; right

- of

- way pest control; industrial, institutional, structural and health related pest control; or public health pest control. Under this potential requirement, existing aerial applicators would be required to take a 30

- minute aerial category exam, while first

- time aerial applicators would take a one

- hour core exam as well as two 30

- minute category exams. The Annual National Incremental Costs (ANIC) for commercial applicators obtaining aerial certification are estimated to be $9 7 thousand ( Comm Cert

- 01), while state costs to develop the exams are estimated at $8 thousand (Table 3.4

- 4). Commercial applicators who want to certify in the chemigation category would also have to be certified in either agricultural plant pest control; or ornamental and turf pest control categories to qualify for the chemigation category . Under the potential requirement, existing chemigation applicators would be required to take a 30

- minute chemigation category exam. First

- time chemigation applicators would take a one

- hour core exam as well as two 30

- minute category exams. The ANI C for commercial applicators obtaining chemigation certification are estimated to be $16 thousand ( Comm Cert

- 02), while state costs to develop the exams are estimated at $43 thousand. Commercial applicators in the fumigation category would also have to be certified in either agricultural plant pest control; ornamental and turf pest control; industrial, institutional, structural and health related pest control; regulatory pest control; or demonstration and resear ch pest control categories. Under this potential requirement, existing fumigation applicators would36

be required to take a 30

- minute fumigation category exam while first

- time fumigation applicators would take a one

- hour core exam as well as two 30

- minute c ategory exams. Commercial applicators in the soil fumigation category would also have to be certified in either agricultural plant pest control; ornamental and turf pest control; regulatory pest control; or demonstration and research pest control categori es to qualify . However, as the soil fumigators must comply with the label requirements now and under the potential requirement, the incremental cost for this potential requirement is zero, and not listed in the table. Commercial applicators in the non

- so il fumigation category would also have to be certified in either agricultural plant pest control; industrial, institutional, structural and health related pest control; regulatory pest control; or demonstration and research pest control to qualify. Under the potential regulatory requirements, affected actors would obtain certification in soil fumigation, non

- soil fumigation, or general fumigation. Commercial applicator incremental costs of obtaining non

- soil fumigation certifications ( Comm Cert

- 04) are estimated to be $131 thousand for commercial applicators employed b y industry

. State incremental costs to develop non

- soil fumigation certification exams are estimated at $7 thousand. Finally , commercial applicator incremental costs of obtaining general fumigation certifications ( Comm Cert

- 03) are estimated to be $ 659 thousand, which is the largest of all new certification categories. This is because all jurisdictions, except three states, do not currently have the category , and thus w ould be fully imp acted by

the proposal if it becomes regulation. In addition to the costs described above, these potential requirements would also entail relativel y small state costs of administering certification exams (Table 3.4

- 4).
**3.4.2.2 New Certification Catego**  **ries for Private Applicator** To address the elevated risks associated with certain application methods and to promote consistency

in protections across states, the potential requirements would establish certification categories for private applicators using restricted use pesticides by aerial application, chemigation, or fumigation (including soil and non

- soil fumigation). Potential requirements would no longer allow for the certification of applicators who are non

- readers. For the newl y proposed certification categories (aerial, chemigation, soil, non

- soil, and general fumigation), EPA developed estimates of the number of applicators by new category

as presented in Table 3.4

- 5 below.37

**Table 3.4 -**  **5: Private Applicator Numbers by Potential Category** Region First

- time Certifications Existing

Certifications Total

Certifications Private Applicator Certifications in the Proposed Aerial Category 8 65 73 Private Applicator Certifications in the Proposed Chemigation Category 519 7,415 7,934 Private Applicator Certifications in the Proposed General Fumigation Category 1,923 18,591 20,721 Private Applicator Certifications in the Proposed Non
- Soil Fumigation Category 325 4,061 4,386 Private Applicator Certifications in the Proposed Soil Fumigation Category 1,619 14,716 16,335 Source: CPARD 201 4 and EPA estimations

. Table 3.4

- 6 below presents national

- level annualized costs of potential requirements, baselines, and incremental costs for the affected parties. The table is followed b y a brief description of the costs of the potential requirements. **Table 3.4 -**  **6: Annual ized Costs of New Certification Categories for Private Applicators**  **1**

Potential Regulation Ty pe of Cost National Cost of Potential Regulatory Requirement (NC P ) ($000) National Cost of

Baseline (NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000) Add private aerial category and require exam or 4

- hour training for certification Industry costs

(Private Cert

- 04) 2 0 2 State costs: administer exam (Private Cert

- 04) 0.01 0 0.01 State costs: develop exam (Private Cert

- 04) 24 0 24 Add private aerial category and require exam or 8

- hour training for certification Industry costs (Private Cert

05) 5 0 5 State costs: administer exam (Private Cert

- 05) 0.01 0 0.01 State costs: develop exam (Private Cert

- 05) 24 0 24 Add private chemigation category and require exam or 4

- hour training for certification Industry costs

(PRIVAT CERT

- 06) 191 18 172 State costs: administer exam (Private Cert

- 06) 0.84 0.05 0.79 State costs: develop exam (Private Cert

- 06) 50 0 50 Add private chemigation category and require exam or 8

- hour training for certification Industry costs (Private Cert

07) 377 18 359 State costs: administer training (Private Cert

- 07) 0.84 0.05 0.79 State costs: develop exam (Private Cert

- 07) 50 0 5038

Potential Regulation Ty pe of Cost National Cost of Potential Regulatory Requirement (NC P ) ($000) National Cost of

Baseline (NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000) Add private general fumigation category and require exam or 4

- hour training for certification Industry costs (Private Cert

08) 621 0 621 State costs: administer training (Private Cert

- 08) 3 0 3 State costs: develop exam (Private Cert

- 08) 53 0 53
Add private general fumigation category and require 8

- hour training for certification Industry costs (Private Cert

09) 1,242 0 1,242
State costs: administer training (Private Cert

- 09) 3 0 3 State costs: develop exam (Private Cert

- 09) 53 0 53
Add private non

soil fumigation categories and require exam or 4

- hour training for certification Industry costs (Private Cert

10) 102 24 78
State costs: administer exam (Private Cert

- 10) 0.44 0.09 0.36 State costs: develop exam (Private Cert

- 10) 44 0 44 Add private non

soil fumigation categories and require exam or 8

- hour training for certification Industry costs (Private Cert

11) 198 24 174 State costs: administer exam (Private Cert

- 11) 0.44 0.09 0.36 State costs: develop exam (Private Cert

- 11) 44 0 44 1 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 ye ars. Category Certification of Private Applicators (Private Cert

- 04 to
- 11) Potential requirements would require that private applicators who intend to apply aeriall y, b y chemigation, or through fumigation would be certified in a specific private category by passing a written exam or completing a training course. Potential requirements also include private soil and non

- soil fumigation categories. Training requirements of 4 and 8 hours would be included for each category . Of the category certifications, the incremental costs associated with the general fumigation category certification would be the highest (between $ 621 thousand and $1. 2 million for 4 and 8 hours of training, respectivel y) as a result of the larg e number of applicators who would pursue certification. The aerial category is relativel y low cost as a result of the small number of aerial applicators who would pursue certification. (See Table 3.4

- 6 ) States would be39

able to choose between training for the specified time period or a written exam for each of the potential requirements. **3.4.3 Examination and Alternate Certification Method Security Standards for Commercial and Private Applicators**  Examination and alternate certification method security standards for commercial and private applicators aim to improve the quality and administration of pesticide applicator certification. The potential requirements would add requirements for those seeking certification or recertification to present identification at the time of the session and for examination sessions to be proctored. I dentification checks would take a few seconds of applicators’ and proctor’s time and is considered a s a part of the pro ctoring cost because the proctor would check applicators’ identification (e.g., driver’s license) as they enter the exam or training room. Administration requirements would primarily impose costs on individuals or employers of individuals seeking to bec ome certified or recertified private or commercial pesticide applicators, as well as states administering certification programs. Administration requirements would have a minimal industry

impact on a per applicator basis but, nonetheless, individuals and employers affected b y these requirements would pay an opportunity

cost for their time or their workers’ time while fulfilling the requirements. Costs of these potential requirements are presented together with the costs of the potential requirements that entail them. For example, in Table 3.4

- 6 above, jurisdictions’ costs of proctoring application method

- specific category exams for private applicator certification are presented together with the industry costs. 

### 3.4.4 Standards for Supervision of Appl icators that Apply RUPs under the Supervision of Certified Applicators, Levels of Supervision, and Provisions for Commercial Applicator Recordkeeping of Applicator Training for Applicators that are not Certified Noncertified a

pplicators using restricted use pesticides under the direct supervision of a certified applicator currentl y have minimal requirements for training or competency . They also have a high potential for exposure and may pose a risk to public health and the environment, if pesticides are misapplied. EPA evaluated several potential requirements that would change the training of the noncertified applicator that applies RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicator, clarify who can provide training to noncertified applicators that appl y RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicator, and clarify what it means to be under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. The potential requirements would impact certified applicators emplo yi ng noncertified applicato rs that apply RUPs under the direct supervision of certified applicators, pesticide registrants, and states that implement the requirements and employ noncertified applicators that apply RUPs under the direct supervision of certified applicators.40

Table 3 .4

- 7 below presents national

- level baseline, total, and incremental industry costs for each potential requirement. The table is followed b y a brief description of the costs of the potential requirements. A description of estimation method and data are als o given when the presentation of this information is helpful for the reader to understand the cost results. Costs of the potential requirements are significant, led by requirements related to direct line of sight and core competency

training requirements. 3.4.4.1 Commercial Applicators **Table 3.4 -**  **7: Costs of Standards for Supervision of Applicators that Apply RUPs under the Supervision of Certified Commercial Applicators and Establishing Levels of Supervision**  **1**

Potential Regulation Ty pe of Cost National Cost of

Potential Regulatory Requirement (NC P ) ($000) National Cost of

Regional Baseline (NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000) Com petency Qualifications for Noncertified Commercial Applicators Commercial applicators would keep records of noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision for two years Industry costs (Comm Sup

- 06) 568 244 324 Commercial applicators would keep records of noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision for five years Industry costs (Comm Sup

- 07) 835 244 591

Noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision wo uld have to pass core exam Industry costs (Comm Sup

- 02) 68,920 37,109 31,811 State costs: proctor core exam (Comm Sup

- 02) 241 112 129 Noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision wo uld have to complete training, be handlers under the Worker Protection Standard, or pass core exam Industry costs (Comm Sup

- 01) 23,207 16,629 6,578 Guidance Given from Supervisors to Noncertified Commercial Applicators Clarify guidance provided to noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of certified applicators Industry costs (Comm Sup

- 03) This proposal involves EPA codifying the current practices

by jurisdictions which are in compliance with the proposal, and thus the incremental cost is zero. Communication between Supervisor and Noncertified Commercial Applicator Noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision wo uld have to be within direct line of sight of supervisor Industry costs (Comm Sup

- 04) 32,292,715 17,400,777 14,891,938 Noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision wo uld have to have method of immediate communication with supervisor Industry costs (Comm Sup

- 05) Little or no incremental cost as most certified and

noncertified applicators ow n and communicate via cell phone.41 1 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. Competency Qualifications for Applicators Applying RUPs under the Supervision of Certified C ommercial Applicators (Comm Sup

- 01,

- 02,

- 04,

- 06, and

- 07) There are four potential requirements EPA evaluated to ensure the competency qualifications for noncertified appli cators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of certified commercial applicators. The EPA’s proposal, Comm Sup

- 06, would require commercial applicators to keep records of the competency

qualifications of the people working under their direct supervi sion and to keep the records for two ye ars. The incremental cost of the requirements is estimated to be $324 thousand. The potential requirement Comm Sup

- 07 would require commercial applicators to keep records of the competency

qualifications of the people working under their direct supervision and to keep the records for five years. The incremental cost of the requirements is estimated to be $591 thousand. The EPA’s proposal (Comm Sup

- 01) related to competency qualifications for noncertified applicators who appl y RUPs under the direct supervision of commercial applicators would require the individuals working under the direct supervision of a commercial applicator to establish competenc y b y completing training as proposed in the rule, having a current designation as a handler under the Worker Protection Standard (WPS), or by passing the core exam. EPA assumes that noncertified applicators would choose to comply with the proposal by obtaining WPS handler training, which would be provided b y the potential employer (a commercial or private applicator). EPA estimates the cost of the proposal at $6.6 million. The potential requirement Comm Sup

- 02 would require that individuals working und er the direct supervision of a certified commercial applicator establish competency by passing the core exam. EPA estimates the cost of this provision to be $31.8 million. The high cost of this potential requirement is due to a large number of noncertifie d applicators that would have to pass the commercial core exam. Guidance Given from Supervisors to Applicators Applying RUPs under the Supervision of Certified Applicators (Comm Sup

- 03) The potential requirement would clarify the content of the guidance provided by commercial applicators to the noncertified applicators appl yi ng RUPs under their direct supervision regarding the pesticide application they are conducting. This would be, however, a no cost requirement as all certified applicators are already in compliance.42

Communication between Certified Commercial Applicator and Applicator Applying RUPs under their Supervision (Comm Sup

- 04 and

- 05) There are two potential requirements related to the communication between certified and noncertified appli cators. The EPA proposal, Comm Sup

- 05, would require commercial applicators and individuals working under their direct supervision to have a method for immediate communication during use of an RUP b y a noncertified applicator under the direct supervisio n of a certified applicator. Based on the EPA’s poll (EPA, 2014b) of five states, EPA assumes that in all jurisdictions most supervisors and noncertified applicators appl yi ng RUPs under their supervision own and communicate via cell phone. Thus, EPA assumes that cost of the potential requirement to industry would be negligible or zero. The potential requirement Comm Sup

- 04 would require certified commercial applicators and individuals working under their direct supervision to be within each other’s direct line of sight. EPA estimates industry

costs of this potential requirement at $ 15 b illion. Under this potential requirement, EPA assumed commercial applicators would generall y prefer to replace noncertified applicators in their employ ment with certifi ed applicators to comply with the potential requirement, and the wage difference between certified and noncertified applicators would represent the cost of this potential requirement. EPA assumed that the industry would replace one

- third of noncertified a pplicators in their employ ment with certified applicators under this potential requirement

. This potential requirement is costly , due to the large number of full time noncertified applicators that need to be replaced with certified applicators, as only three states are currently

in compliance with this potential requirement. 3.4.4.2 Private Applicators **Table 3.4 -**  **8: Costs of Standards for Supervision of Applicators that Apply RUPs under the Supervision of Certified Private Applicators and Establishin**  **g Levels of Supervision 1** 

Potential Regulation Ty pe of Cost National Cost of

Potential Regulatory Requirement (NC P ) ($000) National Cost of

Regional Baseline (NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000) Com petency Qualifications for Noncertified Private Applicators Noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision would have to complete training or be handlers under the Worker Protection Standard Industry costs (Private Sup

- 01) 1,867 1,228 639 Noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision would have to complete training, be handlers under the Worker Protection Standard, or pass core exam Industry costs (Private Sup

- 02) 1,867 1,228 639 Guidance Given from Supervisors to Noncertified Private Applicators Clarify guidance provided to noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of certified Industry costs (Private This proposal involves EPA codifying the current

practices by jurisdictions which are in com pliance with the proposal, and thus the incremental cost is zero.43

Potential Regulation Ty pe of Cost National Cost of

Potential Regulatory Requirement (NC P ) ($000) National Cost of

Regional Baseline (NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000) private applicators. Sup

- 03)

Communication between Supervisor and Noncertified Private Applicator Noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision would have to be within direct line of sight of supervisor Industry costs (Private Sup

- 04) 188,147 108,229 79,918 Noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision would have to have method of immediate communication with supervisors Industry costs (Private Sup

- 05) Little or no incremental cost as most certified and

noncertified applicators ow n and communicate via cell phone. 1 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. Competency Qualifications for Applicators Applying RUPs under the Supervision of Certified Private Applicator (Private Sup

- 01and

- 02) There are two potential competency qualification requirements for n oncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified private applicator. The EPA’s proposal, Private Sup

- 02, would require the individuals working under the direct supervision of a private applicator to establish competency by completing training specified in the rule, having a current designation as a handler under the Worker Protection Standard, or by passing the core exam. EPA estimates that this requirement would cost $639 thousand. The potential requirement Private Sup

- 01 would require the individuals working under the direct supervision of a certified private applicato r to establish competency by completing training specified in the rule or by having a current designation as a handler under the Worker Protection Standard. A cost estimate equal to the EPA proposal (Private Sup

- 02) would result from this potential requirement because EPA assumed that under the both potential requirements, noncertified applicators would choose to comply by taking whichever training was less costly , which in most cases would be to take the Worker Protection Standard handler training, and EP A estimated that cost. Guidance Given from Supervisors to Applicators Applying RUPs under the Supervision of a Certified Applicator (Private Sup

- 03) The potential requirement clarifies the content of the guidance provided b y certified applicators to the n oncertified applicators without certification under their direct supervision regarding the pesticide application they are conducting. This is, however, a no cost requirement as all certified applicators are already in compliance as applicators are already doing this.44

Communication between Supervisor and Applicators Applying RUPs under the Supervision of a Private Applicator (Private Sup

- 04 and

- 05) There are two potential requirements related to the communication between certified applicators and those w orking under their direct supervision. The EPA proposal Private Sup

- 05 would require certified applicators and individuals working under their direct supervision to have a method for immediate communication during use of an RUP by the applicators. Base d on the EPA’s poll (EPA, 2014b) of five states, EPA assumes that in all jurisdictions most supervisors and noncertified applicators applying RUPs under their supervision own and communicate via cell phone. Thus, EPA assumes that cost of the proposal to i ndustry

would be negligible or zero. The potential requirement Private Sup

- 04 would require certified applicators and individuals working under their direct supervision to be within each other’s direct line of sight. EPA estimates the incremental cost of this potential requirement at $80 million. Under this potential requirement, EPA assumed private applicators would generall y prefer to replace noncertified applicators in their employ ment with certified applicators to comply with the potential requirement, and the wage difference between certified and noncertified applicators would represent the cost of this potential requirement. This potential requirement is costly , due to the large number of noncertified applicators that need to be replaced with certi fied applicators, as only three states are currently in compliance with this potential requirement. 

### 3.4.5 Age Requirements for Certified Applicators and Applicators Applying RUPs under the Supervision of Certified Applicators Minimum age requirements for certified applicators aim to improve the safety of application of restricted use pesticides. There are currently no federal age requirements for certified applicators. This economic anal ys is evaluates two EPA proposals and two alternatives for commercial and private applicators: The EPA proposals would require commercial and private applicators to be 18 years old and the alternatives would require commercial and private applicators to be 16 years old. EPA also considered a potential requirement that would require private applicators to be 18 ye ars old, but would allow for private applicators 16 years and older to work on a farm owned by an immediate famil y member. The potential age requirements for n oncertified applicators appl yi ng RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicator are the same as those for certified applicators, a minimum age of 16 or 18 for n oncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicator, and for the same reasons. EPA also c onsidered a potential requirement that would require a minimum age of 18 ye ars for n oncertified applicators that apply RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicator, but would allow for noncertified applicators 16 ye ars and older to work on a farm owned b y an immediate family member. The cost of the potential requirements may be significant and would be borne primaril y b y employers, who will have to pay higher wages to older employees and in some cases switch to employing a commercial appli cator instead of a private applicator to apply RUPs. It should be45

noted that under EPA’s proposal currently certified applicators who are younger than 18 would be able to maintain their certification, but adolescents would not be allowed to obtain a certi fication unless they

are of age. To the extent that adolescents would be prevented from obtaining a certification, they may be paid for lower wage jobs, rather than applying RUPs. These costs would be hidden, because they are borne by

adolescents who would have become certified, rather than those who are already certified. The potential requirements would not allow for current n oncertified applicators appl yi ng RUPs under the direct supervision of certified applicators under the age of 18 to continue to a pply RUPs. Table 3.4

- 9 below presents national

- level baseline, total and incremental industry costs for each potential requirement. The table is followed b y a brief description of the costs of the potential requirements. A description of estimation metho d and data are also given when the presentation of this information is helpful for the reader to understand the cost results. 3.4.5.1 Commercial Applicators **Table 3.4 -**  **9: Costs of Minimum Age Requirements for Certified Commercial Applicators 1** 

Potential Re gulation Ty pe of Cost National Cost of Potential

Regulatory Requirement (NC P ) ($000) National Cost of

Regional Baseline (NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000) Commercial Applicators Minimum age requirement of 16 Industry costs (Comm Age

- 01) 1,178 1,178 0 Minimum age requirement of 18 Industry costs (Comm Age

- 02) 1,472 1,178 294 1 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. Minimum Age for Commercial Applicators (Comm Age

- 01and

- 02) There are two potential requirements that pose minimum age requirements for commercial applicators: all commercial applicators would either have to be at least 16 years old or 18 ye ars old. The EPA’s proposal (Comm Age

- 02) would require all commercial appli cators to be at least 18 ye ars old. EPA assumes that there are no commercial applicators that are less than 16 years of age and that existing applicators under 18 ye ars of age would be “grandfathered in” and would not be affected b y this requirement. Bas ed on these assumptions, those affected b y the minimum age requirement of 18 would be potential first time commercial applicators aged 16 or 17 ye ars who would no longer be eligible to become certified. As a result, under the proposal, these underage appl icators would be replaced with commercial applicators aged 18 years or older. EPA estimates that the loaded average wage rate for commercial applicators aged 18 and older is $21.49 while the loaded wage rate for commercial applicators aged 16 and 17 is $1 6.12. EPA further assumes that the average commercial applicator under the age of 18 years old works 16 weeks and 40 hours per week for a total of 640 hours per ye ar. This is based on the fact that the ty pical 16 and 17 year old will also be a full time student. EPA assumes that 16 and 17 year old commercial applicators apply pesticides for the entire 640 hours and that they appl y RUPs 70% (448 hours per ye ar) of the time that they are applyingpesticides (EPA. 2014d). EPA believes46

that the assumptions made here are conservative and overestimate the impact of the proposal. Based on the difference in employ ment costs of n oncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of certified applicators younger than 18 and those who are 18 and ol der, EPA estimates industry

costs of the proposal to be $294 thousand. EPA assumes that there are no commercial applicators under the age of 16 years, so the potential requirement (Comm Age

- 01) that imposes a minimum age requirement of 16 for commercial a pplicators would be a no cost requirement. 3.4.5.2 Private Applicators **Table 3.4 -**  **10 : Costs of Minimum Age Requirements for Certified**  **Private Applicators**  **1**

Potential Regulation Ty pe of Cost National Cost of Potential

Regulatory Requirement (NC P ) ($000) National Cost of

Regional Baseline (NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000) Private Applicators Minimum age requirement of 16 Industry costs

(Private Age

- 01) 416 355 61 Minimum age requirement of 18 Industry costs

(Private Age

- 02) 529 355 174 Minimum age requirement of 18; 16 for family members Industry costs

(Private Age

- 03) 423 355 68
1 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. Minimum Age for Private Applicators (Private Age

- 01,

- 02, and

- 03) There are three potential requirements that pose minimum age requirements for private applicators: all private applicators would have to be at least 16 years old (Private Age

- 01), all private applicators would have to be at least 18 years old (Pri vate Age

- 02), or all private applicators would have to be at least 18 ye ars old except persons working solely on a farm owned b y a family member may be 16 or 17 years old (Private Age

- 03). EPA assumes that all private applicators under 18 are summer emplo ye es working 16 weeks per year at 40 hours per week for a total of 640 hours. EPA also assumes that private applicators make 20 applications per year at 4 hours per application (a total of 80 hours) and that 70%, or 56 hours, are spent making applications of RUPs (EPA Proprietary Data, 2014). The EPA’s proposal, Private Age

- 02, related to private applicator minimum age requirement would require that all private applicators to be at least 18 years old. EPA assumes that private applicators can currentl y be as young as 14 ye ars old. Existing private applicators under age 18 would be grandfathered in and may continue to work as certified applicators. Hence, under the potential regulatory

requirement, first

- time private applicators aged 14, 15, 16, or 17 years would be replaced with private applicators aged 18 years or older. The loaded average wage rate for private applicators over the age of 18 ye ars is $51.96 per hour while the loaded average wage rate for private applicators under the age of 18 ye ars is $25.98 to $31.18. Based on the47

difference in emplo ym ent costs of private applicators younger than 18 and those who are 18 and older, EPA estimates industry costs of the potential requirement would be $ 174 thousand. The potential requirement Private Age

- 01 related to private applicator age requirement would require that all private applicators be at least 16 years old. EPA assumes that private applicators can be as young as 14 years old. Existing private applicators under the age of 16 years would be
“ grandfathered in” and allowed to continue to work as private applicators. EPA further assumes that 16

- and 17

- ye ar old private applicators would not available to replace the first

- time 14

- and 15

- ye ar old private appli cators. Hence, under the potential regulatory requirement, first

- time private applicators aged 14 or 15 years would be replaced with hired private applicators aged 18 ye ars or older. The loaded average hourl y wage rate for hired private applicators over the age of 18 years is $51.96, while the loaded average hourly wage rate for hired private applicators under 18 years is $ 25
. 98 for 14 and 15 year olds and $31.18 for 16 and 17 year olds. Based on the difference in emplo ym ent costs of private applicators younger than 16 and those who are 16 and older, EPA estimates industry costs of the potential requirement would be $ 61 thousand. The potential requirement Private Age

- 03 related to private applicator age requirement would require private applicators who are family members to be at least 16 years old and those who are not family

members to be at least 18 ye ars old. EPA assumes that private applicators can be as yo ung as 14 ye ars old, and that existing private applicators under the age of 18 years would be grandfathered in and may continue to work as private applicators. Under the potential regulatory requirement, all first

- time private applicators aged 14 or 15 years and first

- time private applicators aged 16 or 17 years who are not family members would b e replaced with private applicators aged 18 years or older. First

- time private applicators aged 16 or 17 years who are family members would continue to apply restricted

- use pesticides. The loaded average wage rate for private applicators over the age of 18 is $51.96 per hour, the rate for those who are 16 or 17 ye ars old is $31.18 per hour, and the rate for those who are 14 and 15 is $25.98 per hour. Based on the difference in employ ment costs of private applicators younger than 16, 16 and 17 years old, and 18, and applicators older than 18 ye ars old, EPA estimates industry costs of the potential requirement would be $ 68 thousand. 3.4.5.3 Under The S upervision Applicators a. Commercial under The S upervision Applicators **Table 3.4 -**  **11: Costs of Minimum Ag e Requirements for Noncertified Applicators Applying**  **RUPs under the Supervision of Commercial Applicators 1** 

Potential Regulation Ty pe of Cost National Cost of

Potential Regulatory Requirement (NC P ) ($000) National Cost of

Regional Baseline (NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000) Noncertified Applicators Minimum age requirement of 16 Industry costs

(Comm Age

- 03) 0 0 0 Minimum age requirement of 18 Industry costs

(Comm Age

- 04) 62,249 49,461 12,789 1 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years.48

Minimum Age of Applicators Applying RUPs under the Supervision of Certified Applicators (Comm Age

- 03 and

- 04) There are two potential requirements that would pose minimum age requirements for n onc ertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of c ommercial applicators: all n oncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of commercial applicators must be at least 16 years old (Comm Age

- 03) , and all n oncertified a pplicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of commercial applicators must be at least 18 years old (Comm Age

- 04)

. The EPA’s proposal (Comm Age

- 04) would require all n oncertified applicators appl yi ng RUPs under the direct supervision of c ommercial applicators to be at least 18 years old. Under the potential requirement, all n oncertified applicators (first

- time and existing) , who are under the direct supervision of a commercial applicator and are under the age of 18 years would be replaced by

first

- time n oncertified applicators under the direct supervision of a commercial applicator aged 18 years or older. EPA further assumes that the average n oncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of commercial applicators under the age of 18 ye ars old works 16 weeks and 40 hours per week for a total of 640 hours per ye ar. This is based on the fact that the ty

pical 16 and 17 year old will also be a full time student. EPA assumes that 16 and 17 year old n oncertified applicators appl yi ng RUPs under the direct supervision of commercial applicators appl y pesticides for the entire 640 hours and, that they appl y RUPs 5 0% ( 320 hours per year) of the time that they are applying pesticides ( EPA Proprietary Data, 2014 ). The loaded averag e wage rate for n oncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of commercial applicators over the age of 18 years is $18.34 per hour and $13.76 per hour for noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of commerc ial applicators under the age of 18. Based on the difference in employ ment costs of n oncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of commercial applicators younger than 18 and those who are 18 and older, EPA estimates industry costs of the potential requirement would be $12.8 million. This is a large cost, due to several factors; a sizeable difference between adolescent and adult noncertified wages, a considerable number of applicators involved, and a substantial number of hours worked by adolescent noncertified applicators. EPA believes , however, that the assumptions made here are conservative and overestimate the impact of th e p roposal

. EPA assumes that there are no n oncertified applicators appl yi ng RUPs under the direct supervision of commercial applicators under the age of 16 years, so the potential requirement (Comm Age

- 03) that would impose a minimum age requirement of 16 for noncertified applicators appl yi ng RUPs under the direct supervision of commercial applicators would be a no cost requirement. b. Private Noncertified Applicators under The Direct S upervision of Certified Applicators49

**Table 3.4 -**  **1 2: Costs of Minimum Age Requirements for Noncertified Applicators Applying**  **RUPs under the Supervision of a Private Applic ators**  **1**

Potential Regulation Ty pe of Cost National Cost of

Potential Regulatory Requirement (NC P ) ($000) National Cost of

Regional Baseline (NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000) Noncertified Applicators Minimum age requirement of 16 Industry costs (Private Age

- 04) 2,023 1,940 83 Minimum age requirement of 18 Industry costs (Private Age

- 05) 3,052 1,940 1,112 Minimum age requirement of 18; 16 for family members Industry costs (Private Age

- 06) 2,575 1,940 634
1 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. Minimum Age of Noncertified Applicators Appl yi ng RUPs under the Direct Supervision of Certified Applicators (Private Age

- 04 , - 05, and

- 06) There are three potential requirements that would pose minimum age requirements for n oncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators

. The EPA’s proposal (Private Age

- 05) related to applicator age requirements would require all n oncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators to be at least 18 years old. Under this potential requirement, all n oncertified applicators appl yi ng RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators under the age of 18 (both first

- time and e xisting) are replaced b y n oncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators aged 18 years or older. EPA assumes that n oncertified applicators appl yi ng RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators under a ge apply RUPs for 56 hours per ye ar (EPA, 2014a). The loaded average hourl y wage rate for n oncertified applicators appl yi ng RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators over the age of 18 years is $21.49 while the loaded average hourly wage rate for hired n oncertified applicators applyingRUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators under 18 years is $10.75 for 14 and 15 year olds and $12.89 for 16 and 17 ye ar olds. Based on the difference in employ ment costs of private applicators younger than 18 and those who are 18 and older, EPA estimates industry costs of the potential requirement would be $1.1 million. The potential requirement Private Age

- 04 would require all n oncertified applicators appl yi ng RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators to be at least 16 years old. Under this potential requirement, EPA assumes that all n oncertified applicators appl ying RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators under the age of 16 (both first

- time and existing) would be replaced b y n oncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators aged 16 years or older. N oncertified applicators appl yi ng RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators under age 16 ye ars are assumed to appl y pesticides for 80 hours per ye ar (20 applications per year, 4 hours each on average), 70% of which is estimated to be spent appl yi ng RUPs for a total of 56 hours (EPA, 2014a and EPA Proprietary D ata, 2014)

. The loaded average hourly wage rate for n oncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators over the age of 18 years is $21.49 while the loaded average50

hourly wage rate for hired n oncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators under 18 years is $10.75 for 14 and 15 year olds and $12.89 for 16 and 17 ye ar olds. Based on the difference in employ ment costs of n oncertified applicators appl yi ng RUPs under the direct s upervision of private applicators younger than 16 and those who are 16 and older, EPA estimates industry costs of the potential requirement would be $83 thousand. The potential requirement Private Age

- 06 would require all n oncertified applicators appl yi ng RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators who are family members to be at least 16 years old and those who are not family members to be at least 18 ye ars old. EPA assumes that n oncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervi sion of private applicators under age 18 appl y pesticides for 8 0 hours per year, 70% of which is estimated to be spent applying RUPs for a total of 56 hours (EPA, 2014a and EPA Proprietary Data, 2014 ). Under this potential requirement, all 14 and 15 year- old family member n oncertified applicators appl yi ng RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators would be replaced by hired n oncertified applicators appl yi ng RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators aged 18 ye ars or older. In addition, 16 or 17 ye ar- old family member noncertified applicators that apply on family farms would not be affected b y Private Age

- 06; only the hired 16 or 17

- ye ar old noncertified applicators would be impacted b y this alternative. EPA assumes that the latter would be replaced b y n oncertified applicators aged 18 years or older. The loaded average hourl y wage rate for n oncertified applicators appl yi ng RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators over the age of 18 years is $21.49 while the lo aded average hourly wage rate for n oncertified applicators applying RUPs under the direct supervision of private applicators under 18 years is $10.75 for 14 and 15 year olds and $12.89 for 16 and 17 year olds. Based on the difference in emplo ym ent costs o f private applicators younger than 18 and those who are 18 and older, EPA estimates industry costs of the potential requirement would be $ 634 thousand. 

### 3.4.6 Standards for Recertification of Certified Applicators Standards for recertification of private and commercial applicators assure that certified applicators maintain core competencies and keep pace with the changing technology of pesticide application. They

also ensure that the general public, the environment and applicators are protected from misa

pplication and misuse. Potential requirements include maximum time requirements for recertification in the basic (core) and category certifications. Recertification requirements include trainings, exams or a combination of both and are to be determined b y the states. The potential requirements primarily impact individuals who are certified applicators and their employers. EPA considers state costs of administering recertification programs to be small as many applicators recertify

via continuing education trainings, which already have been developed b y states. Applicators obtain state

- required continuing education units (CEUs) by completing training, and states currently verify that applicators get required number of CEUs. Recertification costs for commercial and private applicators will be presented in two parts: one; costs of potential requirements for recertification of general competency and two: costs of potential requirements for recertification of new category certifications.51

3.4.6.1 Commercial Applicators a. Core Competency

Recertification Table 3.4

- 13 below presents national

- level baseline, total, and incremental costs for each potential requirement for recertification of core competency of commercial applicators. The table is followed by

a brief description of the costs of the potential requirements. A description of estimation method and data are also given when the presentation of this information is helpful for the reader to understand the cost results. **Table 3.4 -**  **13: Cost of Esta blishing Standards for Recertification of Commercial Certified**  **Applicators**

**– Core Competency**  **1**

Potential Regulation Ty pe of Cost National Cost of

Potential Regulatory Requirement (NC P ) ($000) National Cost

of Regional Baseline (NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000) Commercial Applicators
Exam or six

- hour training for commercial core competency and category recertification (every three years) Industry costs (Comm Recert
- 01) 57,948 51,447 6,500 State costs: administer recertification exam or verify recertification training (Comm Recert

01) 319 280 39

Exam for commercial core competency and category recertification (every three years) Industry costs (Comm Recert
- 02) 57,948 51,447 6,500 State costs: administer recertification exam or verify recertification training (Comm Recert

02) 319 280 39

Exam or six

- hour training for commercial core competency and category recertification (every five years) Industry costs (Comm Recert
- 04) 53,110 51,447 1,663 State costs: administer recertification exam or verify recertification training (Comm Recert

04) 292 280 11

Exam for commercial core competency and category recertification (every five years) Industry costs (Comm Recert
- 05) 53,110 51,447 1,663 State costs: administer recertification exam or verify recertification training (Comm Recert

05) 292 280 11

1 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years.52

Commercial Applicators

– Core Competency Recertification (Comm Recert

- 01,

- 02,

- 04, and 05) The potential requirements include different training and examination options for persons seeking recertification as commercial applicators. The EPA’s proposal, Comm Recert

- 01, would require recertification every 3 years by completing 6 hours of training for core competency and 6 hours of training per category , or b y passing a written exam for core and each applicable category . Its incremental cost is estimated at $6.5 million, which is much higher than the alternatives Comm Recert

- 04 and

- 05, because recertification is on a faster cycle (every 3 years). The potential requirement Comm Recert

- 02 would require recertification every 3 years by passing a written certification exam for core and all applicabl e categories. Its incremental cost is estimated at $6.5 million. The potential requirement Comm Recert

- 04 would require recertification every 5 years by completing 6 hours of training for core competency and 6 hours of training per category , or b y passing a written exam for core and each applicable category . Its incremental cost is estimated at $1.7 million. The potential requirement Comm Recert

- 05 would require recertification every 5 years by passing a written certification exam for core and all applicable categories. Its incremental cost is estimated at $1.7 million. The potential requirements Comm Recert

- 04 and

- 05 would cost the same because the only difference between them is that the latter does not have a training option and all have to take an exam, but EPA assumed that the exam would take applicators six hours on average (5 hours to prepare and 1 hour for exam taking time). Therefore, it would take the same number of hours of applicators’ time whether recertification is completed by training or exam, thus the same incremental costs. Although costs of these two potential requirements are high the baseline costs are also high

– both due to a large number of applicators recertifying

– resulting in relativel y small incremental costs of $773 thousand. The same logic applies to the pair Comm Recert

- 01 and

- 02. b. New Categories Recertification Table 3.4

- 14 below presents national

- level baseline, total, and incremental industry costs for each potential requirement for recertification of comm ercial applicators in the proposed application method

- specific categories. The table is followed by a brief description of the costs of the potential requirements. A description of estimation method and data are also given when the presentation of this in formation is helpful for the reader to understand the cost results.53

**Ta ble 3.4**  **- 14: Cost of Establishing Standards for Recertification of Commercial**  **Applicators**

**– New Categories**  **1**

Potential Regulation Ty pe of Cost National Cost of Potential Regulatory Requirement (NC P ) ($000) National Cost

of Regional Baseline (NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000) Commercial Applicators Exam or six

- hour training for commercial aerial category recertification (every three years) Industry costs (Comm Cert

- 01) 512 362 151 State costs: administer recertification exam or verify recertification training (Comm Cert

- 01) 2.39 1.55 0.84

Exam or six

- hour training for commercial aerial category recertification (every five years) Industry costs (Comm Cert

- 01) 450 362 89 State costs: administer recertification exam or verify recertification training (Comm Cert

- 01) 2.06 1.55 0.51

Exam or six

- hour training for commercial chemigation category recertification (every three years) Industry costs (Comm Cert

- 02) 28 6 21 State costs: administer recertification exam or verify recertification training (Comm Cert

- 02) 0.185 0.032 0.154

Exam or six

- hour training for commercial chemigation category recertification (every five years) Industry costs (Comm Cert

- 02) 19 6 13 State costs: administer recertification exam or verify recertification training (Comm Cert

- 02) 0.124 0.032 0.092
Exam or six

- hour training for commercial general fumigation category recertification (every three years) Industry costs (Comm Cert

- 03) 1,325 1,054 271 State costs: administer recertification exam or verify recertification training (Comm Cert

- 03) 5.9 0.0 5.9
Exam or six

- hour training for commercial general fumigation category recertification (every five years) Industry costs (Comm Cert

- 03) 1,167 1,054 113 State costs: administer recertification exam or verify recertification training (Comm Cert

- 03) 3.63.5 0.10.0 3.43.5
Exam or six

- hour training for commercial non

- soil fumigation category recertification (every three years) Industry costs (Comm Cert

- 04) 1,325 1,054 271 State costs: administer recertification exam or verify recertification training (Comm Cert

- 04) 5.9 0 5.9 Exam or six

- hour training for commercial non

- soil Industry costs (Comm Cert

- 04) 1,167 1,054 11354

Potential Regulation Ty pe of Cost National Cost of Potential Regulatory Requirement (NC P ) ($000) National Cost

of Regional Baseline (NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000) fumigation category recertification (every five years) State costs: administer recertification exam or verify recertification training (Comm Cert

- 04) 3.5 0 3.5

1 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. Commercial Applicators

– New Categories Recertification (Comm Cert

- 01 and

- 04) The potential requirements include different training and examination options for commercial applicators seeking recertification in application method

- specific categories. For each of app lication method

- specific categories (aerial, chemigation, general fumigation, and non

- soil fumigation), there are two options: the first option would require recertification every 3 years by completing 6 hours of training or b y passing a written exam; and the second option would require recertification every 5 years by

completing 6 hours of training or by passing a written exam. The recertification costs for different categories for commercial applicator are estimated to range from $13 to $151 thousand. **3.4.6.2 Private Applicators** a. General Competency

Recertification Table 3.4

- 1 5 below presents national

- level baseline, total, and incremental industry costs for each potential requirement for private applicators. The table is followed b y a brief descrip tion of the costs of the potential requirements. A description of estimation method and data are also given when the presentation of this information is helpful for the reader to understand the cost results.55

**Ta ble 3.4**  **- 15: Cost of Establishing Standards**  **for Recertification of Private Applicators**

**– General Competency**  **1**

Potential Regulation Ty pe of Cost National Cost of

Potential Regulatory Requirement (NC P ) ($000) National Cost

of Regional Baseline (NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000) Private Applicators Exam or 6

- hour training for private general competency recertification every three years Industry costs (Private Recert
- 01) 50,020 36,394 13,627 State costs: administer recertification exam (Private Recert

- 01) 516 509 7

Exam or 8

- hour training for private general competency recertification every three years Industry costs (Private Recert
- 02) 58,786 36,394 22,392
State costs: administer recertification exam (Private Recert

- 02) 516 509 7
Exam or 6

- hour training for private general competency recertification every five years Industry costs: (Private Recert
- 04) 39,943 36,394 3,549 State costs: administer recertification exam (Private Recert

- 04) 512 509 4 Exam or 8

- hour training for private general competency recertification every

five years Industry costs (Private Recert
- 05) 43,789 36,394 7,395 State costs: administer recertification exam (Private Recert

- 05) 512 509 4 1 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. Private Applicators

– General Competency Recertification (Private Recert

- 01,

- 02,

- 04, and

- 05) The potential requirements include different training and examination options for persons seeking recertification as private applicators. The EPA’s proposal, Private Recert

- 01, would require recertification of general competency every 3 years by

completing 6 hours of training or by passing a written exam. The potential requirement Private Recert

- 02 would require recertification of general competency every 3 ye ars by completing 8 hours of training or b y passing a written exam. The potential requirement Private Recert

- 04 would require recertification of general competency every 5 ye ars by completing 6 hours of training or b y passing a written exam , and the potential requirement Private Recert

- 05 would require recertification of general competency every 5 ye ars by completing 8 hours of training or by passing a written exam. Private a pplicator costs of the potential requirements would range from $ 3.5 to $ 22.4 million. Potential requirements for general competency

recertification of private applicators are generall y costly due to substantial56

per- applicator costs (6

– 8 hours per applicator) and a large number of applicators that need to recertify

. b

. Application Method

- Specific Categories Recertification Table 3.4

- 1 6 below presents national

- level baseline, total, and incremental industry costs for each potential requirement for private applicators. The table is followed b y a brief description of the costs o f the potential requirements. A description of estimation method and data are also given when the presentation of this information is helpful for the reader to understand the cost results. **Table 3.4 -**  **16: Cost of Establishing Standards for Recertification of Private Applicators** 

**– Application Method**  **- Specific Categories**  **1**

Potential Regulation Ty pe of Cost National Cost of

Potential Regulatory Requirement (NC P ) ($000) National Cost

of Regional Baseline (NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000) Private Applicators
Exam or 3

- hour training for aerial category recertification every three years Industry costs (Private Recert
- 01) 2.6 0.0 2.6 State costs : administer recertification exam or verify recertification training (Private Recert

- 01) 0.015 0 0.015

Exam or 4

- hour training for aerial category recertification every three years Industry costs: (Private Recert
- 02) 3.2 0.0 3.2 State costs : administer recertification exam or verify recertification training (Private Recert

- 0 2 ) 0.015 0 0.015

Exam or 3

- hour training for aerial category recertification every five years Industry costs (Private Recert
- 04) 1.5 0.0 1.5 State costs : administer recertification exam or verify recertification training (Private Recert

- 0 4 ) 0.009 0 0.009

Exam or 4

- hour training for aerial category recertification every five years Industry costs (Private Recert
- 05) 1.9 0.0 1.9 State costs: administer recertification exam or verify recertification training (Private Recert

- 05) 0.009 0 0.009

Exam or 3

- hour training for chemigation category recertification every three years Industry costs: (Private Recert
- 01) 270 13 257 State costs: administer recertification exam or verify recertification training (Private Recert

- 01) 1.7 0.3 1.357

Potential Regulation Ty pe of Cost National Cost of

Potential Regulatory Requirement (NC P ) ($000) National Cost

of Regional Baseline (NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000) Exam or 4

- hour training for chemigation category recertification every three years Industry costs: (Private Recert
- 02) 353 13 340 State costs: administer recertification exam or verify recertification training (Private Recert

- 02) 1.7 0.3 1.3

Exam or 3

- hour training for chemigation category recertification every five years Industry costs (Private Recert
- 04) 166 13 153 State costs: administer recertification exam or verify recertification training (Private Recert

- 04) 1.2 0.3 0.8

Exam or 4

- hour training for chemigation category recertification every five years Industry costs (Private Recert
- 05) 215 13 202 State costs: administer recertification exam or verify recertification training (Private Recert

- 05) 1.2 0.3 0.8

Exam or 3

- hour training for non

- soil fumigation category recertification every three years Industry costs (Private Recert
- 01) 761 143 619 State costs: administer recertification exam or verify recertification training (Private Recert

- 01) 4.2 0 4.2

Exam or 4

- hour training for non

- soil fumigation category recertification every three years Industry costs: (Private Recert
- 02) 951 143 808 State costs: administer recertification exam or verify recertification training (Private Recert

- 02) 4.2 0 4.2

Exam or 3

- hour training for non

- soil fumigation category recertification every five years Industry costs (Private Recert
- 04) 509 143 367 State costs: administer recertification exam or verify recertification training (Private Recert

- 04) 2.5 0 2.5

Exam or 4

- hour training for non

- soil fumigation category recertification every five years Industry costs (Private Recert
- 05) 613 143 470 State costs: administer recertification exam or verify recertification training (Private Recert

- 05) 2.5 0 2.5

Exam or 3

- hour training for general fumigation category recertification every three years Industry costs (Private Recert
- 01) 761 143 619 State costs: administer recertification exam or verify recertification training (Private Recert

- 01) 4.2 0 4.258

Potential Regulation Ty pe of Cost National Cost of

Potential Regulatory Requirement (NC P ) ($000) National Cost

of Regional Baseline (NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000) Exam or 4

- hour training for general fumigation category recertification every three years Industry costs: (Private Recert
- 02) 951 143 808 State costs: administer recertification exam or verify recertification training (Private Recert

- 02) 4.2 0 4.2

Exam or 3

- hour training for general fumigation category recertification every five years Industry costs (Private Recert
- 04) 509 143 367 State costs: administer recertification exam or verify recertification training (Private Recert

- 04) 2.5 0 2.5

Exam or 4

- hour training for general fumigation category recertification every five years Industry costs (Private Recert
- 05) 613 143 470 State costs: administer recertification exam or verify recertification training (Private Recert

- 05) 2.5 0 2.5 1 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. Private Applicators

– Application Method

- Specific Categories Recertification (Private Recert 01, 02, 04, &05) The potential requirements include different training and examination options for private applicators seeking recertification in application method

- specific categories

. For aerial and non

- soil categories, Private Recert

- 01 and

- 02 would require recertification every 3 years, with Private Recert

- 01 requiring exam or 3

- hour training and Private Recert

- 02 requiring exam or 4

- hour training. Private Recert

- 04 and

- 05 would require recertification every 5 years, with Private Recert

- 04 requiring exam or 3

- hour training and Private Recert

- 05 requiring exam or 4

- hour training. For chemigation and general fumigation categories, Private Recert

- 02 would require recertification every

3 years by

exam or 4

- hour training . Private Recert

- 04 and

- 05 would require recertification every

5 years, with Private Recert

- 04 requiring exam or 3

- hour training and Private Recert

- 05 requiring exam or 4

- hour training. Private a pplicator costs of the potential requirements would range from $ 1.5 thousand (aerial category) to $ 808 thousand (general fumigation category)

. Most private appli cators are not expected to have aerial certification whereas many private applicators are estimated to certify and recertify

in general fumigation category , which explains the wide range of recertification costs.59



### 3.4.7 Requirements for General Administration There are several proposed new requirements that are administrative in nature, which would include recordkeeping requirements for industry , and requirements for state and federal governments to implement the changes in the rule. **3.4.7.1 Dealer Recordkeeping**  The Agency

is proposing new recordkeeping requirements for dealers of restricted use pesticides. Under the proposal, dealers selling RUPs to both private and commercial applicators w ould be required to keep records of RUP sales, including information on what RUP was purchased and the date, the identity of the purchaser, as well as information verifying the applicator is certified. **3.4.7.2 Jurisdiction**  **Administration** The costs of the potential requirements in this category are state costs, and capture the cost of changing jurisdiction requirements to reflect the rulemaking

. **3 .**  **4 .**  **7 .**  **3 Federal Administration** This category

includes the potential requirements for EPA for reviewing the plans or programs of jurisdictions and federal agenc ies, and for revising EPA

- administered tribal plans. Table 3. 4

- 17 below presents national

- level baseline, total, and incremental industry costs for each potential requirement. The table is followed by a brief description of the costs of the potential requirements. A description of estimation method and data are also given when the presentation of this information is helpful for the reader to understand the cost results. Ta ble 3.4

- 17: Costs to Revise Requirements for Dealer Recordkeeping and the Submiss ion, Approval and Maintenance of State Certification Plans 1

Potential Regulation Ty pe of Cost National Cost of

Potential Regulatory Requirement (NC P ) ($000) National Cost of

Regional Baseline (NC B ) ($000) National

Incremental Cost (NIC) ($000) Dealers maintain records of restricted use pesticide sales Industry costs (Admin

- 01) 749 749 0 Revise state regulations State costs: im plementation (Admin

- 02) 119 0 119 Submit state plans and report certified applicator data State costs: im plementation (Admin

- 03) 4 0 4 EPA review of jurisdiction and federal agency plans & programs EPA costs: im plementation (Admin

- 04) 41 0 4160

Revise EPA

administered tribal plans EPA costs: im plementation (Admin

- 06) 4 0 4
1 Costs are presented in terms of net present value, based on discount rate of 3% over 10 years. Dealers Maintain Records of Restricted Use Pesticide Sales ( Admin

- 01) The EPA proposal Admin

- 01 would require pesticide dealers to maintain records of RUP sale s, including the pesticide(s) purchased, the individual who purchases the pesticide, the date of the sale, and the applicator’s certification information. However, EPA estimates that this would be a zero cost provision, as dealers in all jurisdictions are already doing these activities. Jurisdiction Administration (Admin

- 02 and

- 03) The EPA proposal Admin

- 02 would require all jurisdictions to rewrite their laws and regulations, and to update plans as necessary to meet or exceed the potential Federal requirements. EPA assumes that all jurisdictions would need to revise their laws and plans. EPA estimates a total cost of $119 thousand to rewrite jurisdiction regulations. Since the potential regulatory requirement would allow jurisdictions two years to revi se their laws, regulations, and plans, EPA assumes that jurisdictions would expend one

- half of the cost in each of the two years. Another EPA proposal, Admin

- 03, would require jurisdictions to submit the revised plans to EPA. EPA estimates a total incremental cost at $4 thousand. Federal Administration (A dmin

- 04 and

- 06) There are two EPA proposals being considered that relate to federal certification and tribal certification plans. The first potential requirement would be to update tribal certification plans (Admin

- 06). A total incremental cost is estimated at $4 thousand. One other potential requirement would be to codify existing policy

requiring federal agencies to conform to the same standards as jurisdictions for implementing certif ication programs (Admin

- 04). EPA estimates a total incremental cost at $41 thousand

.1



## Chapter **4 .**  **Costs and Benefits of the Regulatory Options for**  **Amending the Rules Governing Certified Pesticide Applicators**  EPA is proposing revisions to the Certificati on of Pesticide Applicators rule that would balance improvements in the protections to certified pesticide applicators, the environment, and the public against the additional costs to applicators and employers of applicators

. Out of the potential requirem ents EPA considered and discussed in previous chapters, Table 4

- 1 summarizes the requirements the Agency is proposing. **Table 4 -**  **1. Proposed Requirements. Identifier**  **Brief Description** Private Cert

- 02 Initial Certification of Private Applicators Private Cert

- 13 Eliminate Non

- reader Certification Comm Cert

- 01 ; Private Cert

- 04 New Aerial Category

(Exam or 4

- hour training for private applicators) Comm Cert

- 0 4 ; Private Cert

- 10 New Categories for soil fumigation and non

- soil fumigation

(Exam or 4

- hour training for private applicators) Comm Cert

- 05 ; Private Cert

- 12 New Predator Control Category for Commercial and Private Certified Applicators Comm Cert

- 06 ; Comm Recert

- 03 ; Private Cert

- 15 ; Private Recert

- 03 New Security Standards for Examin ations or Training Comm Sup

- 01 Competency Standards for a Noncertified Applicator Working under the Direct Supervision of a Commercial Certified Applicator Comm Sup

- 06 Retain Records of Competency Standards for Noncertified Applicators Working under the Direct Supervision of Commercial Applicators Private Sup

- 02 Competency Standards for a Noncertified Applicator Working under the Direct Supervision of a Private Certified Applicator Comm Sup

- 03 ; Private Sup

- 03 Instruction Given To Noncertified Appl icators Working under the

Direct Supervision of Commercial and Private Applicators Comm Sup

- 05 ; Private Sup

- 05 Communication between the Supervising Commercial or Private

Applicator and the Noncertified Applicator Comm Age

- 02 ; Private Age

- 02 Minimum Ag e of 18 for Commercial and Private Applicators Comm Age

- 04 ; Private Age

- 05 Minimum Age of 18 for Noncertified Applicators under the Direct

Supervision of a Certified Applicator Comm Recert

- 01 Commercial Applicator Recertification: Exam (Core and Appropriate

Categories) or 6 CEUs for Core + 6 CEUs per Category Certification; Three Year Recertification Interval Private Recert

- 01 Private Applicator Recertification: Exam or 6 CEUs + 3 CEUs per

Category Certification; Three Year Recertification Interval Admin

- 01 Dealer Recordkeeping of RUP sales Admin

- 02 and Requirements to Update State Plans2

**Identifier Brief Description**  Admin

- 03 Admin

- 04 and Admin

- 05 Review of Federal Agency Plans and Programs, Certification Program in Indian Country , and EPA Administered Plans Admin

- 06 Revise EPA

- Administered Plans This chapter compares the costs and benefits of the options EPA considered in developing the proposed revisions to the Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule, and describes the reasons why EPA is proposing specific options . Chapter 2 qualitatively described the benefits of different requirement options in terms of providing better information, greater protection, and/or more rapid mitigation while Chapter 3 estimated the cost of each requirement , which is predominantly

the opportunity

cost of time

. The emphasis of a cost

- benefit anal ys is is on efficiency , in this case, the dual goals of (1) providing improved protections to certified and noncertified applicators , the environment, and the public from use of RUPs and (2) minimizing the costs to agriculture, other pest control industries, states, and small businesses. Some of the proposed changes are not discussed here for two reasons. First, not all changes were subject to a rigorous cost/benefit analysis, e.g., administrative requirements for states to rewrite their guidance to come into compliance with the new regulations. Second, some proposals merel y codify current practice or existing policy

. In weighing the relative advantages and disadvantages of the optio ns, EPA considered the full range of information brought b y various stakeholder groups involved in the regulatory development process ( e.g. , professional pesticide applicator organizations, CTAG , state regulators , pesticide manufacturers, farmers , and organizations representing commodity producers ). Onl y the information relevant to the costs and benefits of specific proposals is discussed in this chapter

. This includes factors such as equity considerations ( e.g. , potential distribution of costs) and the f easibility of implementing a requirement given state regulatory experien ces. A discussion of all information provided through the regulatory process is discussed in the NPRM for this proposed rule.


### 4.1 **Proposed and Alternative Options for Revising Initial Certification**  **Standards** 4.1.1 Enhancement of Private Applicator General Competency Standards The Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule currently requires applicants seeking certification as private applicators to demonstrate competency to use or supervise the use of RUPs either b y completing an approved training program or through an alternate mechanism, for example, by passing an exam. States may require private applicators to demonstrate competency by taking an exam or through another st ate
- identified and EPA

- approved mechanism , e.g., a training course. Private Cert

- 02 : Exam or 12

- hour Training for Initial Certification of Private Applicators3

The proposed and alternative private applicator competency standards (Private Cert

- 02, Private Cert

- 01 and Private Cert

- 03) would cover 11 essential topics , including additional information about equipment, responsibilities for supervising noncertified appl icators, and laws and regulations. The proposal and the alternatives differ in the specific minimum requirements for the content of and mechanisms to ensure private applicator competency . For the purpose of estimating the cost of each alternative, we dif ferentiate between the proposals by the expected amount of time that certified applicators would need to prepare for an exam or spend in training, although the proposal does not require a specific minimum number of hours for private applicator certificatio n through training programs. The proposed option (Private Cert

- 02) has minimum standards that we estimate will require about 12 hours of preparation or training of a private applicator based on EPA’s experience with training programs in territories where EPA administers the applicator certification program. EPA also considered a less stringent proposal. The less stringent standards means that important topics would not be explored as full y , although the time required would be less (about 8 hours). EPA also considered a more stringent proposal that would cover the necessary topics in more detail (about 16 hours). Because most of the cost of these proposals is a result of the time of the prospective certified applicators, the most stringent proposal (Priv ate Cert

- 03) would be the most expensive (about $9.0 million per year above current costs), and the least stringent (Private Cert

- 01) is the least expensive (about $2.0 million per year). The cost of the proposed option is between the two, at about $3.7 m illion per ye ar. EPA chose to propose the option it did because the proposal balances the burden to the private applicator candidates with the need to ensure that private applicators have sufficient information, knowledge , and skills necessary in order to appl y RUPs effectively and without unreasonable adverse effects. The proposed level of required detail better outline s the knowledge and skills EPA expects private applicators to have in order to apply RUPs effectivel y and without unreasonable adverse ef fects

. 

### 4.1 .2 Establish Application Method

- Specific Categories for Commercial and Private Applicators EPA is proposing three new federal categories for commercial applicator certification : aerial application , soil fumigation, and non

- soil fumigation. Pesticide application and agricultur al practices are increasingl y specialized. Improper use of application equipment may lead to increased risks to the health of the applicator, workers, the environment, and the public. Additionally , certain categories of pesticides (e.g., fumigants) and application methods ( aerial application) pose an inherently higher risk of acute injury or death if the applicator does not understand and follow the label. These increased risks can be reduced by requiring applicators to demonstrate a specific set of competencies related to the application method being used. EPA is proposing to create similar categories for private applicators. Private applicators performing soil fumigation, non

- soil fumigation, or aerial applicator w ould require category certification as well. Initial certification would require that private applicators pass an exam or complete training (about 4 hours). An option for each category would be for a more rigorous exam or completion of a more detailed training (about 8 hours).4

States may

also bear costs associated with the development of new exams or training material and with the cost of administering new certification categories. Comm Cert

- 0 1: New Aerial Category EPA is proposing to create an application method

- specific category for aerial application (Comm Cert

- 01). Appl yi ng pesticides with a plane or helicopter poses a unique set of risks and challenges to the applicator, by standers, and the environment. There is heightened potential for spray dri ft and elevated potential for off

- target applications and thus an increased need for specialized application equipment to be calibrated accuratel y ; these risks are specific to aerial application

. The annualized national incremental cost of adding this category is about $258,000 per year, including $98,000 annually for initial certification and $151,000 annually for recertification. This cost includes the time for applicators to prepare for an ex am or attend a training program and for states to develop materials for the new category training (estimated at $9,000). EPA concluded that this additional cost, which amounts to about $ 29 per year per certified aerial applicator, was justified to ensure that applicators appl yi ng pesticides by aircraft are able to appl y products safel y and in a manner to manage drift and potential exposure to adjacent areas and b ys tanders. Private Cert

- 0 4: New Aerial Application Category, Exam or Four

-Hour Training The p roposal for a new private category certification in aerial application that would require an exam or training (four hours) (Private Cert

- 04) is expected to cost about $26,000 annually

. There are expected to be only around 70 private aerial applicators, re sulting in an annual per

applicator cost of $371. The alternative, an exam or training (eight hours) (Private Cert

- 05), is expected to cost $29,000 annually

. EPA chose the proposed option because of the importance of ensuring that aerial applicators have the knowledge and skills necessary to apply RUPs by aircraft without causing unreasonable adverse effects. The proposed option is slightly less expensive, and it ensures that the training programs cover the necessary content without becoming duplicative or incorporating unnecessary information. Comm Cert

- 0 4: New Commercial Applicator Categories for soil fumigation and non

-soil fumigation Because of the specialized nature of fumigation applications, EPA decided that additional competence was necessary for applicators who use fumigants. EPA considered an alternative that creates only

one application method

- specific category for general fumi gation, which would cover both soil and non

- soil pest control ( Comm Cert

- 0 3), but decided to propose two new application method

- specific categories ; one for s oil fumigation and one for non - soil fumigation (Comm Cert

- 04). EPA chose the proposed option beca use the two ty

pes of fumigant application differ significantl y
– by

equipment, application site, by stander exposure, risks presented, and other specifics, including the chemicals used. In addition, many fumigators specialize in either soil or non

- soil fum igation. Treating these two categories as separate allows more detailed information about each topic in a given amount of time. In addition, the incremental costs are lower for the two categories than for a combined category . The national incremental co sts for the two categories is about $415,000 annually (including $138,000 annually for initial5

certification, which includes the cost of the state developing examination materials, and $277,000 annually

for recertification. The cost of the joint category is about $992,000 annually , of which about $716,000 is for the initial certification and $277,000 is for recertification. The cost is lower for two categories, because pesticide label requirements on soil fumigants currentl y require training equivalent to that which would be needed to become certified in the soil fumigant category

or allow states to require certification in an EPA

- approved soil fumigation category in lieu of the training. If applicators who currentl y perform soil fumigation were require d to be certified in a general fumigation category , they would face additional costs to become familiar with or trained in the non

- soil uses. Private Cert

- 1 0 : New Private Applicator Categories for Soil and Non

- Soil Fumigation The incremental cost for establishing separate soil and non

- soil fumigation categories for private applicators is estimated to be about $122,000 annually . One alternative, a general fumigation category covering both soil and non

- soil fumigation (Private Cert

- 08), would be more c ostl y at $674,000 annually b ecause, as with commercial applicators, private applicators making soil fumigations must already be trained under the pesticide label requirements. An alternative requirement to pass an exam or complete a more detailed training for certification in the two categories (Private Cert

- 11) would cost about $ 218 ,000. EPA chose the proposed option because it ensures th at the training programs cover the necessary content without becoming duplicative or incorporating unnecessary information at additional cost. Despite being lower cost than alternative options, it will ensure that soil and non

- soil fumigant applicators have the knowledge and skills necessary

to use fumigants without causing unreasonable adverse effects. New Category for Chemigation

– Not Proposed EPA considered adding both private applicator and commercial applicator categories for ch emigation , the application of a pesticide through irrigation equipment, the application of a pesticide through irrigation equipment. C hemigation has a relativel y high potential for environmental contamination if not conducted properly , and, d ue to the nature of the equipment, chemigation poses additional risks to the applicator or those working under his direct supervision. However, bas ed on a review of incidents, most of the chemigation risks are associated with chemicals that are covered b y the soil fumigation category . The incremental cost of adding this category

for commercial applicators is about $80,000 per year; about $59,000 for initial certification (which includes state costs for developing materials) and $21,000 for recertification. There are an estimate 875 commercial chemigators, so the cost per chemigator would be about $91. The cost of a private chemigation category is e stimated to be $222,000 with a four

- hour training requirement (Private Cert

- 06) and $409,000 with an eight

- hour training requirement (Private Cert

- 07). Despite the relatively low cost, EPA decided not to propose this new category : EPA does not have suffic ient data, such as evidence of significant health or environmental impacts, to justify the creation of an additional certification category for chemigation. The proposed fumigation categories are likel y to address the major risks associated with chemigati on. Additional benefits from a chemigation category are likely to be small in comparison to the costs.6



### 4.1. 3 Standards for Supervision of Noncertified Applicators, and Provisions for Commercial Applicator Recordkeeping of Noncertified Applicator Training Noncertified applicators using RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicator currentl y have minimal requirements for training or competency. In addition, these noncertified applicators also have a high potential for exposure and could pos e a risk to public health and the environment if they

misapply RUPs. The Agency is proposing changes to the training of the noncertified person and is clarifying the information supervisors must provide and what it means to be under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. Comm Sup

- 0 1 : Competency Standards for a Noncertified Applicator W orking under the Direct Supervision of a Commercial Certified Applicator The Agency

is proposing to establish the competenc y of a noncertified applicator working under the direct supervision of a commercial certified applicator in one of three way s (Comm Sup

- 01). First, noncertified applicators can complete proposed training outlined in the regulation. Second, noncertified applicators can complete the WPS handler training (specified under 40 CFR 170). Third, noncertified applicators may pass the commercial applicator core exam 5

. These proposals are expected to cost noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of commercial applicators, their sup ervising applicators or employers about $6.6 million per year. An alternative for commercial applications is to limit noncertified applicators to only those who have passed the commercial applicator core exam (Comm Sup

- 02). This alternative would be sub stantially

more expensive than the proposed alternative. The estimated cost of Comm Sup

- 02 is $31.8 million per year. While passing the commercial core exam may be a more reliable option for establishing competency , the additional benefits over an annual , focused training do not outweigh the additional cost. Private Sup

- 0 1 : Competency Standards for a Noncertified Applicator W orking under the Direct Supervision of a Private Certified Applicator EPA is proposing the same three options for noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of private applicators . These proposals are expected to cost noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of private applicators and their supervising applicators or employers $639,000 per ye ar. EPA considered an alternative to the proposed option that would limit the ways of establishing the competency

of noncertified applicators to completion of the training proposed under the rule or completion of the WPS handler training (Private Sup

- 0 2 ). EPA did not choose this alternative because it was no less expensive than the proposed option (both had an annual cost of $639,000),

5 Passing the core exam does not confer certification as a commercial applic ator. The applicator must also pass category exam.7

and provides less flexibility of private applicators and noncertified applicators working under their direct supervisi on to decide how to meet the qualifications

. Comm Sup

- 06: Retain Records of Training for Noncertified Applicators Working under the Direct Supervision of Commercial Applicators for Two Years EPA is also proposing that commercial certified applicators sup ervising noncertified applicators retain records of the training for two ye ars (Comm Sup

- 06). The estimated cost of this requirement is $324,000 per year. Keeping records of the training is important because to ensure the safety of the noncertified appli cators working under the supervision of the certified applicators. Requiring commercial applicators to maintain records of noncertified applicators’ training would increase the likelihood that the noncertified applicators will be trained in accordance with the proposed requirements. In addition, records can help ensure that noncertified applicators meet the proposed minimum age requirement. Records are a key component of an effective enforcement program. EPA considered an alternative requirement to maint ain records for five years ( Comm Sup

- 07). Retention of records for five years has an annual cost of $591,000, or an additional cost of $267,000 over the proposal. The extra expense of the longer retention period is not justified because the current recordkeeping requirements for commercial applicators is two years and has proven to be an adequate retention period to determine compliance. EPA is prohibited under FIFRA from requiring private applicators to keep records, so EPA is not proposing any recordkeeping by private applicators to verify that the noncertified applicators working under their direct supervision have qualified under the proposed requirements. Co mm Sup

- 03 and Private Sup

- 03 : Instruction Given To Noncertified Applicators W orking un der the Direct Supervision of Commercial and Private Applicators In addition to general training or knowledge, the Agency is proposing to clarify

the instructions for each specific application that must be given to noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of commercial and private applicators. Currently the supervising commercial or private applicator must provide guidance on performing the application and information on how to contact the supervisor . The proposal would specify that the supervising commercial or private applicator must provide a cop y of all applicable labeling to each noncertified applicator for each supervised application; provide specific instructions related to each application, including the site

- specific precauti ons and how to use the equipment; and explain and describe how to comply

with all labeling restrictions (Comm Sup

- 03 and Private Sup

- 03). EPA did not consider alternative options because this proposal is a clarification of the existing requirements and be cause the estimated incremental cost of these proposed options is zero. Comm Sup

- 0 5 and Private Sup

- 0 5: Communication between the Supervising Commercial or Private Applicator and the Noncertified Applicator EPA is proposing to replace the current requirement for the supervising commercial or private applicator to provide noncertified applicators with directions on how to contact the supervisor ( such as a cell phone number), with a requirement for the supervising commercial or private8

applicator to ensur e the noncertified applicator can communicate immediately with the supervising applicator ( Comm Sup

- 05 for commercial applicators, Private Sup

- 05 for private applicators). This immediate communication standard could be satisfied by the supervising applicators ensuring that they and all noncertified applicators using RUPs under their direct supervision have cell phones , two
- way radios , or other forms of communication technology and contact information for the supervisors. Immediate c ommunication between th e supervising applicator and the noncertified applicator is critical if the noncertified applicator has a question before application or encounters an emergency situation related to the misapplication. This was a low cost option (estimated to be zero) bec ause most certified applicators and the noncertified applicators have cellular phones which can be used for immediate communication, so EPA decided that the benefits of immediate communication outweigh the minimal cost. EPA also considered a requirement that the supervising commercial or private applicator maintain the noncertified applicator in his or her line of sight during applications. (Comm Sup

04 and Private Sup

- 04). Because this requirement would be unworkable on a large site or in hilly, forest ed, or obstructed view areas, it would require commercial or private applicators to hire more certified applicators instead of noncertified applicators, thus incurring higher labor costs. As a result, it would be extremely expensive (about $80 million annually for private applicators and about $14.9 billion annually for commercial applicators). At the same time, it would not be substantially more protective than the option chosen; in some locations, being in sight would not necessarily mean being in immediate communication.


### 4.1. 4 Age Requirements for Private and Commercial Applicators Comm Age

- 02 and Private Age

- 02: Minimum Age of 18 for Commercial and Private Applicators The Agency

is proposing to establish a minimum age of 18 for a person to become c ertified as a commercial (Comm Age

- 02) or private (Private Age

- 02) applicator

. These proposals are expected to cost about $294,000 for commercial applicators and about $174,000 for private applicators annually . It is unclear who would ultimately bear the se costs, but it is likely that the impacts would fall primarily on the adolescent applicator who might find opportunities limited if he or she could not obtain certification. Employers of certified commercial applicators could bear some costs in that the y are expected to pay higher wages , on average, to older , more experienced applicators. However, the costs are unlikely to reflect actual increases in labor costs since adolescents can still be employed to work with non

- RUP pesticides. In those cases where an adolescent private applicator would have been used, he or she would likely be a family member of the farm owner/operator. The farm would have to assign an adult family member, presumabl y at a higher opportunity cost, to make the RUP application and in some situations farms would have to pay

a commercial applicator to apply RUPs. EPA decided that these costs are justified because there is currentl y no minimum age for certified applicators, so it is possible for adolescents to handle some of the highest risk pesticides . EPA estimates that there are about 200 adolescents who are certified private applicators and fewer than 200 adolescents who are certified commercial applicators. The cost per adolescent of this proposal is therefore about $1,500 per year per adolescent commercial9

applicator and $900 per year per adolescent private applicator. Aside from avoiding the risks to the adolescents from pesticide exposures, discussed in Chapter 6, adolescents generall y lack the experience and judgment about consequences of ina ppropriate behavior. The heightened potential for immature decision making places the applicator, the public, and the environment at significant risk if pesticides are mishandled

. EPA also considered establishing a minimum age of 16 for persons to be c ertified as either commercial or private applicators (Comm Age

- 01 and Private Age

- 01). On the commercial side, we estimate the incremental costs and benefits to be zero since there are likely no certified commercial applicators under 16 years of age due t o various labor laws and business practices. The cost to private applicators is estimated to be about $61,000 annually . EPA estimates that there are 55 to 60 certified private applicators under 16 at any given time, implying a cost per adolescent protect ed of about $1,100 per year. Thus, at approximately the same cost per adolescent, about 140 more adolescents are protected under the proposal. EPA also considered an additional option for private applicators: a requirement for a person to be at least 18 ye ars old, with a minimum age of 16 only for private applicators who are family members on famil y farms (Private Age

- 03) , which has an estimated cost of about $68,000 annuall y . This option would cover just over 100 adolescents, including hired applicators of 16 or 17 ye ars of age, implying a cost of around $680 per year per adolescent protected. Although these alternatives are less expensive, EPA decided that the additional expense of a minimum age of 18 is justified because of the risks posed to the adol escent, b ys tanders, and the environment.


### 4
. 1
. 5 Age Requirements for Noncertified Applicators Using RUPs under the Direct Supervision of Commercial and Private Applicators Comm Age

- 04 and Private Age

- 05: M inimum A ge for N

oncertified A

pplicators To prot ect noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of commercial and private applicators as well as human health and the environment, EPA is proposing to establish a minimum age for noncertified applicators

. The proposed minimum age for per sons to qualify as noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of private and commercial applicators is 18 (Comm Age

- 04 and Private Age

- 05 ). EPA made this decision for the same reasons as choosing a minimum age of 18 for certified applicators. Younger people are more likely to lack the experience and judgment to avoid or prevent unnecessary exposure to RUPs. These proposals are estimated to be expensive

– about $12.8 million annually for commercial applicators and about $1.1 million for private applicators. Costs are driven b y estimates of the number of adolescents appl yi ng RUPs under the supervision of certified applicators. EPA estimates that there are over 11,000 such adolescents working under the supervision of commercial applicators, meaning that the proposal costs about $1,100 per adolescent applicator. EPA also estimates that there are 2,800 adolescents working under the supervision of private applicators, resulting in a cost per applicator of about $400 per year. The lower cost per adolescent working under a private applicator is due to many fewer hours any one adolescent on farm spends appl yi ng RUPs. EPA considered less expensive alternatives, as well. The alternatives include a minimum age of 16 for noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of commercial applicators10

(Comm Age

- 03) . As with certified applicators, this option is estimated to have zero costs and benefits due to a lack of adolescents under 16 working in these jobs. A similar alternative was considered for noncertified applicators working under the supervision of a private applicator (Private Age

- 04). An additional alternative (Private Age

- 06) would require noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of private applicators to be 18, but with an exception for noncertified applicators under the direct supervision of a private applicator who is also an immediate famil y member of the noncertified applicator. These alternatives were estimated to be less expensive than the proposed alternative. For private applicators, we estimate the cost of the minimum age of 16 to be about $83,000 annually , or about $120 for each of the estimated 690 adolescents applying RUPs, and for a minimum age of 18 but with a minimum age of 16 for family

members to be about $634,000 annually , or about $920 per adolescent. Thus, on the basis of the cost per adolesc ent protected, the proposal provides the greatest cost effectiveness even though it is more costly in total.



### 4.1. 6 Standards for Recertification of Private and Commercial Applicators EPA is proposing new standards for recertification of both private and commercial applicators. The proposed recertification requirements would establish a maximum duration of three ye ars for certifications and set minimum standards for continuing education programs . Security standards discussed in Chapter 4.1.7 apply to recertification as well

. Comm Recert

- 01: Commercial Applicator Recertification

– Exams or Six CEUs for Core Recertification plus 6 CEUs for Each Category, Three Year Recertification Interval The proposal establish es requirements for recertification o f commercial applicators

– either passing exams relevant to existing certifications or completing a specific number of continuing education units (CEUs) to maintain ongoing competency . EPA proposes to define a CEU as 50 minutes of educational contact time. For commercial applicators, the proposed recertification training requirements are six CEUs for core certification and six CEUs per category of certification (Comm Recert

- 01), with recertification administered by the states

. The estimated cost of these proposals is about $6.5 million annually for commercial applicators. This estimate only

includes costs to applicators, it does not include the costs to states of altering and administering recertification at shorter interval. The Agency

considered an al ternative with the same recertification requirements at five year intervals (Comm Recert

- 04) rather than three years . The estimated annual cost is about $1.7 million per year . This option is substantially lower in cost because most jurisdictions already meet or exceed the requirement. Only one state, Maine, has a recertification period of six years; all others are five ye ars or fewer. While many states do not specify

requirements to recertify in core categories, most require a sufficient number of CEUs that, with some reallocation, applicators would face few changes to meet the requirements of this alternative.11

While substantially

more expensive, the proposal offers substantiall y higher benefits as well. Maintaining competency

necessities that applicators are knowledgeable about changing technology , product reformulations, new labeling and regulatory requirements, and other essential labeling information. Applicators also must be reminded about personal safety and basic application princip les (Anger, et al ., 2009). A three

- ye ar recertification period ensures that even those commercial applicators who delay obtaining the required training receive new information and are reminded of safety protocols at a reasonable interval. Moreover, the s ame training requirement, concentrated into a three ye ar period, permits more content and more rigor than would be obtained if spread over five ye ars. The advantage of the proposals over the alternatives is that it ensures a continuing level of competency among certified applicators by more frequent recertification , which will help to reduce the risk of RUPs. Two other alternative s for commercial applicator recertification were considered that would require passing an exam , without the option of training or CEUs, over three years (Comm Recert
- 02) or five ye ars (Comm Recert

- 05). EPA assumes that the option of exam is equivalent in effort to obtaining CEUs; therefore the estimated annual costs of these options are the same as the respective alternative allo wing an exam or CEUs. These alternatives, which rel y on an exam without the options of certification by CEUs, have less flexibility for the certified applicators, and also impose an additional burden on the certifyingauthority, which would be required to hold exams. Private Recert

- 01: Exams or Six CEUs for General Recertification plus Three CEUs for Each Category, Three Year Recertification Interval The proposal is similar to that for commercial applicators, but with fewer CEUs required for category certification (six CEUs for general private applicator certification and three CEUs per category). EPA estimates the cost of the proposal to be $13.6 mil lion per year, which is approximately

$30 per year per private applicator. As with commercial applicators, the benefits are derived b y maintaining the competency of private applicators given changing technology , product reformulations, new labeling and re gulatory requirements, and new practices to better control undesirable effects of pesticide exposure . Applicators also must be reminded about personal safety and basic application principles

. For private applicators, EPA considered requiring private appl icators to obtain eight CEUs for general private applicator certification and an additional four hours of training per application method

- specific category. If recertification would take place every three ye ars (Private Recert

02) , the estimated cost is a bout $22.4 million, or $50 per applicator per ye ar, not including the cost of recertification in application

- specific categories. If the recertification period would be every five years (Private Recert

- 05) , the estimated cost is about $7.4 million, or $16 per ye ar per private applicator

. Finally , if six CEUs were required to maintain general certification over five ye ars (Private Recert

- 04), the cost is estimated to be $3.5 million. Impacts would be concentrated, however, in fewer than 20 states. EPA se lected a three

- ye ar recertification period over the five ye ar option because of the benefits of more frequent training to maintain safety and competency

and the lower CEU requirement because the benefits of more training do appear to justify the substantial increase in cost.12



### 4.1. 7 Security Standards for Certifying or Recertifying Commercial and Private Applicators The Agency

is proposing changes to the requirements for holding the certification exam s and conducting training. These changes may impose co sts on states and other jurisdictions in administering exams or trainings or in approving CEUs for recertification. The Agency

is proposing changes to the requirements for holding the exam and conducting training : that exam takers provide identification f or themselves, and that the exams be written, proctored, “closed book” exams. Three are multiple line item designations are for costing purposes, because initial and recertification exams, and for different periods of recertification (three vs. five years ) were considered separatel y. There are substantial benefits to closed

- book, proctored exams . These standards ensure the security of the exams, reduc ed the burden on certifying authorities to update exams after security breaches, and limiting instances where candidates taking an exam can cheat. The value of setting federal standards for examination practices is that states, employers, and the public can be confident that all certified applicators have met a consistent standard without having to verify the examination practices of each state. C ertifying authorities using EPA

- developed exams or sharing a state

- developed exam with another state have confidence that the exam administration would meet a consistent security standard. Confirming the identity of the test takers would ensure that applicants satisfy the proposed minimum age requirements. It would also help prevent persons from taking a certification exam or training or attending a recertification training session in the place of the actual candidate, thereby limiting certification to the candidates who are qualified. In addition to verifying the identity of test takers, the Agency is proposing to codify

existing policy related to the security

of the exam process. These standards include requiring that the exam be proctored to prevent cheating and requiring closed

- book exams to ensure that no outside materials are used in the exam. These changes should also ensure that only competent applicators become certified . The Agency chose to codify

the exam standards and identification of test takers because they were low cost, and no other way to ensure the security of examinations and training was identified. These requirements would help preserve the integrity of the exam process and give confiden ce that the security of EPA

- developed exams is not compromised by

varying administration standards across states. Checking identification of the test takers (e.g., checking their driver’s license as they enter the examination room) would take a few second s of both the state employee proctoring the exam and test takers’ time. These costs are very small and are incorporated into the proctoring cost (one hour proctoring time for one hour exam) for the state proctor and one hour of exam taking time for the te st takers.13



### 4
. 1.8 Administrative Requirements for RUP Dealers, States, Tribes, and Federal Agencies for Submission, Approval and Maintenance of State Certification Plans There are several proposed new requirements that are administrative in nature, which would include recordkeeping requirements for industry , and requirements for state and federal governments to implement the changes in the rule. Dealers Maintain Records of Restricted Use Pesticide Sales ( Admin

- 01) The EPA proposal Admin

- 01 would require pesticide dealers to maintain records of RUP sales, including the pesticide(s) purchased, the individual who purchases the pesticide, the date of the sale, and the applicator’s certification information. However, EPA estimates that this would be a zero cost provision, as dealers in all jurisdictions are already doing these activities. Jurisdiction Administration (Admin

- 02 and

- 03) Changes to the regulations governing certification programs would require all jurisdictions, i.e., states, territories, and tribes, to rewrite their laws and regulations , and to update plans as necessary to meet or exceed the potential Federal requirements. While many states have implemented similar changes, no state has implemented all revisions and EPA assumes that all jurisdictions would need to revise their laws and plans. EPA estimates a total cost of $1 19 thousand to rewrite jurisdiction regulations , detailed under Admin

- 02 in Chapter 3 . Since the potential regulatory

requirement would allow jurisdictions two years to revise their laws, regulations, and plans, EPA assumes that jurisdictions would expend one

- half of the cost in each of the two years. EPA estimates a total incremental cost of submitting revised certification plans at $4 thousand. See Admin

- 03 in C hapter 3. Federal Administration (A dmin

- 04 and

- 06) The proposed revisions would also necessitate changes to federal certification plans and the tribal certification plans administered b y EPA. The total incremental cost of the latter is estimated at $4 thousand (Admin

- 06). Federal agencies are expected to incur a total incremental cost at $41 thousand (Admin

- 04).1



## Chapter**5. Cost of Pr oposed Rule**  This chapter presents EPA’s estimates of the cost of proposed changes to the requirements for the certification of pesticide applicators in 40 CFR 171. EPA estimates that the present value (PV) of the incremental cost of the proposed rule over ten years to be $ 415 million , given a three percent discount rate. The annualized cost is about $47.2 million per year. Using a seven percent discount rate would have little effect in this case as most of the costs recur annually

. Private applicators, as a group, would bear additional costs of about $19.5 million per ye ar, about 41 percent of the total cost of the proposed rule. Commercial applicators would be expected to bear costs of about $27.4 million per year. States and other jurisdictions that administer certification programs would bear annualized costs of about $359,000 per year, but most of the state costs would be borne immediately after the rule is finalized as they modify their programs to follow the new federal rules. Those immediate costs of the proposed rule if it is implemented are estimated to be about $2.2 million, with subsequent incremental costs in administering the certification programs to be around $936,000 per year. The changes in the certification requirements would be unlikely to have an impact on jobs. Most private applicators are self

- emp loyed. The annualized incremental cost of obtaining and maintaining private certification would be about $30 per applicator, on average, and this would represent a small fraction of the cost of emplo yi ng an applicator, even part time. The average annuali zed cost of obtaining and maintaining commercial certification would be less than $80 in all jurisdictions and is similarly a very small fraction of the cost of employing a part

- time applicator. The changes are not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses. In most cases, incremental costs represent less than one percent of gross revenues for commercial enterprises or less than one percent of total sales of agricultural products for farming enterprises. Incremental costs in a few states could exceed two percent of total sales of agricultural products for farms with sales less than $5,000 per ye ar. The number of farms facing such impacts is likely

to be quite small, however. Perhaps a fifth of the farms affected by proposed changes to the certification requirements might also bear costs associated with proposed changes to the Worker Protection Standard.


### 5.1 **Overview** The proposed Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule consists of a number of requirements that would affect commercial and private applicators; state and other government agencies; and pesticide dealers. Table 5.1

- 1 presents the estimated regional incremental cost (RI C), that is, by state and jurisdiction, using a three percent discount rate. Variations in state cost depend on current state requirements and the number of certified applicators in each state

.2

**Table 5.1 -**  **1. Total Incremental Cost of Proposed Requirements, by State or Jurisdiction**

. **State/Jurisdiction NPV(RIC)**  **($1,000) Annualized RIC**  **($1,000)** Alabama 4,391 499 Alaska 436 50 Arizona 4,482 510 Arkansas 19,300 2,198 California 27,110 3,085 Colorado 6,704 762 Connecticut 1,999 227 Delaware 2,149 246 Florida 10,141 1,154 Georgia 25,126 2,858 Hawaii 1,255 143 Id aho 1,798 203 Illinois 3,547 403 Indiana 7,835 891 Io wa 356 40 Kansas 8,287 943 Kentucky 21,186 2,412 Louisiana 6,503 740 Maine 1,748 199 Maryland 1,901 216 Massachusetts 282 31 Michigan 5,449 620 Minnesota 5,287 602 Mississippi 7,109 808 Missouri 21,428 2,439 Montana 3,129 357 Nebraska 16,193 1,843 Nevada 1,882 215 New Hampshire 223 25 New Jersey 1,987 226 New Mexico 1,559 177 New York 7,218 822 North Carolina 16,839 1,917 North Dakota 9,890 1,125 Ohio 15,362 1,747 Oklahoma 14,502 1,651 Oregon 2,172 247 Pennsylvania 16,283 1,853 Rhode I sland 1,328 151 South Carolina 7,490 854 South Dakota 12,949 1,475 Tennessee 14,712 1,6753

Texas 8,390 955 Utah 3,507 399 Vermont 630 71 Virginia 3,035 345 Washington 16,992 1,933 West Virginia 767 87 Wisconsin 19,839 2,258 Wyoming 3,650 416 Puerto Rico 16,106 1,834 Other Jurisdictions 2,454 279 Federal Agencies 19 2 **U.S. 414,928**  **47,227** Source: EPA calculations using a three percent discount rate

. Columns may not sum due to rounding. The states with the highest incremental costs would include California, Georgia, Missouri, Wisconsin, Arkansas, and Kentucky. The main driver in these states is the relativel y large number of certified applicators. In California, commercial applicators would bear a relativel y large proportion of the cost, in part because California would need to establish a new non

- soil fumigation category

and EPA anticipates a large number of commercial applicators would obtain certification. For the other states, the primary change would be in the initial certification of private applicators. States with the lowest incremental costs include Alaska and the New England states where there are relativel y few certified applicators. Other low

- cost states, such as Iowa and Virginia have state requirements that largely meet or exceed the proposed federal requirements.


### 5.2 **Methodology** The cost of the proposed rule is largel y the sum of the costs of the individual requirements as estimated in Section 3.3. However, there may be some interactions between the proposed requirements. In Chapter 3, EPA estimated the increased labor cost if employers shift certain tasks from adolescent workers to adult workers, who presumabl y are paid a higher wage. In estimating the cost of the proposed rule, we also take into account the changes in the labor force and the differences in the opportunity cost of time when estimating the impact of new requirements, e.g. , initial certification. Where interactions occur, EPA’s methodology for estimating the co st of the proposed rule is similar to the methodology employed for estimating the cost of individual potential requirements. In the first two steps, we estimate the per

- actor costs for the suite of proposed requirements and the associated baseline. Ty pic ally , the main actors are certified applicators, where private and commercial applicators are separated into those obtaining initial certification and those pursuing recertification. We also consider noncertified applicators under their supervision. To account for the age restrictions, we further define actors within each of these groups b y age: adults (18 years old and older), 16 and 17 year old adolescents, and adolescents under age 16. Other actors include state regulators, who would have to revise re gulations and4

develop examinations and/or training programs, and state administrators, who would have to oversee or proctor the trainings or examinations. Federal agencies, including EPA, will also bear some costs. As in Chapter 3, the third step extrapo lates the per

- actor costs, baseline and proposal, to the state level by multiplying by

the number of actors within each state or jurisdiction who would be affected b y the proposed set of requirements. Jurisdictions include territories and tribal areas that operate certification programs. In Step 4, state level costs are estimated over a 10

- ye ar time horizon. It is at this step that interactions with the minimum age requirement may come into play , as adolescents who are certified before the requirement go es into effect would be allowed to continue to work as applicators and pursue recertification. Subsequent steps are essentially identical to those presented in Section 3.3. The incremental cost of the proposed rule is calculated as the difference between the present value (PV) of baseline cost and the PV of the compliance cost. State or jurisdictional costs are summed to obtain national costs. Finall y, we calculate the annualized incremental cost of the proposed rule at the state and national levels. The next section presents the results of the analy sis of costs to private applicators and demonstrates the methodology for the case of the private applicator obtaining an initial certification, if the proposed rule becomes regulation. The data required for the anal ys is are presented in Chapter 3.


### 5.3 **Private Applicator Costs of Proposed Rule** Table 5.3

- 1 presents the requirements EPA is proposing that would impact private applicators. These include new or amended requirements for initial certification and recertification and requirements for training and communication with applicators under their supervision. Age restrictions would appl y to both certified applicators and applicators under their supervision. In total, EPA estimates the cost of the propos ed changes would be about $18.8 million per year or, on average, about $38.50 per year per certified private applicator, given around 490,000 private applicators.5

**Table 5.3 -**  **1. Proposed Private Applicator Requirements.** Regulatory Requirement Description Private Cert

- 02 Exam or 12

- hour training for private certification Private Cert

- 04 Add private aerial category and require exam or 4

- hour training for certification Private Cert

- 10 Add private soil and non

- soil fumigation categories and require exam or 4

- hour training for certification Private Cert

- 12 Add private predator control category, codifying existing label requirements Private Cert

- 15 Verification of IDs and Proctoring of exams for certification Private Recert

- 01 Within three years, exam or 6

- hours of training for private core competency and exam or 3

- hours of training for category recertification Private Recert

- 03 Verification of IDs and Proctoring of exams for recertification Private Sup

- 02 Private noncertified applicators must complete training or be handlers under the Worker Protection Standard or complete commercial core exam Private Sup

- 03 Clarify guidance provided to noncertified applicators by certified private applicators Private Sup

- 05 Private noncertified applicators must have method of instant communication with supervisors Private Age

- 02 Minimum age requirement of 18 years old for certified private applicators Private Age

- 05 Minimum age requirement of 18 years old for private noncertified applicators As an example of how costs are computed, EPA presents the details of the cost calculation for the proposed initial certification requirements for private applicators. For the other components, including recertification, training for and communication with supervised applicato rs, and labor costs, we only

present the present value of costs over ten years. Details of the estimations are provided in Appendix B. **5.3.1 Initial Certification, Private Applicators**  This section presents the method for calculating the costs of the prop osed suite of requirements. As an example, we present the costs to first time private applicators, who may be self

- employed or employed on an agricultural establishment. The underlying data and assumptions can be found in Chapter 3.3. Step 1. Calculate the per

- applicator cost to each actor of the requirements under the current regulatory

regime. Per
- applicator costs will generally consist of the value of time to conduct required activities. This is calculated as the wage rate multiplied by the time spent multiplied by the frequency

or probability

that an actor will engage in the activity . In the case of initial certification, the actor is the individual seeking certification who must prepare for an exam and/or obtain training as explained in Chapter 3. 4.1. Because of the proposed age requirement (Chapter 3.4.5), however, we also distinguish these individuals by age. Table 5.3

- 2 presents the baseline costs that first

- time private applicators in selected states would incur if they

were to become a certi fied applicator, given the training requirements. These are states where the baseline cost differs from the cost under the proposal. Other states have initial certification requirements similar to the proposal, which is described in Step 2 of this exampl e. Costs are calculated as the wage rate multiplied by the amount of time required to obtain certification and b y the frequency of the action. See Chapter 3 for details. The wage rate depends on the age of the applicator. The time required for the stat es shown in Table 5.3

- 2 are in terms of a required training. All first

- time certified applicators must go through this process.6

**Table 5.3 -**  **2. Per -** **Applicator Baseline Cost for Initial Private Certification. Action**  **W age/price**  **Training time**  **F requency**  **C ost**  Arkansas Adults 51.96 4 1 207.84 16

- 17 Year Olds 31.18 4 1 124.70 < 16 Years Old 25.98 4 1 103.70 Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee Adults 51.96 2 1 103.92 16

- 17 Year Olds 31.18 2 1 62.35 < 16 Years Old 25.98 2 1 51.96 Mississippi Adults 51.96 19 1 779.39 16

- 17 Year Olds 31.18 19 1 467.63 < 16 Years Old 25.98 19 1 389.69 Missouri Adults 51.96 3 1 155.88 16

- 17 Year Olds 31.18 3 1 93.53 < 16 Years Old 25.98 3 1 77.94 Montana 1 Adults 51.96 7
- 12 1 376.70 16

- 17 Year Olds 31.18 7
- 12 1 226.02 < 16 Years Old 25.98 7
- 12 1 188.35 New York Adults 51.96 42 1 2,182.28 16

- 17 Year Olds 31.18 42 1 1,309.37 < 16 Years Old 25.98 42 1 1,091.14 South Dakota 1 Adults 51.96 3

- 12 1 268.11 16

- 17 Year Olds 31.18 3

- 12 1 160.87 < 16 Years Old 25.98 3

- 12 1 134.05 Wyoming 2 Adults 51.96 2

- 6 1 301.36 16

- 17 Year Olds 31.18 2

- 6 1 180.82 < 16 Years Old 25.98 2

- 6 1 150.68 All other jurisdictions 3 Adults 51.96 12 1 623.51 16

- 17 Year Olds 31.18 12 1 374.10 < 16 Years Old 25.98 12 1 311.75 Source: EPA estimation. Adult wage rates are from BLS (2014a); training time from state regulations. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 1 Montana and South Dakota offer the choice of training or exam (12 hour preparation), where the maj ority of applicators take the training. Per

- applicator cost is a weighted average of the cost of the two options. 2 Wyoming offers the choice of a 6

-hour training or a take

-home exam (approximately 2 hours), where the majority of applicators take the training. Per

- applicator cost is a weighted average of the cost of the two options. 3 All other jurisdictions require an exam, which EPA considers equivalent to the proposed training.7

Step 2. Calculate the per

- applicator cost to each actor of the activities under the proposed rule. Costs to prepare for an exam or take a training that covers the proposed content are calculated in the same fashion, as shown in Chapter 3 (Private Cert

- 02). A training is expected to take about 12 hours, as in the case of EPA’s training for programs the Agency administers. Preparing for an exam is assumed to require a similar investment in time. Costs for an adult are calculated to be $623.51. Under the proposal, only individuals at least 18 years of age would be certified (Private Age

- 02). Step 3. Calculate the state/jurisdiction baseline cost and cost of the proposed requirements. To obtain the yearl y co sts in each state to comply with current requirements and with the proposed regulation, we multiply

the adjusted cost per actor by the number of affected actors in a state and sum across all ty

pes of actors:

, = , a × a , a where RC

R,i X t is the state cost of the proposed set of requirements, R; X = B, P for baseline and proposed, i denotes the state or jurisdiction, and t the year; cost R,a represents the per

- actor cost of the proposed set of requirements and N is the number of ac tors, as explained in Section 3.3. Table 5.3

- 3 presents the baseline state cost, RC R,i B t , for t = 1, for first

- time private applicators. In fact, this would be the baseline cost in all years. States noted in Step 1 are presented separately ; all other j urisdictions, where requirements meet or exceed the proposed requirements, are aggregated. Per applicator costs are multiplied by the number of applicators in each age group and summed. Adolescent applicators are likely to be few in number and many state s have established minimum ages. Between 2008 and 2013, the number of private certified applicators has averaged 34,039 and has been relativel y stable. **Table 5.3 -**  **3. Baseline costs, Initial Private Certification Jurisdiction**  **Adult 16**  **- 17 Year Old**  **< 16 Yea rs Old**  **RC R,i**  **B ($1000)**  Arkansas **cost I**  **N IT CERT** 

**,a B**  $207.84 $124.70 103.70 N a 1,482 0.9 1.5 **cost I**  **N IT CERT** 

**,a B**  x N a $308,019 $112 $156 $308 Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee **cost I**  **N IT CERT** 

**,a B**  $103.70 $62.35 $51.96 N a , GA 1,667 1.7 0 **cost I**  **N IT CERT** 

**,a B**  x N GA $172,868 $106 $0 $173 N a , KY 2,567 4.8 0 **cost I**  **N IT CERT** 

**,a B**  x NKY $266,198 $299 $0 $267 N a , TN 401 1.3 2.0 **cost I**  **N IT CERT** 

**,a B**  x N TN $41,584 $81 $104 $42 Mississippi **cost I**  **N IT CERT** 

**,a B**  $779.39 $467.63 $389.69 N a , MS 1,344 0 08

**cost I**  **N IT CERT** 

**,a B**  x NMS $1,047,364 $0 $0 $1,047 Missouri **cost I**  **N IT CERT** 

**,a B**  $155.88 $93.53 $77.94 N a , MO 1,628 0 0 **cost I**  **N IT CERT** 

**,a B**  x NMO $253,773 $0 $0 $254 Montana **cost I**  **N IT CERT** 

**,a B**  $376.70 $226.02 $188.35 N a , MT 257 1.4 0 **cost I**  **N IT CERT** 

**,a B**  x NMT $96,812 $316 $0 $97 New York **cost I**  **N IT CERT** 

**,a B**  $2,182 $1,309 1,091 N a , NY 244 2.1 0 **cost I**  **N IT CERT** 

**,a B**  x NNY $531,603 $3,142 $0 $535 South Dakota **cost I**  **N IT CERT** 

**,a B**  $268.11 $160.87 $134.05 N a , SD 2,147 1.3 2.0 **cost I**  **N IT CERT** 

**,a B**  x N SD $575,632 $209 $268 $576 Wyoming **cost I**  **N IT CERT** 

**,a B**  $301.36 $180.82 $150.68 N a , WY 387 0.7 0 **cost I**  **N IT CERT** 

**,a B**  x NWY $116,626 $127 $0 $117 Other Jurisdictions **cost I**  **N IT CERT** 

**,a B**  $623.51 $374.10 $311.75 N a , total 21,807 55.8 36.8 **cost I**  **N IT CERT** 

**,a B**  x N OTHER $13,548,566 $20,594 $9,576 $13,579 **U.S. Total , N**  **a 33,934**  **68.6 31.8**  **cost I**  **N IT CERT** 

**,a B**  x N a **$16,960,528 $20,594**  **$10,136 $16,995**  Source: EPA calculations. Columns may not sum due to rounding. Baseline costs by

state for initial certification are presented in the final column of the table. The baseline national cost for the initial certification for first

- time private applicators is estimated to be $17.0 million per year. This estimate is different from that estimated in Chapter 3 because it considers adolescent applic ators, whose time is assumed to be less valuable. The costs of the proposed requirements for first

- time private applicators, RC R,i P , are presented in Table 5.3

- 4 for the first year of implementation, which is expected to be in the third year following finalization of the rule. The eight states shown in Table 5.3

- 4 would see cost increases due to more hours needed for training or to prepare for exams. Due to the age restrictions (Private Age

- 02), no adolescents would be allowed to obtain certification. This restriction would contribute to the cost of initial certification, including in states that meet or exceed the proposed training requirements for certification, as adults, who are assumed to have a higher opportunity cost of time, replace those certified as adolescents.9

**Table 5.3 -**  **4. Proposed Initial Certification Costs for First -**  **Time Private Adult Applicators in Year 3.** 
**Jurisdiction Adult**  **(**N a**) State/Jurisdiction Cost**  **RC R,i**  **P ($1000)**  **cost I**  **N IT CERT** 

**,a P**  = $623.51 1 Arkansas 1,485 $926 Georgia 1,669 $1,041 Kentucky 2,572 $1,603 Tennessee 404 $252 Missouri 1,628 $1,015 Montana 258 $161 South Dakota 2,151 $1,341 Wyoming 388 $242 Other Jurisdictions 23,485 $15,236 **U.S. Total 34,039**  **$21,817** Source: EPA calculations. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 1 Costs in Mississippi and New York are assumed to remain at $779 and $2,182 per applicator, respectively. Step 4. Calculate the present value of state and national costs. Per
- applicator costs for the baseline are expected to remain constant through time, that is, EPA assumes that states will not revise their certification requirements. As explained in Section 3.3, the equation for the PV of the cost stream is

= , ∙ 1 ( 1 + ) where r is the discount rate, and all other variables are as previousl y defined. Given a three percent discount rate, the value of the summation on the right hand side is 8.79. Under the proposed rule, states will have two years to revise their requirements and applicators would incur new costs beginning in the third year. The PV of the cost stream is, therefore

, = , ∙ 1

( 1 + ) +
, ∙ 1 ( 1 + ) where the values of the summations are 1.97 and 6.82, respectivel y. State and jurisdictional costs are summed to obtain national level costs for both the baseline and the proposed rule. Table 5.3

- 5 presents the PV of costs for first

- time private applicators initial certifications.10

**Table 5.3 -**  **5. Present Value of Costs for Private Applicators, Initial Certification. State/Jurisdiction**  **PV(RC P** **) ($1,000)**  **PV(RC B**  **)**

**($1,000) NPV(RIC)** 

**($1,000) Annualized** 

**RIC ($1,000)**  Alabama 3,071 3,071 0 0 Alaska 47 47 0 0 Arizona 459 456 4 0 Arkansas 6,918 2,711 4,206 479 California 8,886 8,879 6 1 Colorado 2,149 2,145 4 0 Connecticut 112 112 0 0 Delaware 383 383 0 0 Florida 1,865 1,865 0 0 Georgia 7,433 1,523 5,910 673 Hawaii 170 170 0 0 Id aho 759 759 0 0 Illinois 5,882 5,871 10 1 Indiana 4,358 4,351 6 1 Io wa 4,777 4,762 15 2 Kansas 6,059 6,050 9 1 Kentucky 11,454 2,346 9,108 1,037 Louisiana 2,050 2,047 3 0 Maine 414 413 1 0 Maryland 589 588 2 0 Massachusetts 461 461 0 0 Michigan 2,720 2,720 0 0 Minnesota 3,663 3,652 11 1 Mississippi 9,202 9,202 0 0 Missouri 7,420 2,230 5,190 591 Montana 1,287 851 436 50 Nebraska 4,197 4,188 9 1 Nevada 264 264 0 0 New Hampshire 178 178 0 0 New Jersey 1,093 1,093 0 0 New Mexico 1,230 1,224 6 1 New York 4,713 4,698 14 2 North Carolina 2,571 2,566 4 1 North Dakota 5,056 5,056 0 0 Ohio 1,522 1,511 11 1 Oklahoma 8,557 8,546 11 1 Oregon 1,014 1,014 0 0 Pennsylvania 3,642 3,634 8 1 Rhode I sland 35 34 0 0 South Carolina 4,009 4,009 0 0 South Dakota 10,274 5,062 5,212 593 Tennessee 1,801 368 1,433 16311

Texas 16,597 16,577 20 2 Utah 1,530 1,528 2 0 Vermont 230 230 0 0 Virginia 4,728 4,724 4 0 Washington 3,666 3,662 3 0 West Virginia 432 431 1 0 Wisconsin 5,862 5,855 7 1 Wyoming 1,878 1,026 852 97 Puerto Rico 4,086 4,085 0 0 Other Jurisdictions 1 426 86 339 39 **U.S. 182,181**  **149,323 32,858**  **3,740** Source: EPA calculations using a three percent discount rate

. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 1 Other Jurisdictions include territories and tribal areas with certification programs. Step 5. Calculate the incremental cost of the proposed rule. Incremental costs are simply the difference between the cost of compliance with the proposed rule and the baseline compliance cost.

, = , − , The national PV of the incremental cost for initial certification is $32.9 million over 10 years, using a three percent discount rate (Table 5.3

- 5). Annualized costs are calculated to be about $3.7 million per year. Given that there are about 34,000 new private applicators certified each ye ar, the average additional cost per applicator is about $110. For an individual, this would be a one - time cost. Note, however, that about the same number of new applicators become certified eac h year. The incremental costs are heavily concentrated in eight states with low requirements, as discussed in Chapter 3.4.1. Costs are highest in Kentucky, where current certification standards are less stringent than those proposed (incremental costs are around $400) and over 2,500 private applicators obtain certification each year. **5.3.2 Category Certification and Recertification, Private Applicators**  The proposal establishes several new categories: aerial application (Private Cert

- 04 ), soil and non - soil fumigation (Private Cert

- 10), and predator control (Private Cert

- 12). The cost to private applicators of the new application method

- specific categories is simply the sum of the cost of initial certification and of recertification (Private Recert

- 01). No adolescents are expected to obtain certifications in these very technical application methods and so there are no interactions as was the case for initial core certification. Table 5.3

- 6 presents the present value of the incremental cost over a t en - year time horizon as well as the annualized cost of certification and recertification of new categories. **Table 5.3 -**  **6. Present Value of Costs for Private Applicators, Category Certification. State/Jurisdiction**  **PV(RC P** **) ($1,000)**  **PV(RC B**  **)**

**($1,000) NPV(RIC**  **)**

**($1,000) Annualized** 

**RIC ($1,000)**  Alabama 17 0 17 2 Alaska 0 0 0 012

Arizona 37 37 0 0 Arkansas 50 0 50 6 California 191 0 191 22 Colorado 38 0 38 4 Connecticut 2 0 2 0 Delaware 6 0 6 1 Florida 326 0 326 37 Georgia 21 0 21 2 Hawaii 12 0 12 1 Id aho 15 0 15 2 Illinois 13 0 13 1 Indiana 21 0 21 2 Io wa 63 57 6 1 Kansas 36 0 36 4 Kentucky 28 0 28 3 Louisiana 35 0 35 4 Maine 4 0 4 0 Maryland 70 0 70 8 Massachusetts 2 0 2 0 Michigan 21 0 21 2 Minnesota 33 30 3 0 Mississippi 24 0 24 3 Missouri 24 0 24 3 Montana 0 0 0 0 Nebraska 29 9 20 2 Nevada 77 77 0 0 New Hampshire 0 0 0 0 New Jersey 24 0 24 3 New Mexico 50 0 50 6 New York 34 0 34 4 North Carolina 60 0 60 7 North Dakota 762 759 3 0 Ohio 26 26 0 0 Oklahoma 42 0 42 5 Oregon 36 0 36 4 Pennsylvania 88 49 39 4 Rhode I sland 0 0 0 0 South Carolina 65 0 65 7 South Dakota 18 0 18 2 Tennessee 15 0 15 2 Texas 57 0 57 6 Utah 64 64 0 0 Vermont 0 0 0 0 Virginia 63 0 63 7 Washington 56 0 56 613

West Virginia 13 0 13 1 Wisconsin 13 0 13 1 Wyoming 3 0 3 0 Puerto Rico 0 0 0 0 Other Jurisdictions 1 0 0 0 0 **U.S. 2,681**  **1,097 1,576**  **179** Source: EPA calculations using a three percent discount rate

. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 1 Other Jurisdictions include territories and tribal areas with certification programs. Total annualized cost of the new private category certification and recertification is estimated to be about $179,000 per ye ar. California and Florida see the highest costs, due to the number of applicators expec ted to obtain certifications in the new categories in those states. **5.3.3 Noncertified Applicators under the Supervision of a Private Certified Applicator**  A few proposed requirements would impact n oncertified applicators under the direct supervision of certified applicators. They must show competency

(Private Sup

- 02) through completion of the core exam or be trained, which for many would be covered b y the proposed Worker Protection Standards; they must be provided guidance b y their supervisor (Private Sup

- 03); and they must have a means of immediate communication with the supervisor (Private Sup

- 05). As with the certified applicators, the age restriction (Private Age

- 05) influences the impact of the other requirements through the wage rates that determine the value of time spent in training. The present value of proposed and baseline costs associated with private n oncertified applicators under the direct supervision are shown in Table 5.3

- 7. Details of the calculations are provided in Appendix B. **Table 5.3**  **- 7. Present Value of Costs for Private Applicators under the Supervision of a**  **Certified Applicator**

. **State/Jurisdiction PV(RC**  **P )**  **($1,000) PV(RC**  **B )** 

**($1,000) NPV(RIC)** 

**($1,000) Annualized** 

**RIC ($1,000)**  Alabama 143 0 143 16 Alaska 5 0 5 1 Arizona 7 0 7 1 Arkansas 678 0 678 77 California 837 0 837 95 Colorado 200 199 1 0 Connecticut 12 12 0 0 Delaware 49 0 49 6 Florida 103 102 2 0 Georgia 645 0 645 73 Hawaii 6 0 6 1 Id aho 159 158 1 0 Illinois 984 982 2 0 Indiana 601 598 3 014

Io wa 0 0 0 0 Kansas 691 690 2 0 Kentucky 209 206 3 0 Louisiana 237 236 1 0 Maine 20 0 20 2 Maryland 166 165 1 0 Massachusetts 24 23 0 0 Michigan 286 284 2 0 Minnesota 0 0 0 0 Mississippi 490 489 1 0 Missouri 577 573 3 0 Montana 339 338 1 0 Nebraska 1,638 1,638 1 0 Nevada 15 15 0 0 New Hampshire 7 7 0 0 New Jersey 48 48 0 0 New Mexico 62 61 1 0 New York 299 297 2 0 North Carolina 906 905 2 0 North Dakota 607 0 607 69 Ohio 613 609 4 0 Oklahoma 295 0 295 34 Oregon 134 133 1 0 Pennsylvania 762 759 4 0 Rhode I sland 3 0 3 0 South Carolina 129 0 129 15 South Dakota 0 0 0 0 Tennessee 130 0 130 15 Texas 1,054 1,047 7 1 Utah 30 0 30 3 Vermont 15 0 15 2 Virginia 143 141 2 0 Washington 457 0 457 52 West Virginia 18 17 1 0 Wisconsin 500 0 500 57 Wyoming 244 0 244 28 Puerto Rico 808 0 808 92 Other Jurisdictions 1 8 0 8 1 **U.S. 16,388**  **10,731 5,657**  **644** Source: EPA calculations using a three percent discount rate

. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 1 Other Jurisdictions include territories and tribal areas with certification programs. Nationally , the cost of proposed supervision requirements, which are essentially the competency (training) requirements, are estimated to be about $644,000 per ye ar. Twelve states or jurisdictions would bear the majority of the costs because they have the largest number of private15

applicators and, b y assumption, the largest number of noncertified applicators applying RUPs under their supervision. **5.3.4 Private Applicators Labor Costs**  The direct effect of the prop osed age requirements, Private Age

- 02 and 05, affect the cost of labor because older, typi cally higher paid individuals would be needed to replace adolescents. These costs were estimated in Section 3.3 and are not affected by other proposed requirements. The combined costs of the age restrictions are shown in Table 5.3

- 8. Note that ‘baseline’ costs are not the result of any regulation or requirement as in other cases, such as initial certification. Further, the anal ys is captures only those labor costs e stimated to arise from the employ ment of adolescents, not total costs of employing or utilizing private applicators. Hence, a state like Alabama, which does not allow applications of RUPs by anyone under 18 years of age, would have zero labor costs. **Tabl e 5.3**  **- 8. Incremental Labor Cost for Private Applicators** 

. **State/Jurisdiction PV(RC**  **P )**  **($1,000) PV(RC**  **B )** 

**($1,000) NPV(RIC)** 

**($1,000) Annualized** 

**RIC ($1,000)**  Alabama 0 0 0 0 Alaska 6 4 2 0 Arizona 264 168 97 11 Arkansas 1,251 798 453 52 California 1,516 971 545 62 Colorado 492 314 178 20 Connecticut 0 0 0 0 Delaware 0 0 0 0 Florida 346 217 129 15 Georgia 1,140 731 408 46 Hawaii 25 16 9 1 Id aho 321 203 118 13 Illinois 1,579 1,020 559 64 Indiana 1,195 766 429 49 Io wa 396 262 134 15 Kansas 1,211 777 434 49 Kentucky 796 511 285 32 Louisiana 444 286 158 18 Maine 90 58 31 4 Maryland 287 184 103 12 Massachusetts 82 52 31 3 Michigan 612 386 225 26 Minnesota 277 183 94 11 Mississippi 532 339 193 22 Missouri 1,094 692 402 46 Montana 516 330 185 2116

Nebraska 1,712 1,135 577 66 Nevada 40 25 14 2 New Hampshire 44 27 16 2 New Jersey 0 0 0 0 New Mexico 326 209 117 13 New York 617 392 225 26 North Carolina 1,127 724 403 46 North Dakota 1,009 646 363 41 Ohio 1,513 966 547 62 Oklahoma 1,009 645 364 41 Oregon 332 209 123 14 Pennsylvania 1,486 952 535 61 Rhode I sland 20 13 7 1 South Carolina 287 182 105 12 South Dakota 169 112 57 7 Tennessee 712 453 259 30 Texas 2,336 1,489 847 96 Utah 183 117 66 8 Vermont 47 32 16 2 Virginia 461 294 166 19 Washington 838 539 299 34 West Virginia 169 107 62 7 Wisconsin 1,246 798 448 51 Wyoming 285 183 102 12 Puerto Rico 765 491 273 31 Other Jurisdictions 1 258 165 93 11 **U.S. 31,463**  **20,172 11,291**  **1,285** Source: EPA calculations using a three percent discount rate

. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 1 Other Jurisdictions include territories and tribal areas with certification programs. In total, EPA estimates the cost of the minimum age provisions to be about $1.3 million per year. As noted in Chapter 3, these estimates are heavily influenced by

assumptions as to the number of adolescents certified or working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator, the hours spent working with RUPs, and the difference in wage rates between adolescents younger than 18 and those 18 and older. **5.3.5 Recertification, Private Applicators**  Recertification requirements, like initial c ertification and supervision requirements, would interact with the minimum age requirements. Adolescents who obtain certification before the rule goes into effect could maintain their certification and some may even go through the recertification process before turning 18. Thus, the same methodology is applied to account for the potential interaction; we consider each age group as a separate category of actors.17

Table 5.3

- 9 presents the present value of proposed and baseline compliance costs along with th e incremental costs of the proposed private recertification requirements. Details of the estimation can be found in Appendix B. The PV of the national incremental cost is $120 million, or about $13.6 million annually . In twenty jurisdictions, applicator s bear little or no cost because current state requirements meet or exceed the proposed requirements. In other jurisdictions, cost differences are largel y a function of the number of applicators. **Table 5.3 -**  **9. Present Value of Cost for Recertification, P rivate Applicators.** 
**State/Jurisdiction PV(RC**  **P )**  **($1,000) PV(RC**  **B )** 

**($1,000) NPV(RIC)** 

**($1,000) Annualized** 

**RIC ($1,000)**  Alabama 4,564 3,288 1,275 145 Alaska 147 147 0 0 Arizona 443 442 1 0 Arkansas 15,018 5,345 9,673 1,101 California 23,252 23,250 2 0 Colorado 4,681 3,012 1,669 190 Connecticut 595 595 0 0 Delaware 537 257 279 32 Florida 3,255 2,818 437 50 Georgia 13,862 4,933 8,929 1,016 Hawaii 754 754 0 0 Id aho 3,965 3,965 0 0 Illinois 19,749 19,747 1 0 Indiana 10,146 6,687 3,459 394 Io wa 20,180 20,178 2 0 Kansas 15,328 10,102 5,226 595 Kentucky 8,333 3,266 5,067 577 Louisiana 5,499 1,653 3,846 438 Maine 1,004 1,004 0 0 Maryland 2,494 978 1,517 173 Massachusetts 1,591 1,591 0 0 Michigan 17,446 17,446 0 0 Minnesota 13,813 8,888 4,926 561 Mississippi 7,386 2,629 4,758 541 Missouri 15,007 5,341 9,667 1,100 Montana 5,014 3,304 1,709 195 Nebraska 16,705 8,008 8,697 990 Nevada 340 340 0 0 New Hampshire 642 642 0 0 New Jersey 1,368 1,146 222 25 New Mexico 2,008 1,130 878 100 New York 6,214 6,214 0 0 North Carolina 13,331 9,605 3,726 424 North Dakota 9,087 6,548 2,540 28918

Ohio 12,764 11,048 1,716 195 Oklahoma 13,624 8,979 4,645 529 Oregon 5,979 5,979 0 0 Pennsylvania 14,138 7,962 6,176 703 Rhode I sland 150 99 51 6 South Carolina 4,657 2,623 2,034 232 South Dakota 11,193 3,983 7,210 821 Tennessee 8,170 3,202 4,968 565 Texas 55,011 55,004 7 1 Utah 1,264 1,263 0 0 Vermont 454 380 74 8 Virginia 5,050 5,050 0 0 Washington 11,555 10,003 1,552 177 West Virginia 1,053 911 142 16 Wisconsin 14,201 9,360 4,841 551 Wyoming 3,721 3,117 604 69 Puerto Rico 12,547 5,472 7,074 805 Other Jurisdictions 1 175 32 143 16 **U.S. 439,463**  **319,719 119,743**  **13,629** Source: EPA calculations using a three percent discount rate

. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 1 Other Jurisdictions include territories and tribal areas with certification programs. **5.3.6 Total Costs, Private Applicators**  The total incremental cost of the proposed rule to private applicators is the sum of the five components: (1) initial certification costs, (2) category certification costs, (3) costs for n oncertified applicators under the direct supervision of a certified applicator, (4) additional labor due to minimum age requirements, and (5) recertificatio n costs. Table 5.3

- 10 presents the compliance costs for the proposed requirements and the baseline for the states and jurisdictions and at the national level. **Table 5.3 -**  **10. Total Incremental Cost of Proposed Requirements for Private Applicators**

. **State/J urisdiction**  **PV(RC P** **) ($1,000)**  **PV(RC B**  **)**

**($1,000) NPV(RIC)** 

**($1,000) Annualized** 

**RIC ($1,000)**  Alabama 7,795 6,359 1,435 163 Alaska 205 198 7 1 Arizona 1,210 1,103 109 12 Arkansas 23,914 8,852 15,062 1,715 California 34,682 33,100 1,581 180 Colorado 7,560 5,670 1,890 214 Connecticut 721 719 2 0 Delaware 975 640 334 39 Florida 5,895 5,002 894 102 Georgia 23,101 7,187 15,913 1,81019

Hawaii 967 940 27 3 Id aho 5,219 5,085 134 15 Illinois 28,207 27,620 585 66 Indiana 16,320 12,400 3,920 446 Io wa 25,421 25,279 142 16 Kansas 23,325 17,619 5,707 649 Kentucky 20,820 6,329 14,491 1,649 Louisiana 8,265 4,222 4,043 460 Maine 1,532 1,475 56 6 Maryland 3,606 1,915 1,693 193 Massachusetts 2,160 2,127 33 3 Michigan 21,085 20,836 248 28 Minnesota 17,786 12,753 5,034 573 Mississippi 17,634 12,659 4,976 566 Missouri 24,122 8,836 15,286 1,740 Montana 7,156 4,824 2,330 266 Nebraska 24,281 14,978 9,304 1,059 Nevada 736 721 14 2 New Hampshire 871 854 16 2 New Jersey 2,533 2,287 246 28 New Mexico 3,676 2,624 1,052 120 New York 11,877 11,601 275 32 North Carolina 17,995 13,800 4,195 478 North Dakota 16,521 13,009 3,513 399 Ohio 16,438 14,160 2,278 258 Oklahoma 23,527 18,170 5,357 610 Oregon 7,495 7,335 160 18 Pennsylvania 20,116 13,356 6,762 769 Rhode I sland 208 146 61 7 South Carolina 9,147 6,814 2,333 266 South Dakota 21,654 9,157 12,497 1,423 Tennessee 10,828 4,023 6,805 775 Texas 75,055 74,117 938 106 Utah 3,071 2,972 98 11 Vermont 746 642 105 12 Virginia 10,445 10,209 235 26 Washington 16,572 14,204 2,367 269 West Virginia 1,685 1,466 219 24 Wisconsin 21,822 16,013 5,809 661 Wyoming 6,131 4,326 1,805 206 Puerto Rico 18,206 10,048 8,155 928 Other Jurisdictions 1 867 283 583 67 **U.S.** 672,176 501,042 171,125 19,477 Source: Summation of Tables 5.3

- 5 to 5.3

- 9
. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 1 Other Jurisdictions include territories and tribal areas with certification programs.20

Private applicators are estimated to face incremental costs of $19.5 million dollars annuall y due to changes in certification requirements. Given that there are nearl y 490,000 certified private applicators nationall y, the average cost per applicator is approximately $39.80 per year. Per
applicator costs are discussed in more detail in Section 5 .6. Table 5.3

- 11 presents the incremental cost by component. Recertification costs comprise about 70 percent of the total cost because of the large number of applicators obtaining or working toward recertification. Additional costs for initial certification requirements make up about 19 percent of the total incremental cost. The impacts of the supervision and minimum age requirements are each estimated to be about three to four percent of the total. **Table 5.3 -**  **11. Incremental Cost, Private Certified**  **Applicators, by Component. Component**  **Annualized I ncremental**  **C ost**  **($1,000)** Initial Certification 3,740 Application

- Specific Categories 179 Supervision 644 Minimum Age Requirements (Labor Cost) 1,285 Recertification 13,629 **Total 19,477**  Source: EPA calculations using a three percent discount rate

. Columns may not sum due to rounding.


### 5.4 **Commercial Applicator Costs of the Proposed Rule** Table 5.4

- 1 presents the proposed requirements that affect commercial applicators. As with private applicators, these include new certification categories, supervision requirements, and recertification requirements. Commercial applicators would also be subject to some recordkeeping requirements. Age restrictions would apply to both certified applicators and appli cators under their supervision. The costs of the proposed requirements to commercial applicators are calculated using the methodology

described above for private applicators. For further details discussing the costs of the proposed option for each line i tem and the proposed regulation see Appendices A and B. **Table 5.4 -**  **1. Proposed Requirements Affecting Commercial Applicators.** Regulatory Requirement Description Comm Cert

- 01 Add commercial aerial category Comm Cert

- 04 Add commercial soil and non

- soil fumigation categories Comm Cert

- 05 Add commercial predator control category Comm Cert

- 06 Identification check for commercial certification Comm Sup

- 01 Commercial noncertified applicators must complete training, be handlers under the

Worker Protection Standard, or pass core exam Comm Sup

- 03 Clarify guidance provided to noncertified applicators by certified commercial applicators21

Comm Sup

- 05 Commercial noncertified applicators must have method of instant communication with

supervisors Comm Sup

- 06 Commercial applicators keep records of noncertified applicators (for two years) Comm Age

- 02 Minimum age requirement of 18 years old for certified commercial applicators Comm Age

- 04 Minimum age requirement of 18 years old for commercial noncertified appli cators Comm Recert

- 01 Exam or 6

- hour training for commercial core competency and category recertification, at

least every three years Comm Recert

- 03 Identification check for commercial recertification (every three years, Industry cost) There are very minor interactions between the minimum age requirements and the training requirement for noncertified applicators appl yi ng RUPs under the direct supervision of a commercial applicator, we estimate slightl y higher incremental costs here. Given the presence of adolescents currentl y employed in pest control operations, who are presumably paid less than their adult counterparts, the baseline costs are slightly lower than shown in Chapter 3. Table 5.4

- 2 presents the national annualized incremental cost for commercial applicators to comply with the proposed regulatory

requirements. Nationall y, the proposed requirements are estimated to cost $23.6 million annually

. **Table 5.4 -**  **2. Total Incremental Cost of Proposed Requirements for Commercial Applicators** 
**State/Ju risdiction**  **PV(RC P** **) ($1,000)**  **PV(RC B**  **)**

**($1,000) NPV(RIC)** 

**($1,000) Annualized** 

**RIC ($1,000)**  Alabama 14,049 11,138 2,911 331 Alaska 1,600 1,198 402 46 Arizona 24,569 20,228 4,341 494 Arkansas 9,115 5,007 4,108 468 California 149,087 123,633 25,454 2,897 Colorado 16,824 12,068 4,757 542 Connecticut 11,268 9,307 1,960 223 Delaware 9,799 8,026 1,773 202 Florida 82,452 73,268 9,185 1,045 Georgia 22,062 12,999 9,063 1,031 Hawaii 4,759 3,568 1,191 136 Id aho 22,373 20,772 1,601 181 Illinois 30,835 27,919 2,916 332 Indiana 48,261 44,401 3,860 439 Io wa 22,138 21,977 161 18 Kansas 20,727 18,236 2,491 284 Kentucky 34,697 28,187 6,510 742 Louisiana 11,754 9,356 2,398 273 Maine 3,916 2,261 1,654 189 Maryland 8,152 7,984 168 19 Massachusetts 6,443 6,231 211 24 Michigan 63,127 57,979 5,149 586 Minnesota 10,808 10,608 200 2322

Mississippi 7,207 5,128 2,079 236 Missouri 23,605 17,608 5,997 683 Montana 5,203 4,444 759 86 Nebraska 27,944 21,117 6,827 777 Nevada 8,362 6,526 1,837 209 New Hampshire 1,017 847 170 19 New Jersey 12,417 10,714 1,703 194 New Mexico 5,753 5,288 464 52 New York 63,668 56,766 6,901 785 North Carolina 59,159 46,577 12,582 1,432 North Dakota 15,600 9,268 6,332 721 Ohio 43,441 30,396 13,046 1,485 Oklahoma 39,899 30,839 9,060 1,031 Oregon 18,311 16,353 1,958 223 Pennsylvania 50,179 40,698 9,481 1,079 Rhode I sland 3,112 1,882 1,230 140 South Carolina 11,414 6,299 5,115 583 South Dakota 6,960 6,675 285 33 Tennessee 40,692 32,865 7,827 891 Texas 75,362 67,987 7,375 840 Utah 14,033 10,652 3,381 385 Vermont 1,343 855 488 55 Virginia 11,667 8,909 2,758 314 Washington 54,255 39,690 14,564 1,657 West Virginia 2,760 2,254 506 58 Wisconsin 34,145 20,162 13,983 1,592 Wyoming 6,538 4,746 1,792 204 Puerto Rico 18,546 10,637 7,908 901 Other Jurisdictions 1 4,481 2,693 1,788 203 **U.S.** 1,295,884 1,055,222 240,665 27,391 Source: EPA calculations using a three percent discount rate

. Columns may not sum due to rounding. California, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Penns ylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin are estimated to see incremental costs to commercial applicators of over $1 million annually , but this is mostly due to the large number of commercial applicators in those states. Together, these eight states account for almost one

- third of the 414,000 commercial applicators in the United States. The overall average cost per applicator of around $66.18 per year, although there is considerable variation across states and jurisdictions. Per

- applicator costs are discussed in more detail in Section 5.6. Table 5.4

- 3 presents the incremental cost to commercial applicators by component. The costs associated with initial certification are a function of the minimum age requirement; adolescent applicators ar e presumed to cost less to certify because they

have a lower opportunity cost of time than adults. The impacts of the minimum age requirements in terms of additional labor cost are estimated to be half of the total cost, and are a function of assumptions made about23

uncertified applicators applying RUPs. Data are extremely limited and EPA assumes that adolescents are typicall y employed for 40 hours per week for 16 weeks, which may be long for summer employ

ment. Further, we assume that 50 percent of the adolescent’s time is spent handling RUPs, which is likely extremel y high for youths who are probabl y working on golf courses or in residential, commercial, and public areas where RUPs would rarel y be used. If only 25 percent of adolescents’ time is spent handling RUPs, the additional labor costs fall to $6.7 million annually

and the total incremental cost to commercial applicators would be estimated at $17.1 million per year. Recertification costs and supervision costs each comprise about 20 percent of the total incremental cost. **Table 5. 4**  **- 3**  **. Incremental Cost, Commercial Certified Applicators, by Component.**  **Component Annualized I**  **ncremental C**  **ost ($1,000)**  Initial Certification 0 Application

- Specific Categories 540 Supervision 7,269 Minimum Age Requirements (Labor Cost) 13,082 Recertification 6,500 **Total 27,391**  Source: EPA calculations using a three percent discount rate

. Columns may not sum due to rounding.


### 5.5 **State and Governmental Agency Costs of the Proposed Rule** The costs of the proposed requirements to state and government agencies are calculated simpl y as the sum of the components as there are no interactions. Table 5.5

- 1 presents the proposed requirements that would affect states or other government entities. Admin

- 02, 03, an d 04 are not strictly proposed requirements. However, any changes EPA makes in the existing requirements will obligate authorizing agencies to revise their plans, which must then be reviewed b y EPA. Admin

- 04, 05, and 06 are costs borne b y EPA. Several o ther requirements merel y codif y existing policies or label requirements ( e.g. , certification requirements for predator control). Some governmental agencies employ certified applicators; thus they would bear some part of the incremental costs to commercial applicators estimated in the previous section. **Table 5.5 -**  **1. Proposed Requirements Affecting States, Other Jurisdictions, and Federal Agencies.**  Regulatory Requirement Description Admin

- 02 Revise State regulations and Update plans Admin

- 03 Submit state plans Admin

- 04 EPA review of State and Federal Agency plans Admin

- 06 Revise EPA administered tribal plans Comm Cert

- 01 Develop/Adapt commercial aerial category exam; ID check and proctor exams Comm Cert

- 04 Develop commercial soil and non

- soil fumigatio n categories; ID check and proctor exams Comm Cert

- 05 Commercial predator control category exam (codification) Private Cert

- 02 Develop/Adapt private certification training and/or exam24

Private Cert

- 04 Develop/Adapt private aerial category exam/training Private Cert

- 10 Develop/Adapt private soil and non

- soil fumigation categories exam/training Private Cert

- 12 Private predator control category exam (codification) Private Cert

- 15 ID Check and Proctor/Administer private certification exams/trainings Comm Recert
- 03 ID Check and Proctor commercial recertification Private Recert

- 03 ID Check and Proctor private recertification Table 5.5

- 2 presents the estimated costs to government entities other than EPA. The two key components of these requirements are (1) states, territories, and other jurisdictions, along with several federal agencies, must revise regulations and certification plans and (2) administer exams or trainings to certify

applicators, both commercial and private. Costs for the former would be incurred immediatel y after the rule is finalized; EPA anticipates the process would take about two years. The administration costs occur as the new requirements are implemented and would be on

- going. See Chapter 3 and Appendix A for details. **Table 5.5 -**  **2. Total Incremental Cost to Government Entities of Proposed Requirements**
**State/Jurisdiction PV(RIC)**  **Revise & Others**  **1 ($1,000)**  **PV(RIC)**

**Administer ($1,000)**  **Total Annualized**  **RIC ($1,000)**  Alabama 41 4 5 Alaska 27 0 3 Arizona 31 1 4 Arkansas 50 80 15 California 56 19 8 Colorado 50 7 6 Connecticut 37 0 4 Delaware 41 1 5 Florida 46 16 7 Georgia 46 104 17 Hawaii 37 0 4 Id aho 60 3 7 Illinois 46 0 5 Indiana 46 9 6 Io wa 37 16 6 Kansas 60 29 10 Kentucky 37 148 21 Louisiana 56 6 7 Maine 37 1 4 Maryland 37 3 4 Massachusetts 37 1 4 Michigan 46 6 6 Minnesota 37 16 6 Mississippi 46 8 6 Missouri 50 95 16 Montana 27 13 5 Nebraska 46 16 725

Nevada 31 0 4 New Hampshire 37 0 4 New Jersey 37 1 4 New Mexico 41 2 5 New York 37 5 5 North Carolina 50 12 7 North Dakota 37 8 5 Ohio 27 11 4 Oklahoma 50 35 10 Oregon 50 4 6 Pennsylvania 27 13 5 Rhode I sland 37 0 4 South Carolina 37 5 5 South Dakota 50 117 19 Tennessee 50 30 9 Texas 46 31 9 Utah 27 1 3 Vermont 37 0 4 Virginia 37 5 5 Washington 50 11 7 West Virginia 41 1 5 Wisconsin 37 10 5 Wyoming 37 16 6 Puerto Rico 31 12 5 Other Jurisdictions 83 0 9 Federal Agencies 19 0 2 **U.S. 2,202**  **936 35**  **9** Source: EPA calculations using a three percent discount rate

. Columns may not sum due to rounding. 1 Includes all requirements in Table 5.5

- 1 except Private Cert

- 15, Comm Recert

- 03, and Private Recert

- 03 The annualized cost to government entities including EPA, assuming a three percent discount rate, is estimated to be about $359,000. As shown in Table 5.5

- 2, Column 2, revisions to state plans and certification programs, including development of new application

- specific categories, is likely to cost about $2.2 million over the first two years after the rule is fin alized. The cost per governmental entity is around $36,700, with a dozen states (Arkansas, California, Colorado, Id aho, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Washington) facing costs of around $50,000

- 60,000 because they must develop multiple new categories. Costs for administering the certification program under the proposed requirements (Column 3) would most affect the seven states that currentl y certify private applicators b y training. This may ove rstate costs. The new required content is anticipated to take about 12 hours of training, but some of these states currently offer an option for exam. In cremental costs are estimated assuming that the states continue to offer training and the applicators continue to choose training instead of exam. State costs could be lower if more applicators opt for exams as the state would not need to provide trainers for as many sessions.26

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (P.L. 104

- 4) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. In general, Title II mandates especiall y rigorous economic anal ys is for rules imposing high costs on either the public or the private sector, and it directs energetic consultation with small governments prior to actions that may significantl y or uniquely affect them. Under UMRA, an agency must generall y prepare a written statement, including a benefit

cost anal ys is, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by

State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. This proposal does not result in expenditures of this amount, but EPA has prepared this benefit

- cost analy sis to better inform the Agency ’s decision

making process.


### 5.6 **Impact on Employment** Executive Order 13563 directs federal agencies to consider the effect of regulations on job creation and employ

ment
. Labor is an important input into production and changes in the cost of labor may induce farms and firms to adjust employ ment levels. If farms and commercial pesticide services bear the cost of changes in certification requirement, b y, for example, paying for training or allowing employees to prepare for exams during working hours, there would be an increase in the cost of employing a certified applicator and, potentiall y, a reduction in the demand for certified applicators. On the other hand, if th e applicator bears the cost of changes in certification requirements, because training and exams are taken outside working hours as a means of increasing skills and employ ment opportunities, increased costs of obtaining and retaining certification may lead to a reduction in the supply of certified applicators. Thus, an important consideration is the impact the revisions to the Certification requirements have on emplo ym ent. The magnitude of the incremental per

- applicator cost, relative to the cost of emplo ym ent or return to employ ment, provides a measure by which EPA can judge the impacts on jobs. Tables 5.6

- 1 and 5.6

- 2 present the estimated annual cost for private and commercial applicators for each state (from Tables 5.3

- 10 and 5.4

- 2), the total number o f applicators, and the average cost per applicator. **Table 5.6 -**  **1. Annualized Per -** **Applicator Costs, by Jurisdiction, Private Applicators.**
**Jurisdiction Annualized RIC,**  **Private ($1,000)**  **Number of Private** 

**Applicators Cost per Private** 

**Applicator** Alabama 163 5,963 $ 27.34 Alaska 1 89 $ 11.24 Arizona 12 473 $ 25.39 Arkansas 1,715 20,997 $ 81.68 California 180 18,601 $ 9.68 Colorado 214 6,049 $ 35.38 Connecticut 0 564 $

- . Delaware 39 746 $ 52.2627

Florida 102 4,044 $ 25.22 Georgia 1,810 19,679 $ 91.98 Hawaii 3 444 $ 6.75 Id aho 15 3,613 $ 4.15 Illinois 66 17,297 $ 3.82 Indiana 446 13,004 $ 34.30 Io wa 16 22,977 $ 0.70 Kansas 649 14,939 $ 43.44 Kentucky 1,649 13,304 $123.95 Louisiana 460 7,616 $ 60.40 Maine 6 1,175 $ 5.11 Maryland 193 3,320 $ 58.13 Massachusetts 3 1,130 $ 2.66 Michigan 28 7,662 $ 3.65 Minnesota 573 17,359 $ 33.01 Mississippi 566 10,941 $ 51.73 Missouri 1,740 21,127 $ 82.36 Montana 266 6,291 $ 42.28 Nebraska 1,059 21,818 $ 48.54 Nevada 2 296 $ 6.75 New Hampshire 2 502 $ 3.99 New Jersey 28 1,768 $ 15.84 New Mexico 120 2,702 $ 44.41 New York 32 7,051 $ 4.54 North Carolina 478 16,251 $ 29.41 North Dakota 399 11,680 $ 34.16 Ohio 258 14,803 $ 17.43 Oklahoma 610 13,858 $ 44.02 Oregon 18 4,278 $ 4.21 Pennsylvania 769 18,107 $ 42.47 Rhode I sland 7 186 $ 37.57 South Carolina 266 6,477 $ 41.07 South Dakota 1,423 16,694 $ 85.24 Tennessee 775 10,927 $ 70.93 Texas 106 43,201 $ 2.45 Utah 11 1,663 $ 6.61 Vermont 12 562 $ 21.35 Virginia 26 6,395 $ 4.07 Washington 269 13,817 $ 19.47 West Virginia 24 1,277 $ 18.79 Wisconsin 661 13,886 $ 47.60 Wyoming 206 4,655 $ 44.26 Puerto Rico 928 16,728 $ 55.48 Other 67 333 $201.00 **U.S.** 19,477 489,317 $39.8028

Source: EPA calculations using a three percent discount rate

. Columns may not sum due to rounding. The average cost per private applicator across the United States is estimated to be about $39.80 per year (Table 5.6

- 1). There is substantial variation across states, however. Average incremental cost per applicator is estimated to be less than $10 per ye ar in 17 states while applicators in five states

– Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky , Missouri, and South Dakota

– are expected to bear incremental cost of over $80 per year. The estimated cost to applicators in other jurisdictions such as tribes and Pacific Islands are estimated to be $195 per year, but this is an artifact due to lack of specific informatio n about current certification requirements in these territories. EPA assumed that these jurisdictions maintained the minimum standards in all components for the certification of private applicators. The average cost per applicator can be influenced by th e turnover in applicators. For example, Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee have very similar requirements for certification and recertification, but the average per

- applicator cost in Kentucky is higher because they have a higher proportion of first

- time applicators obtaining certification, who face much higher incremental costs than do applicators obtaining recertification. Compared to current state requirements, the proposed certification requirements would increase the cost of initial certification in th ose states by about $400. Two things should be noted. Initial certification is a one - time cost, not an annual cost, and this increase in cost largel y brings the cost of certification in these states in line with the cost to applicators in other states. As to the impact on jobs, it is important to note that most private applicators are self

- employed as the owner or operator of a farm or livestock operation. Some operations, however, would employ a pesticide applicator and he or she may need to be certifi ed. A closer examination of the incremental costs to Kentucky applicators may be revealing. As an example, consider a farm in Kentucky that may need to use a RUP and therefore needs to have a certified private applicator. Let us assume that there is a 2 0 percent chance over a ten

- ye ar time horizon that an initial certification is needed while 80 percent of the time the holder may need recertification. This represents the likelihood of turnover in employees, where newly certified applicators in Kentucky make up nearly 20 percent of the total number of applicators. For a farm that does not need certification in one of the new application

- specific categories, the incremental costs are estimated to be about $108 per year. The additional cost in the year an initial certification is required would be about $400, but maintaining the certification in Kentucky would cost about $54 per year more than is currentl y the situation. If an application

- specific certification is needed, for example, non

- soil fumigation for fumigating grain in storage, the cost of a certified applicator is estimated to be about $128 per ye ar. According to wage data from BLS (2014a), a private applicator earns about $38.83 per hour and costs the employer about $51.96 per hour, including n on - monetary

benefits. Employing an applicator 40 hours per week for a six

- month growing season would therefore cost about $54,000. An incremental change in certification costs of $130 represents about 0.25 percent of the cost of employing the applicator, which is unlikely to affect the employ

ment decision. For the applicator, a 40

- hour week for six months implies a take

- home pay

of just over $18,600. The increased cost of changes in certification and recertification requirements represents less than one percent of the likel y returns to a typical salary for a certified applicator. Given this anal ys is, EPA concludes that the revisions to the Certification requirements would not negatively impact employ

ment for private applicators.29

**Table 5.6 -**  **2. Annualize d Per**  **- Applicator Costs, by Jurisdiction, Commercial Applicators.** 
**Jurisdiction Annualized RIC,**  **Commercial ($1,000)**  **Number of**

**Commercial Applicators**  **Cost per**

**Commercial Applicator**  Alabama 331 4,102 $ 80.70 Alaska 46 665 $ 69.17 Arizona 494 7,105 $ 69.53 Arkansas 468 4,332 $ 108.04 California 2,897 36,236 $ 79.95 Colorado 542 3,899 $ 139.00 Connecticut 223 2,810 $ 79.36 Delaware 202 1,967 $ 102.71 Florida 1,045 17,005 $ 61.45 Georgia 1,031 11,178 $ 92.23 Hawaii 136 1,267 $ 107.34 Id aho 181 4,001 $ 45.24 Illinois 332 15,330 $ 21.66 Indiana 439 10,125 $ 43.36 Io wa 18 13,401 $ 1.34 Kansas 284 6,023 $ 47.15 Kentucky 742 12,929 $ 57.39 Louisiana 273 4,498 $ 60.69 Maine 189 1,613 $ 117.17 Maryland 19 4,556 $ 4.17 Massachusetts 24 2,187 $ 10.97 Michigan 586 14,816 $ 39.55 Minnesota 23 10,225 $ 2.25 Mississippi 236 3,045 $ 77.50 Missouri 683 7,647 $ 89.31 Montana 86 2,411 $ 35.67 Nebraska 777 9,711 $ 80.01 Nevada 209 1,691 $ 123.62 New Hampshire 19 1,262 $ 15.05 New Jersey 194 9,037 $ 21.47 New Mexico 52 2,377 $ 21.88 New York 785 18,904 $ 41.53 North Carolina 1,432 18,373 $ 77.94 North Dakota 721 5,316 $ 135.62 Ohio 1,485 12,968 $ 114.51 Oklahoma 1,031 10,539 $ 97.82 Oregon 223 4,873 $ 45.76 Pennsylvania 1,079 16,127 $ 66.91 Rhode I sland 140 659 $ 212.34 South Carolina 583 5,762 $ 101.19 South Dakota 33 5,757 $ 5.7330

Tennessee 891 14,378 $ 61.97 Texas 840 19,194 $ 43.76 Utah 385 4,318 $ 89.16 Vermont 55 994 $ 55.36 Virginia 314 7,484 $ 41.96 Washington 1,657 15,713 $ 105.46 West Virginia 58 1,987 $ 29.18 Wisconsin 1,592 12,909 $ 123.32 Wyoming 204 1,910 $ 106.81 Puerto Rico 901 5,889 $ 153.01 Other 203 2376.5 $ 85.42 **U.S.** 27,391 413,879 **$66.18** As shown in Table 5.6

- 2, we estimate the average incremental cost per applicator for commercial certification to be about $62 per year, ranging from $1.34 in I owa to about $212 per year in Rhode I sland. Eight states are expected to see incremental costs of over $100 per year. Note, however, that this cost includes the cost of supervising noncertified applicators, which would not be a consideration in an employer’s decision to hire a certified applicator. Absent supervision costs, the incremental cost per applicator is $100 in or less in all jurisdictions, even accounting for the possibility

of obtaining certification in one of the new, application specific categories. The unloaded wage rate for commercial app licators is $14.82 per hour while the loaded wage rate is $21.49 per hour, according to BLS data (2014a). Even assuming part

- time employ ment of about six to eight months, a commercial applicator would cost an employer around $22,300 to $29,200 per ye ar. An incremental cost of $100 per year due to the rule would be 0.3 to 0.5 percent of emplo ym ent costs. The applicator’s take

- home pay would range from $7,700 to $12,450 for six to eight months and an incremental cost of $100 per ye ar would represent 0.8 to 1.3 percent of his or her salary . It is unlikely that such modest changes would impact employ ment.


### 5.7 **Potential Impacts on Small Businesses** This section presents estimates of the impact the proposed changes to the requirements for the certification of pesticide applicators may have on small entities. The Regulatory Flexibility

Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enf orcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, requires regulators to assess the effects of regulations on small entities, including businesses, nonprofit organizations, and governments. In some instances, when significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities are expected, agencies are also required to examine regulatory alternatives that may

reduce adverse economic effects on significantl y impacted small entities. The RFA does not define the terms “significant” or “substantial” with regard to the extent of the economic impact and number of small entities affected. EPA has often characterized annual incremental compliance costs of three percent or more of annual revenue as significant, costs less than one percent of annual revenue as not si gnificant, and costs between one and three percent of revenue as inconclusive. If costs are likely to be greater than one percent of annual revenue,31

EPA considers both the number of significantl y affected small firms and their proportion of all affected s mall firms to determine if a substantial number of small firms would be impacted. Consistent with a previous analy sis on the farm sector (W yatt, 2008), we set the following thresholds at which the number of impacted entities is not considered “substantial ” for impacts greater than one percent of annual sales:

 Fewer than 100 small entities may be affected, provided the number represents less than 30 percent of all small entities;

 Between 100 and 1,000 small entities may be affected, provided the number represents less than 20 percent of all small entities; or

 More than 1000 small entities may be affected, but the number represents less than ten percent of all small entities. If the estimated impacts exceed three percent, or if impacts cannot be quantified, the thresholds at which EPA concludes a substantial number of small entities would not be affected are as follows:

 Fewer than 100 small entities may be affected, provided the number represents less than 20 percent of all small entities;

 Between 100 and 1,0 00 may be affected, but account for less than ten percent of all small entities; or

 More than 1000 small entities may be affected, but the number represents less than five percent of all small entities. For firms emplo yi ng commercial applicators, we utili ze lower thresholds for the number of impacted small entities considered substantial because there are fewer firms than there are farms. For impacts greater than one percent of gross revenues, the number of impacted entities is not considered substantial if:

 Fewer than 20 small entities may be affected, provided the number represents less than 30 percent of all small entities;

 Between 20 and 200 small entities may be affected, provided the number represents less than 20 percent of all small entities; or

 Be tween 200 and 1000 small entities may be affected, provided the number represents less than ten percent of all small entities. To determine the magnitude of any potential adverse impact, the annualized incremental costs on a per- company basis is compared to the annual revenue for small businesses to develop cost

- to
sales ratios. In the next section, we explain the methodology for estimating the average cost per entity of the proposed rule. Section 5.7.2 estimates the per

- entity cost for small businesses (farm) emplo yi ng or operated b y private applicators. We also present a profile of the affected industry, including estimates of per

- entity

revenues and calculate the impacts. In Section 5.7.3, we present the same information for small business employing commercial applicators. Based on this analy sis, EPA certifies that there would not be a significant impact to a substantial number of small businesses. Agricultural establishments may be owned or operated b y private32

certified applicators or may employ private certified applicators. Average impacts to small crop producing enterprises, those making less than $750,000 in annual sales of agricultural products , are estimated to be around 0.1 percent of annual sales. Even in the most heavily impacted region s, the estimated impacts on most small agricultural operations are less than one percent of average annual sales. Small entities with commercial applicators, including agricultural pesticide services, extermination services, and landscaping services, are estimated to face impacts of 0.2 perc ent or less of annual revenue. 

### 5.7.1 Methodology The basis for this anal ys is is the results from Section 5.6, cost per applicator. The methodology requires the determination of the number of applicators (certified and noncertified applicators under the direct supervision) for representative entities, and the impacts are measured in terms of the incremental cost to small entities relative to their sales revenues. 

### 5.7.2 Private Applicator Establishments Private applic ators are largely employed by

or operate establishments in agricultural production. EPA has identified a number of specific types of establishments. The SBA specifies a revenue threshold to distinguish small entities, as shown in Table 5.7

- 1. **Table 5.7 -**  **1. Private Applicator Establishment NAICS Codes with Small Business Thresholds (Annual Revenue)**  **Farming Sector 1**  **NAICS Code Large Business**  **Threshold** Crop Farming 111 $750,000 Animal Farming 112 $750,000 Feedlots 112112 $ 7 ,500,000 Source: SBA, 2014 1 See the first line of Table 5.7

- 3 for the magnitudes of impacts for these farm types. Certification needs could differ across these ty pes given different pest problems and, therefore, different certification needs. Within crop farming, producers of field crops such as soy bean and grain farmers, for example, may require an aerial certification and/or a certification for commodity

(non

- soil) fumigation. Nut, fruit, and vegetable farms may need a soil fumigation certification. While many farms produce multipl e ty pes of crops, generally speaking, a small farm would be unlikel y t o need more than one application

- specific certification. Moreover, the proposed rule would impose similar training or exam requirements for each category certification. Impacts on indi viduals and individual entities are more likely to be a function of the state or region, given the variability in current certification requirements , than to vary by farm type .33

**Profile of Private Applicator Establishments** The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) of the Department of Agriculture conducts a census of agriculture every five years. A farm is defined as “any place from which $1,000 or more of agricultural product were produced or sold, or normally would have been sold, during the ye ar of the census (NASS, 2014c).” According to the 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2014c), there are over 2.1 million farms in the United States, including about 430,000 places with less than $1,000 in total sales of agricultural products. Excluding the latter places, which do not strictly

meet the definition of ‘farm’ and, moreover, are extremely unlikely to utilize RUPs, there are between 1.5 and 1.6 million farms classified as small by the SBA criterion. The publicly available Census data reports that about 76,000 farms have annual revenue between $500,000 and $999,999, whereas the SBA criterion for a small farm is sales less than $750,000. We therefore have a range for farms and average revenue. Revenue includes sales of agricultural products and g overnment pay ments, but does not include farm

- related income, such as crop and livestock insurance pay

ments, rental income, and income from agricultural services. To better understand the impacts and the distribution of impacts on small farms, EPA identif ies three categories of small farms. We define ‘small

- small’ farms as those with annual sales between $1,000 and $10,000, medium

- small farms as those with annual sales between $10,000 and $100,000, and large

- small farms as those with annual sales between $100,000 and $750,000. Table 5.7

- 2 provides the distribution of small crop and animal farms across these various categories. The table also provides similar data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b), for which a special tabulation distinguis hed farms with annual revenue of $750,000 or less. The number of small farms and average revenues for each category are consistent over time. **Table 5.7 -**  **2. Number and Average Revenue of Small Farms. All Small**  **Farms 1**  **Small -**  **Sm all** 

($1,000

- $10,000/year) **Medium**  

** Small** ($1 0 ,000

- $10 0 ,000/year) **Large**  

** Small** ($1 00,000

- $750 ,000/year) 2012, Number of Farms 1,5 21 , 27 1

- 1 , 598 , 833 716,505 567,438 237,328

- 314,890 Average Revenue $52,775

- $85,030 $4,178 $34,600 $242,948

- $359,877 2007, Number of Farms 1,622,838 771,855 566,898 284,085 Average Revenue $67,093 $4,072 $34,182 $301,182 Source: USDA NASS, 2008 b and 2014 c . 1 The criterion for small farm is that sales are less than $750,000 per year. The lower bound is for farms with sales less than $500,000 and the upper bound includes farms with sales less than $1,000,000. Does not include operations with less than $1,000 in total sales. Not all farms utilize pesticides every year, however; thus some farms may not need a private applicator. EPA obtained a special tabulation of data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture to identify those farms that use pesticides (NASS, 2008b). The likelihood that a farm will use pesticides is inversel y related to size; around eighty percent of large and large

- small farms us e pesticides while only

about 25 percent of small

- small farms use pesticides. Overall, about 5334

percent of small farms used pesticides in 2007. Assuming a similar proportion used pesticides in 2012, about 820,000 small farms might be affected by this rul e. Use of RUPs will be even lower. According to proprietary market data, RUPs account for less than 20 percent of pesticide treatments, b y acreage. Data of use b y farm is not available, however. Many farms, even small farms, use pesticides occasionally and may , therefore, obtain and maintain certification in order to have the capacity to use a RUP if needed. Thus, EPA assumes that most small farms would be affected b y changes to the certification requirements at some point. **Costs per Small Entity, Pri vate Applicators**  In Section 5.6, EPA estimated the total incremental cost to private applicators of changes in the Certification requirements would average $38.50 per private applicator per year. This includes the costs associated with requirements for ce rtification, recertification, and for n oncertified applicators under the direct supervision of the certified applicator. This cost per private applicator is also a reasonable estimate of the cost per small entity , as it would represent the owner/operator of a small farm or animal operation who may , at least occasionally , employ or use a famil y member to apply a pesticide under his or her supervision. See Table 5.6

- 1. We also considered, in more detail, a farm in Kentucky , which has the highest average es timated cost per applicator, that may need to use a RUP and therefore needs to employ a certified private applicator. A similar scenario could describe a small farm where the owner or operator is the certified applicator, but turnover in ownership is like ly to be much lower than the 20 percent assumed for the employment scenario. A ten percent likelihood of obtaining an initial certification is still highly conservative, given that a generation may be 20 to 30 years. For a farm that does not need certifi cation in one of the new application

- specific categories, the incremental costs are estimated to be about $102 per year. If an application

- specific certification is needed, for example, non

- soil fumigation for fumigating grain in storage, the cost of a certified applicator is estimated to be about $157 per ye ar. If the farm also has someone noncertified, whether a famil y member or emplo yee, who applies RUPs under the direct supervision of the owner/operator, the incremental cost for training and other sup ervisory requirements are expected to cost another $20 per year. Note that the overall average cost per private applicator in Kentucky was estimated to be $125 per ye ar. **Impacts per Small Entity, Private Applicators** Given the range of costs estimated to be imposed on small farms and the revenues of these farms, EPA calculates the impacts as a percentage of annual sales revenue. Results are shown in Table 5.7
- 3. Note that it is highly unlikel y that a small

- small operation would need to obtain certificati on in one of the new application

- specific categories (aerial application or non

- soil fumigation) or rel y on a noncertified applicator. A medium

- small operation may have someone noncertified, likel y a family member, apply

a RUP under the direct supervision of the owner/operator. A large

- small operation is more likely to have someone noncertified working under the direct supervision of the certified applicator and could need certification in non

- soil fumigation for on

- farm grain storage.35

**Table 5.7 -**  **3. Impact per Small Entity, Private Applicator.**  **All Small Farms**  **Small -**  **Sm all**  **Medium**   ** Small** **Large**  

** Small** **Type, Level of Impact** $52,775

- $85,030 $4,178 $34,600 $242,948

- $359,877 Average Impact; $38/year 1 0.04

- 0.07% 0.91% 0.11% 0.01

- 0.02% Kentucky, no application category or applicator UTS; $102/year 0.12

- 0.19% 2.44% 0.29% 0.03

- 0.04% Kentucky, no application category , applicator UTS; $121/year 0.14

- 0.23% n/a 0.35% 0.03

- 0.05% Kentucky, new application category , no applicator UTS; $157/year 0.18

- 0.30% n/a n/a 0.04

- 0.06% Kentucky, new application category , applicator UTS; $178/year 0.21

- 0.34% n/a n/a 0.05

- 0.07% Source: EPA calculations. 1 These represent the magnitudes of impacts for the three farm types in Table 5.7

- 1 (crop farming, animal farming, and feedlots). As shown in Table 5.7

- 3, the impact on the average small crop farm would range from 0.04 to 0.34 percent of average revenue, even for very high impacts. The average impact of $38 would exceed three percent of revenue for very small farms m aking $1,250 or less per year. High impacts, which could occur in Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee, states that currentl y require only two hours of training for initial certification, would be greater than one percent of sales revenue for onl y the smalles t ty pes of enterprises, i.e. , those with revenues averaging less than $4,200 per ye ar. According to the 2012 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2014c), there are 236,500 farms with revenues of $1,000 to $2,500 per year or less, averaging about $1,660 annually. Assuming a uniform distribution of farms within this range, about 39,400 farms would have revenues of less than $1,250 per ye ar. A conservative estimate for the proportion of farms using pesticides, based on farms with revenue up to $10,000 per year, would be 25 percent (NASS, 2008b), or fewer than 10,000 farms. Of those, perhaps 20 percent would use RUPs, based on the percent of acres treated, or about 2,000 farms. In the high

- impact states of Georgia, Kentucky , and Tennessee, there are another 23,500 farms with annual revenue of $2,500 to $5,000, a range where impacts could be over two percent of annual revenue. Of those, an estimated 1,200 might use RUPs. In total, around 3,200 farms many face impacts of two percent or more of annual revenue. These farms comprise less than one

- fourth of one percent of all small farms and about 0.4 percent of all small farms that use pesticides, which may be affected by

the rule

. In the case of the high

- impact states, most of the impact is a result of increased requirements for initial certification. It should be noted that private applicators in other states are currentl y obtaining certifications under requirements very similar to those proposed.36

An additional factor to consider is that EPA has proposed changes to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS), which sets requirements that agricultural establishments hiring labor must meet when pesticides are used on the establishment. Hired labor are persons outside the immediate family who receive compensation for their w ork. The WPS imposes requirements include providing pesticide safety training for emplo yees that will be entering treated fields and notifying employees when applications have been made so that they can take proper precautions. A subset of the farms usin g RUPs, who are impacted b y revisions to the certification requirements, will also employ

workers and will also be impacted by revisions to the WPS. EPA estimated that, on average, small farms would face costs of about $125 to $140 per year from proposed changes to the requirements of the WPS. These costs would essentially be additive to the estimated costs of changes to the certification requirements for farms that have a certified applicator and hire labor to work in the field. When considering the two proposals together, the focus remains on the small

- small farms. Because smaller farms generall y emplo y fewer workers, the impacts of changes in the WPS are also smaller. EPA estimates that the proposed changes to the WPS would cost small

- small farms between $65 and $80 per year, implying that the average small

- small farm affected by both proposals would face combined incremental costs of about $120 per year and our example establishment in Kentucky would have combined costs of around $180 per ye ar with i mpacts of around three to four percent of gross revenues from farm products. The number of small

- small farms affected by both rules is likely

to be small. According to data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (NASS, 2008b ), there were about 316,000 small

- small farms that used any kind of pesticide. Of those, fewer than 60,000 farms also employed labor, or less than 20 percent, and might bear some impacts from proposed changes to the WPS. I f, as above, about 20 percent of farms using pesticides use RUPs and rel y on a certified applicator, then perhaps around 12,000 small

- small farms in the U.S. might face impacts from changes to both the WPS and to the certification requirements. This is around 0.8 percent of all small farms in the U.S. and less than four percent of small

- small farms that use pesticides. 

### 5.7.2 Commercial Applicator Establishments Commercial pesticide applicators are employed by businesses that service a broad array of activities, including agricultural sites, urban and residential sites, and industrial sites. The Small Business Administration (SBA) uses a variety of criteria in sizing commercial applicator establishments depending on a firm’s primary industry (as classified b y its NAI CS code). The relevant criterion for small busi ness designation may include revenue or the number of employees. Table 5.7

- 4 presents the SBA large

- business thresholds, by NAICS code, used to determine the size of each firm in the commercial applicator establishment portion of the small business impact anal ys is.37

**Table 5.7 -**  **4. Commercial Applicator Establishment Small Business Thresholds**  **NAICS Code NAICS Sector Description**  **Sizing Criterion Small**  **Business Threshold**  115112 Soil Preparation, Planting, and

Cultivating Revenue $ 7 , 5 00,000 115210 Support Activities for Animal

Production Revenue $7 , 5 00,000 221121 E lectric Bulk Power

Transmission and Control Employees 1,000 221210 Natural Gas Distribution Employees 500 221310 Water Supply and Irrigation Sy stems Revenue $27,5 00,000 221320 Sewage Treatment Facilities Revenue $20,5 00,000 321114 Wood Preservation Employees 500 325320 Pesticide and Other Agricultural

Chemical Manufacturing Employees 500 424690 Other Chemical and Allied

Products Merchant Wholesalers Employees 100 424910 Farm Supplies Merchant

Wholesalers Employees 100 561710 Exterminating and Pest Control

Services Revenue $ 11 ,000,000 561730 Landscaping Services Revenue $7,5 00,000 Source: SBA, 2014. Existing category

certifications cover different sites. In addition to agricultural certifications, there are categories, such as rights

- of

- way , which is relevant to power transmission industries; aquatic sites, which is relevant to water suppl y and irrigation sy stems and other activities; and ornamental/turf sites, which would be required for landscaping services. The new certification categories are more application focused and would be required by different ty

pes of services. For example, power transmission systems may need to hire applicators with aerial certification to reach some of their rights

- of

- way and exterminators would likely need certification in structural fumigation. **Profile of Commercial Applicator Establishments** For this anal ys is, EPA focuses on entities providing pest control services, rather than the broa der array of entities that may require pest control services. In particular, we narrow the anal ys is to Agricultural Pesticide Services, within NAICS codes 115112 and 115210, Exterminating and Pest Control Services (561710), and Landscaping Services (56173 0). Table 5.7

- 5 presents the number of small establishments and financial and employee information, based on information obtained from the Dunn and Bradstreet (D&B) database of U.S. commercial establishments. The small firms account for over 99 percent o f the firms in these sectors. Compared to the small business size thresholds of the Small Business Administration, which range from $7.5 million to38

$11 million annually, the average annual revenues shown here would seem to represent some of the smallest o f the small firms

. **Table 5.7 -**  **5. Size Distribution of Establishments that Employ Commercial Applicators**  **Entity Number of small**  **establishments Average Revenue**  **Average Number of Employees**  Agricultural Pesticide Services 17,562 $ 139,000 3 Exterminating and Pest Control Services 25,179 $ 178,000 4 Landscaping Services 95,466 $ 159,000 4 **Total 138,297**  **$ 159,816**  **4** Source: Dun and Bradstreet (2010) **Costs per Small Entity, Commercial Applicators** In Section 5.4, EPA estimated the total incremental cost of the proposed rule to commercial applicators to be $25.6 million annually . The rule would impact an estimated 414,000 commercial applicators for a per

- applicator cost of $61.73 per year. This includes the costs associated with requirements on n oncertified app licators under the direct supervision of the certified applicator, assuming that most certified applicators supervise two or three others. Per
- applicator incremental costs vary across the different states and jurisdictions of the country , depending on the baseline certification and recertification requirements of the jurisdiction, including category

certifications. See Table 5.6

- 2 for estimates of the total incremental cost, number of commercial certified applicators, and average per

- applicator cost, by region. Costs range from essentiall y zero in I owa, where the current state requirements meet or exceed the proposed federal requirements and noncertified applicators are not allowed to apply RUPs, to $211 per year in Rhode Island, which does not currently have an aerial certification category and where EPA estimates that there are about five noncertified applicators for every certified applicator. As explained in Chapter 3, the number of noncertified applicators is subject to considerable uncertainty . In the case of Rhode Island, the number of noncertified applicators is estimated by

taking BLS employ

ment figures for those involved in ‘pest control’ and subtracting the number of certified commercial applicators. Given the average number of emplo ye es shown in Table 5.7

- 5, small entities providing pesticide application services could have one to two certified applicators, including the owner of the service, with two to three n oncertified applicators working under their direct supervision. Thus, EPA anticipates the cost to be $62 to $123 per year for the average small entity and from $98 to $188 for a small entity

in a state such as Rhode Island. These estimates include the costs of supervision, but for two n oncertified applicators under their direct supervi sion in Rhode I sland rather than the average estimate of five.39

**Impacts per Small Entity, Commercial Applicators** Given the range of costs estimated to be imposed on small firms and the revenues of these firms, EPA calculates the impacts as a percentage of annual revenue. Results are shown in Table 5.7

- 6. **Table 5.7 -**  **6. Impact per Small Entity, Commercial Applicator. Entity**  **Average Revenue Average Impact**  **($ 62**  **- 123**  **/year) High Impact**  **($ 188**  **/year)** A gri cultural Pesticide Services $139,000 0.0 4

- 0.09 % 0.1 4 % Exterminating and Pest Control Services $178,000 0.0 3

- 0. 07 % 0. 11 % Landscaping Services $159,000 0.04

- 0. 08 % 0. 12 % Source: EPA calculations. The impacts to commercial pesticide application services are estimated to be less than one percent of average revenues for both the average and high cost scenarios. For impacts to exceed even one percent of annual revenue, the enterprise would have to make less than $12,000 to $18,000 per ye ar. A firm of that size would likely consist of a single applicator, in which case the expected cost of the proposal would be around $30 per year, well under one percent of annual revenue. 

### 5.7.3 Conclusion On the basis of this anal ysis, EPA concludes that there would not be a significant impact to a substantial number of small entities. For private applicators, average impacts of the rule represent less than one percent of annual sales revenue for the average small farm and even to small

- small farms with sales of less than $10,000. Impacts to the smallest farms, especiall y in high

- impact states, could exceed two percent of annual sales revenue but the number of farms facing such impacts is small relative to the number of small farms affected by the rule. For commercial applicators, average impacts of the rule represent le ss than 0.1 percent of annual revenue for the average small firm. The impacts are expected to be around 0.1 percent of annual revenue even for the high cost scenarios. This is well below the one percent threshold that EPA set for significant impact.1



## Chapter**6. Benefits of Pr oposed Rule**  Certification standards for applicators ensure that certified applicators are competent in the use o f restricted use pesticides. The key goals of the proposed changes are to : i mprove the competency

of certified applicators of restricted use pesticides ; i mplement better protections for non certified applicators who apply restricted use pesticides under the direct supervi sion of a certified applicator; and reduce the potential risk to human health and the environment from the use of restricted use pesticides (RUPs). C ompetent applicators possess the skills and knowledge necessary to appl y pesticides properl y to avoid unintended exposures to people and the environment. EPA anticipates that the proposed changes w ould produce benefits to the applicator, the public, and the environment. The proposed rule changes would ensure that certified applicators are competent in the application of restricted use pesticides, and that non certified applicators working under the direct supervision of certified applicators are well supervised and protected

. When used in accordance with label restrictions, RUPs can be safely applied; however, if the applicators are not competent, then RUPs have the potential to pose unreasonable risks of damage to humans, terrestrial and aquatic ecos ys tems, non
- target animals, plants, and surface water. Ensuring that applicators are competent would prevent these unwarranted exposures. The remainder of this chapter will discuss the benefits of the proposed rule to certified applicators, their families and employees, and the public at large. Chapter 2 provided a summary of the individual proposals considered b y the Agency in developing this r ule, while the preamble to the proposed rule describes in detail the proposed requirements.


### 6.1. **Which Benefits Can Be Quantified ?**  EPA expects the proposed changes would result in benefits by reduced exposure to RUPs. However, not all benefits from reduc ed pesticide exposure can be quantified. This section provides a brief overview of the estimated benefits that can be quantified (from reduced acute occupational exposures) and those that cannot. Benefits from the proposed changes for this rule include reductions in adverse health effects b y:  avoiding RUP incidents resulting in acute pesticide exposure to certified applicators, noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator, and others, such as farmworkers or b ys tanders who could be exposed to RUPs

.  avoiding non

- occupational incidents by reducing exposures to the public.  reducing chronic pesticide exposure to certified applicators and their families

. Some of the quantified benefits in this chapter are based on prev entable pesticide exposures that have been reported to databases that count poisoning incidents; these onl y represent a portion of the benefits that can result from avoiding acute incidents. L atent or delayed health effects, such as developmental effects resulting from acute exposures to pregnant women or to children and2

adolescents or health effects that result from repeated small exposures over time are unlikel y to appear in pesticide poisoning surveillance databases, including the ones we use for developing the benefit estimates in this chapter. E ffects of longer term exposure and exposure to families are unlikel y to be recorded. If they are reported, they

may enter the database with uncertain causes, with little confidence that the incidents are related to a specific pesticide. Therefore , it is impossible to quantify improvements in health from reduced pesticide exposure. These potential health benefit s, which include those related to chronic pesticide exposure , and the effects of residues transport ed home, are described but cannot be quantified. In addition to the harm to human health, misuse of RUPs has the potential to harm the environment, causing damage to non

- target animals and plants, including agricultural crops, and pollinating insects, such as bees. Although there is some information on incidents of this nature which are described in this chapter, the benefits of reducing incidents like these are difficult to quantify

. The next section discusses who is at risk from RUP exposure, followed by a discussion of the possible effects of acute exposure and chronic exposures to certified applicators and to their families. Section 6.4 provides information on the benefits from reduced ecological damage from RUPs, Section 6.5 estimates the benefits of reduced pesticide exposure to the extent these benefits can be quantified. Section 6.6 discusses the potential long

- term effects that may result from chronic pesticide exposure which, b y their very nature, are unlikel y to be reported to surveillance databases, but are potentiall y impo rtant to human health, and may be reduced by

the proposed rule.


### 6.2. **Who is at Risk ?**  6.2.1. Occupational Exposure Certified pesticide applicators, noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of certified applicators, agricultural workers, and pesticide handlers may be occupationally

exposed to pesticides and pesticide residues. EPA estimates that there are about 900,000 certified applicators in the United States (See Chapter 3), and about 1 million noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. A small number of adolescents are certified applicators, and there are about 14,000 adolescents under 18 estimated to be working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator (See Chapter 3). All of these people face harm from occupational exposure to RUPs. RUPs are commonly

used in agriculture, so a large portion of the agricultural workforce is potentially

exposed. This includes the approximately 2.3 million farm workers that are hired b y agricultural establishments, who are potentiall y exposed to the risks of adverse health effects from pesticide exposure ( EPA, 2014a) if they work on farms that use RUPs . Agricultural workers do not handle RUPs directly , but they may be exposed to agricultural

- pl ant pesticides3

either through contact with residues on treated plants, soil, or water or through accidental contact from drift or misdirected application . The agricultural workforce occupationally exposed to restricted use pesticides and pesticide residue s can potentially face significant long and short term health risks

. However, as a result of an extensive review of the data from incident reporting sy stems and epidemiologic evidence published in the peer

- reviewed literature , there is evidence, which EPA regards as strong, that pesticide exposure contributes to adverse human health outcomes. This evidence is discussed and referenced in detail in the sections that follow. 

### 6.2.2. Children and F amilies Young and unborn children may be particularl y sensitive to pesticide exposure. Children may experience different exposures than adults due to behavioral differences like crawling on the floor and putting objects into their mouths (EPA, 2008b) , and they can be more sensitive to these exposures because their organ sy stems are still developing, and they have relatively

low body weights (Curwin et al., 2007, Beamer et al., 2009, Vida and Moretto, 2007). Children in the families of certified applicators may be incidentally exposed to pesticides and there is the potential for negative health effects from this pesticide exposure. Prenatal exposures (discussed below) may

be particularly

important for long

- term development. Children and adolescents at various stages in development offer “windows of vulnerability” for c hemical exposures to have particularly significant effects on growth and development, which means that pesticide exposure at a given time in the development of humans may have greater or lesser health impacts. Because children’s metabolic sy stems are not full y developed at birth, continue to develop through childhood and adolescence, and are not uniform across developmental stages, children metabolize pesticides and chemicals differently than adults metabolize pesticides and other chemicals (EPA, 2008b). The proposed changes to the certification rule include enhanced worker training to reduce incidental, take

- home exposures b y workers to their families. The proposed changes to the certification rule also cover direct exposures by

including restrictions on allowing adolescents to work with RUPs. These changes are important because adolescents are more apt to make poor decisions about pesticide risks, which is also discussed below. Non
- occupational e xposure routes for pregnant women and children may include spray

drift from nearb y agricultural areas , or from pesticide residues taken home on the clothing or in the cars and trucks of certified and noncertified applicators. Curwin et al . (2005) compared 25 farm and 25 non

- farm households in I owa, testing for p esticide contamination inside the homes. Although not a study strictly of certified applicators, the pesticides for which they tested included RUPs. When compared with non

- farm households, they found significantly

higher levels of atrazine and metolachlo r (which onl y have agricultural uses) in farm households. The distribution of the samples in the various rooms of the house (higher levels in the agricultural worker changing area and the laundry area) suggest that the pesticides are being transported hom e on farmers ’ clothing and shoes. There were also higher levels of agricultural pesticides in home vehicles for farm families. Lo zier et al. (2012) concludes the take

- home pathway is an important route of exposure for commercial pesticide applicators, based on higher levels of atrazine contamination in the parts of homes where applicators entered the home and where they removed their clothing. Atrazine levels were three times higher for applicators that changed4

shoes inside compared to those who removed shoes outside, and bedroom levels were six times higher for those who changed clothes in the bedroom compared to those who did not. Lu et al. (2000) collected samples from steering wheels and boots of agricultural families, the floors of their houses, as well as wipe and urine samples from the family members. Farm families had higher exposure to the pesticides test ed than the non

- farm controls, and th e positive samples in vehicles, on clothing and in the home in families not in proximity to farm fields indicated the take

- home pathway

was responsible for exposure to these families. These studies are consistent with studies based on farmworker family exposure that identify

take

- home exposure as a problem (Thompson et al. , 2014; Coronado et al. , 2006; Curl et al. , 2002; McCauley et al. , 2003; Rao et al. , 2006). Occupational Exposure to Adolescents Adolescents face more risks from pesticide exposure than adults , a problem EPA addresses by proposing a minimum age for certified applicators and noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator . There is evidence that adolescents and children do not make risk manage ment decisions in the way that adults do. Adolescents are more prone to accidents than the population at large. For example, the fatality rate for drivers between 16 and 19 is four times the rate for all adults (Institute for Highway Safety, 2008). In an agricultural context, adolescents working on farms have shown awareness of safety issues, rules, and the risks of injury

on farms, but they

behave according to their own perception of risk, and take more risks while playing on the farm; the play often us es farming equipment and occurs during work time (Rowntree et al. , 1998). In a study of adolescents engaged in high

- risk tasks on farms in Kentucky, Iowa, and Mississippi, teens were surveyed on their use of protective equipment, work exposures, and s ympt oms related to farm work that included injuries (Reed et al ., 2006). When teens were asked whether they used personal protective equipment when it was required, the median self

- reported frequency

for use of respirators and hearing protection was only four times out of the last ten occasions when its use was required. According to the authors, protective devices may

be used less frequentl y when the teens did not perceive a high degree of risk or if they did not have an observed health problem attributed to that exposure. The authors also suggest that PPE may

not properl y fit female teens, leading to a decreased incidence of use (Reed et al. , 2006). The cognitive development of adolescents affects behavior, particularl y in the areas of judgment, risk

- taking and decision making ability (Steinberg, 2005). The parts of the brain going through these maturation processes in adolescents are important for the perception of risk, evaluation of risk and reward, and regulation of emotion and behavior (Dayan et al. , 201 0). In an international setting, Abdel

- Rasoul et al. (2008) reported an association between cognitive deficits, neurological s ymptoms and pesticide exposure among child and adolescent agricultural pesticide applicators. This study

cohort is from Egy

pt, which does not reflect use patterns or regulations in this country , but it does suggest risks when children and adolescents are exposed at high levels of pesticides

. According to Calvert et al

. (2003), pesticide poisoning surveillance data shows that working yo uths were more likely

than adults to suffer an occupational ly related pesticide illness, attributed to lower levels of experience with pesticides, and greater sensitivity to pesticide5

toxicity . The literature shows that adolescents are more likely t o engage in risky

behavior than adults. Therefore , it is more difficult to be certain that they will make prudent risk management decisions. It is not certain why higher risk taking behavior is more common among adolescents, but it is a consistent finding. It seems that adolescents are aware of risks and tradeoffs between behaviors and consequences, and process the information available to them in way s very similar to adults, but take greater risks any way (Steinberg and Cauffman, 1996; Dayan et al ., 2010). The cognitive changes that occur during adolescence do not fully explain this phenomenon, which indicates that emotional development and surroundings are important parts of the risk taking process for adolescents. This picture of the adolescent development and behavior implies that more rigorous and frequent training, which are features of the proposed rulemaking, would not protect adolescents to the degree they will protect adults. These potentially at risk adolescents do not respond to information in the same way that adults do, so special protections , such as the establishment of minimum age for certain activities are warranted to ensure their safety. 

### 6.3. **What are the Risks?** This section will provide a brief introduction to some of the risks as sociated with pesticide exposure, including pesticide exposures that have reproductive effects or effects on children. Some of these effects may be lifelong, although they may be a result of either acute (in the case of developmental effects) or chronic e xposures. A discussion of illnesses associated with chronic occupational pesticide exposure is provided in Section 6. 6
. 

### 6.3.1. Acute Exposures and Human Health Effects Because pesticides are specificall y selected or designed to adversely affect biological s ys tems, pesticides generally

present risks to non

- target organisms as well. Some pesticides are narrowly targeted to specific life forms or biological processes while others have effects across a broad spectrum of organisms, including humans. E xposures to some pesticides can result in a wide range of acute s ymptoms. The acute s ymptoms from overexposure to pesticides vary widely , and can range from mild skin irritation to death

. Severity of s ymptoms depends largel y on the dose and route of exposure

. Expo sure to organophosphate (OP) pesticides, for example, can result in headaches, fatigue and dizziness, nausea, cramps and diarrhea, impaired vision and other effects (Schulze et al ., 1997). Severe acute exposures can result in seizures, respiratory depress ion and loss of consciousness (Reigart and Roberts, 2013 ). In rare cases, unintentional pesticide exposures result in death. These are just a few of the wide range of sy mptoms that can be caused b y acute pesticide exposure; the Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings manual lists almost 100 different s ymptoms that a medical professional could expect to see following an acute exposure to various pesticides (Reigart and Roberts, 2013 ). Although this brief discussion focuses on acute exposure, certified applicators also may suffer chronic exposures that are associated with many diseases, including several forms of cancer. These are discussed in more detail below, in Section 6.6.6

Evidence that acute adverse effects of pesticide exposure occur i s that pesticide

- related illnesses can be observed. Although illness resulting from pesticide exposure is underreported (see below), there are peer

- reviewed studies, based on pesticide illness reporting and surveillance initiatives that show evidence of i llnesses. Calvert, et al . (2008) for example, finds that acute pesticide poisoning incidents in the agriculture industry “continues to be an important problem.” This study

looked at pesticide poisoning incidents among agricultural workers from 1998

- 2005, and anal yz ed 3,271 cases. Illness rates varied across time, age, and region, but for agricultural workers, risks of poisoning were an order of magnitude higher than for non

- agricultural workers (except for farm owners (3% of the sample)). Das et al . (20 01) identified 486 pesticide illness cases among California farmworkers for 1998

- 1999, based on a surveillance program with mandatory

reporting b y physicians. Das et al . found that about half of all occupational pesticide related illness cases in the Cali fornia surveillance sy stem were agricultural (the rest were in other industries). Over a quarter of the poisonings were to those mixing, loading or applying pesticides. The most common sy mptoms were dermatological (about 44%), neurological (about 39%), an d gastrointestinal (about 38%), and the most common route of exposure was skin contact, followed b y inhalation and eye contact. Reports to surveillance programs rank incidents according to severity , such as low, medium, high, and death. The Calvert (20 08) study finds that the majority

of cases during the study period were low severity

(87%), 12% were medium severity , and 0.6% were high severity, with one death. While it is encouraging that most cases were ranked as “low severity” in this study , i t is i mportant to note that the severity categories can be misleading. Even “low severity” cases can reflect significant morbidity , with the exposure resulting in health care treatment and the loss of work day s. To be included in the SENSOR

- Pesticides database used for the Calvert study (and which we use for the analy sis in Section 6.5) , at least two post

- exposure symptoms must have been reported

. Sy

mptoms categorized as “low severity” include abdominal pain, cramping, nausea, vomiting, and fever. Sy mptoms like these and others severe enough to result in missing up to three day s of work or hospitaliz ation f or up to a day

are classified as “low severity” cases 6

. 

### 6.3.2. Acute and Chronic Exposures and Effects on Children and Families This section discusses potential risks to families of certified applicators, as well as the families of others who may

be exposed to RUPs. This is not a complete review of the epidemiological literature on the associations between RUP exposure and the health of children and families, but it provides an overview of the literature. These are just a subset of diseases that have been reported in the literature to have an association with pesticide exposure; many others, including some cancers , also have been reported b y some to be associated with pesticide exposure. The discussion of chronic occupational pesticide exposure and cancers , in Section 6.6, primarily centers on occupational exposure because most of the available literature on pesticides and cancer outcomes is drawn from epidemiolo gi cal studies that recruit cases who use pesticides occupationall y . Reproductive Risks

6 A table of symptoms by severity is here: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pesticides/pdfs/pest

- sitablev6.pdf7

Certified applicators, noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator, farmworkers and women with pest control activities ne ar their homes face exposure to RUPs when they

are pregnant. Reviews have been conducted examining the effects of pesticide exposure during pregnancy on reproductive outcomes. Sanborn et al . (2007) found 59 peer- reviewed studies that examined the relation ship between pesticides and reproductive outcomes between 1992 and 2003. A summary of their findings is found in Table 6.3

- 1. **Table 6.3 -**  **1. Summary of Findings on the Association between Pesticide Exposure and**  **Reproductive Risks from Sanborn et al.**  **, 2007** 

**Outcome Examined Number of**  **Papers Found Number of Papers Found that** 

**Display an Association Between the Outcome Examined and**  **Pesticide Exposure*** Birth Defect 15 14 (+) Time to Pregnancy 8 5 (+) Fertility ** 14 7 (

- ) Altered Growth 10 7 (+) Fetal Death 11 9 (+) Other Outcomes 6 6 (+) *The direction of the association is shown in parentheses. ** Fertility refers to the ability to become pregnant in 1 year, and includes male and female factors, such as semen quality and infertility. As seen in Table 6.3

- 1, fourteen out of fifteen studies that were reviewed reported an association between maternal pesticide exposure and an increased risk of birth defects. The specific birth defects examined in the review consisted of limb reductions, urogenital anomalies, central nervous s ys tem defects, orofacial clefts, heart defects, and eye anomalies. Nine out of eleven studies showed an association between pesticide exposure and fetal death , which includes “spontaneous abortion, fetal death, still birth, and neonatal death.” When examining fetal death, preconception exposure was associated with earl y first

- trimester abortions and post

- conception exposure was associated with late spontaneous abortions (Sanborn et al ., 2007). For most effects, half or more of the studies evaluated b y Sanborn show an association between pesticide exposure and negative reproductive outcomes. These authors note three limitations to this review: epidemiology

studies cannot prove cause

- effect relationships, the difficulty of accurate exposure assessment, and possible publication bias in the studies i ncluded in the sy stematic review. Therefore, while these results are suggestive , they are not definitive or conclusive. Potential Health Effects in Children There is evidence to suggest that children who were exposed to pesticides while in utero (because their pregnant mother was exposed to pesticides in the home or at work to pregnant women may suffer adverse health effects . Pre
- natal exposure may have effects on the neuro logical development of children (see below)

. Wigle et al . (2009) , in a meta

- anal ys is of 318

studies, concluded that there was association between pre

- natal exposure to pesticides and future childhood leukemia. Turner et al., (2009), in a meta

- anal ys is of 15 studies, also reports positive associations between residential pesticide exposure and childhood leukemia. As part of the registration process, applicants provide data that allow EPA to assess the developmental toxicity ( i.e. , structural abnormalities, functional deficiencies, altered growth and fetal loss ) and other potential health effects of the particular pesticide active ingredient, as well as potential exposure through the use of the pesticide. These developmental effects can result from an acute overexposure of the pregnant farmworker to agricultural pesticides during windows of susceptibility

of fetal development during pregnancy

. Possible effects from an acute overexposure include miscarriage, cleft palate, exencephaly (brain tissue outside th e skull), hydrocephal y (swelling of the brain), microphthalmia (abnormal eyes often resulting in blindness), or spina bifida. Through the registration process, EPA establishes conditions of registration intended to prevent developmental and other adverse effects, such as restricted

- entry intervals and personal protective equipment. If these mitigation measures are not observed, however, an overexposure to one of these pesticides could occur, (e.g. if a pregnant farmworker forgets about a warning received several day s previously and subsequently enter s the treated area too soon after an application. Children and adolescents are going through important developmental changes, and pesticide exposure can have a more deleterious effect on these developing phy siological sy stems than on the sy stems in adults (Golub, 2000)

. Although adolescents’ s ys tems are more full y developed than those of younger children, there are important developmental processes that continue until adulthood

. Inparticular , brain chang es still continue, such as the final maturation of the cerebral cortex through s ynaptic pruning and myelination , an important phy siological process that reduce s excess neuron connections in the brain and enclos es individual neurons in an insulating sheath, which increase s the efficiency of information processing (Golub, 2000, Steinberg, 2005). These changes occur during adolescence, when the effects of toxicants like pesticides on the nervous s ys tem can be particularl y harmful (Golub, 2000 ). A dolescents m ay be subject to incidental exposures by

being in proximity

to areas where pesticides are applied or from take home exposures via parents who work with pesticides, all of which can result in adverse health effects. In addition, adolescent workers can be su bject to direct occupational exposure , which is a concern because acute exposure at important stages of development may cause significant health effects and also because employ ment at a younger age increases the chance and likelihood of chronic exposure , which may result in delayed health effects that are debilitating over a longer timeframe

. There are associations in the epidemiological literature between prenatal or earl y- life pesticide exposure (from occupational exposure to the family or incidental e xposure in the home) and adverse health outcomes in children. These have reported delayed mental development associated with an increased exposure to organophosphate pesticides (Eskenazi et al ., 2007, Rauh et al ., 2006, Engel et al ., 2007). Studies with rural and urban cohorts report associations between organophosphate pesticide exposure and abnormal reflexes in children (Engel et al ., 2007, Young et al ., 2005) , and increased developmental disorders were reported in both the CHAMACOS and Columbia cohorts (Eskenazi et al ., 2007, Rauh et al ., 2006, L ovasi, et al ., 2011, Engel et al ., 2011).9

There are reported associations between organophosphate pesticides and the development of behavior related to attention deficit/hy peractivity

disorder (ADHD), such as hyperactivity, inattention, and impulsivity

. Marks et al. (2010) concluded that in utero levels of organophosphate metabolites, and, to a lesser extent, postnatal levels were associated with ADHD behaviors for five year old children from a rural cohort. S imilar associations are reported in a study of the exposure of children to the organophosphate pesticide, chlorpy rifos and attention problems, attention

- deficit/hy peractivity

disorder problems, and pervasive developmental disorder problems at 3 years of ag e (Rauh, et al ., 2006, L o vasi, et al ., 2011, Engel et al ., 2011). Using a national sample of 1,139 children, Bouchard et al . (2010), found an association between organophosphate metabolites and ADHD behaviors. In this study, compared to children with undetectable metabolite levels, children with levels higher than the sample median had almost twice the odds of having ADHD behaviors. The biological mechanisms to cause such neurodevelopmental findings reported in these epidemiology

studies are not well understood and thus far causality has not been established. However, when taken together, findings from three different cohorts show a potential link between pesticide exposure and neurodevelopmental effects. Specifically , these studies suggest that children exposed to OPs may be at a higher risk of adverse neuro

- developmental and neurobehavioral outcomes than children with lower exposures.


### 6.4. **Non -**  **Quantified Benefits of Avoiding RUP Incidents**  In Section 6.5 , a quantified estimate of the benefits from reduced human health incidents due to the rule changes is provided, but these quantified estimates are based onl y on the value of reduced illness from acute occupational RUP exposure. The quantified estimates are limited to these effects because sufficient data on illness from acute RUP exposure exists to make a reasonable estimate. The estimates, however , do not quantify many real health benefits that may result from the r

ule, but for which sufficient data are not available to estimate the monetary value of these benefits. For that reason, non

- quantified benefits, both to human health and the environment, are discussed here. The human health benefits that can be quantified are presented in S ection 6.5 . Other non

- quantifiable benefits from reduced chronic exposures are presented in Section 6. 6
. The non

- quantified benefits result from a reduction in the effects described in the prior section that are not easily

observed and reported. Because of insufficient information on the rates of illness, the reduction in exposure that w ould result from the rule changes, and the dose/response relationship between exposure and illness, the value of reducing pesticide exposure that may have reproductive effects for women is difficult to quantify . Acute exposure to pregnant women or chronic exposure to families c ould result in lifelong developmental, neurological, and behavioral effects in children, and it is challenging to quantify the benefit s from the proposed rule changes that may reduce these effects. There are also non

- quantifiable ecological benefits, from reduced RUP exposure to non

- target plants and animals. These are discussed in Section 6.4.1.10



### 6.4.1. Non
- Quantifiable Benefits from Reduced Ecological Incidents In addition to the benefits to human health, the proposed changes would also be expected to reduce environmental damage associated with RUP use by reducing the incidents of RUP misuse and other errors. This section will di scuss the harm that RUP misuse and other errors can cause to non
- target animals, wild plants and crops, and the way s which the proposed changes would reduce the environmental costs of misuse and other errors. It is difficult to get an accurate picture o f how much damage to plants, animals and crops is caused b y RUP misuse and misapplication. Although EPA maintains databases of pesticide

related incidents, these data are insufficient to reliably estimate the number of incidents that may be prevented b y the rule. In addition, the available information is generall y insufficient to reliably estimate the cost of incidents, even when they have been reported. Because of these inadequacies, we will use the available data to provide a qualitative discussion of the kind of environmental incidents that are caused b y misuse of RUPs, and whether the incidents can be prevented b y the rule. Data Ecological incident data are used b y EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), as a line of evidence (in a weight

- of

- ev idence approach) for making risk conclusions in pesticide risk assessments. Incident data can provide important information on what can happen to non

- target plants and wildlife when a pesticide is used in the ‘real world’, and they can help support or ref ute risk predictions based on laboratory data. The primary

sources of ecological incident information available to EPA for this analy sis are the In cident Data S ys tem (IDS) and the Ecological Inc ident Information S ys tem (EIIS), both databases that are maintained by EPA 7

. These databases contain information from pesticide incident reports from a variety of sources. Some are submitted directl y to OPP by pesticide registrants, the public, and state, federal, and local government agencies, and others are from information available through other sources , such as the United States Geological Survey ’s Contaminant Exposure and Effects

– Terrestrial Vertebrate Database, the American Bird Conservancy ’s Avian Incident Monitoring Sy stem, the open literature and media accounts

. The IDS database includes all pesticide incidents involving humans, wildlife, pets, and other domestic animals of which OPP is aware. IDS is primarily used b y OPP to track the total number of all incidents (human, wildli fe, etc.) that may have been caused by

a pesticide . The EII S database contains information on pesticide incidents involving primarily plants, non domesticated birds and mammals, fish, and honey bees. Information from ecological incident reports is only

i ncluded in the EIIS if the reports contain, at a minimum, information on a specific pesticide, the effects, and the identity of the wildlife or plants involved in the incident. For this anal ys is, EPA uses the EIIS database, because information on the spec ific pesticide (and

7 These databases are not generally available to the public. More information about these databases is available in OPP Report on Incident Information (EPA 2007): http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/2007/oct2007/session10

- finalrpt.pdf

.11

whether it was an RUP) and the specific events are essential to understanding the circumstances of an incident and whether or not it would be preventable. In cidents in the EIIS are given a certainty index classification [i.e., ‘unrel ated’, ‘unlikel y’, ‘possible’, ‘probable’, ‘highl y probable’

– and the relatively new classification of ‘exposure only ’ (residues detected but no effects noted)]. The certainty level indicates the likelihood that a particular pesticide caused the observed effects. In general, “highl y probable” incidents require residues and/or clear circumstances linking the exposure to the effects. “Probable” incidents include those where residues are not available and/or circumstances are slightly less conclusive than f or “highl y probable.” “Possible” incidents are those where there was exposure to multiple chemicals, and it is not clear which one was the primary causal factor , although circumstances surrounding the incident and toxicological properties of the pesticide suggest a possible causal relationship. “Unlikel y” incidents are those for which evidence suggests that another pesticide or another stressor was the primary cause of the effect, but contribution by the given chemical cannot be completely

ruled out. Finally , “unrelated” incidents are those in which evidence clearl y indicates that another stressor besides the given pesticide caused the effects. Each incident in the EII S is also given a legality of use classification [‘registered use’ (the label directions were followed), ‘misuse’ [label directions were not followed; for example, the application involved (accidental or intentional) higher than labeled rates, non

- labeled application sites, or the intentional targeting on non

- labeled species], or ‘unknown’ (i t i s not known whether or not the label directions were followed)]. As with most reporting of pesticide incidents, ecological incidents are subject to under

- reporting

. E cological incident data are not s ys tematicall y collected, and, thus, they may not be representative of unreported incidents . The collection of incident data is largely opportunistic, and reported incidents represent a very small portion of the actual incidents that likely occur (V yas, 1999). The following steps typicall y need to occur fo r OPP to receive information on a pesticide incident involving wildlife: Step 1: Seeing an Incident: For one, damage from misuse of an RUP, such as a dead animal or plant damage, must be seen to be reported. Many animals that are sick and/or dying will hide as a predator

- avoidance response, making it more difficult to find their remains if they die while hidden. If an affected animal is killed by a predator, it is often consumed immediately . Carcasses of animals not killed by a predator and not consumed immediately can be removed fairl y quickl y from the environment (within hours of death) by scavengers and/or more slowly (within day s of death) via decomposition. Therefore, it can be surprisingl y difficult to find dead animals and most animals that die (for any reason), are likel y not ever seen by someone before they are scavenged or they decompose. Car cass recovery efficiency

rates, even for trained individuals searching for carcasses in a known, limited area, are often well below 100% (Madrigal et al., 1996 reported recovering only

about two

- thirds of bird carcasses placed in the study zone ). Although plants do not move or disappear from the environment the same way that animals do, any damage to non

target plants must be noticed, which may be rare. Damage to crop plants is more likely to be noticed, since they

are monitored by

farmers.12

Step 2: Rep orting an Incident: Even when an incident is noticed, it is unlikely to be reported to anyone. There are several reasons why incident reporting is unlikely. For example, the incident observer may not realize the importance of reporting the incident or they may not know to whom to report it. Motivation can be an important consideration for someone reporting an incident. People may be more likel y to report an incident if the effects impact them economically (e.g., if the incident involves crop damage or a bee kill) or personall y (e.g., it involves a pet or plants in their yard) than if it involves a wild animal. Additionally , if only one or two dead animals are found, it may be assumed that the animals simply died from natural causes. Step 3: Linking an Incident to a Pesticide: For an incident to be considered a pesticide incident, it must be linked to a pesticide exposure. In cidents are most likely

to be associated with a pesticide if the effect is close in time and space to an application. For slow er acting chemicals, affected animals may move from the site of exposure and likely

will not die near the pesticide application site (Stroud and Kuncir, 2005), making it difficult to link the deaths to a specific pesticide. Ty picall y, only severe acute to xic effects are observed (principally mortality) and chronic effects (e.g., effects to reproduction or growth) usuall y are not observed. Weakened and sick animals may be preyed upon, hit by cars, die of disease, etc., and their deaths may not necessarily be attributed to a pesticide, even if it is a major factor in their deaths. Additionally, with the exception of honey bees and crayfish, effects to invertebrates are not typically reported. Because incident investigations can be very complex and resource intensive (Stroud and Kuncir, 2005), even if a dead animal is reported, and the death is suspected to be caused b y a pesticide, the incident may not be investigated due to limited resources. Step 4: Submitting an Incident Report to OPP: In cidents report ed to local or municipal authorities or independent wildlife rescue organizations are unlikel y to ever be forwarded to OPP. Some state agencies and some wildlife rescue organizations routinely

report incidents to OPP (for example California and New York), but most do not. Therefore, even if a carcass is found and reported to local authorities, and an investigation concludes that the death was due to a pesticide, the incident report may not be submitted to OPP. Reporting b y non - registrants is completely v oluntary

and information on ecological incidents can be gathered b y a wide variety of government agencies (e.g., federal, state, and local) and private organizations (e.g., toxicology laboratories and wildlife rehabilitation centers). Not all of these agencies/organizations may know to submit information on ecological incidents to OPP; may not know how to submit the information to the OPP; or may simply choose not to submit the data to OPP (especially if it involves a case going through litigation or some enforcement action). Although pesticide registrants are required to report adverse effect incidents under FIFRA, a registrant cannot report incidents it is unaware of, or that do not appear related to its pesticides.13

Furthermore, the reporting requirem ents defined in FIFRA 8 allow registrants to aggregatel y report all ‘minor’ ecological incidents. Incidents that can be aggregatel y reported include incidents that involve fewer than 200 birds or 5 mammals. The aggregate incident reports lack details including information on effects, specific taxa involved, and descriptions of use; therefore, aggregate incident reports are not included in the EIIS, but they are included in the IDS. Overall, because of the many way s that reporting of an incident to OPP can fail, it is likely that only a small fraction of the pesticide ecological incidents that occur are ever recorded. Because the incident data in the EIIS are not s ys tematically collected and likel y represent a very small fraction of the incidents that actuall y occur, these data are likely an underestimate of damage from misuse and other errors b y certified applicators. For these reasons, no attempt is made to quantify the benefits from reduced ecological damage caused by RUPs for the rule; the discussio n here will be qualitative. Incident data, however, do provide evidence that exposure from misuse of RUPs can result in field

- observable effects. Method To characterize the potential value of reduced RUP incidents, even qualitatively , requires cl assifying the EIIS data to retain only those incidents that the proposed rule changes would prevent. First, a team of OPP staff compiled a list of all RUP pesticides products and active ingredients. Many active ingredients have some pesticide products th at are RUPs and others, with different use patterns or concentrations that are not. The EIIS database was searched for incidents in which one of the RUPs active ingredients was identified as the causal agent for the ye ars 2009

- 2013
. In some cases, the pesticide product was identified, so a definite determination about whether the incident involved a RUP could be made. If the causal agent was only identified as an active ingredient, the incident was included if a majority of the products containing it w ere RUPs, if information about the intended use made it clear that the product used was an RUP, or if the pesticide was applied by a certified applicator. Once the incidents related to RUPs were identified and available information gathered, EPA staff rev iewed the cause of the incidents and by consensus determined whether they would have been likely or probabl y prevented by the rule. The main reason EPA expects the rule to prevent incidents like these is that raising the standards for initial certification and more frequent training would ensure that applicators and those under their supervision would more carefull y follow pesticide label instructions, take proper care to prevent harm, and generally have a higher level of competency

. The team of OPP staff classified the RUP

- and certified applicator

- related incidents into the following categories:

 Preventable incidents: Incidents where there was a clear link between the application/applicator and the effect and the information demonstrated an error b y the applicator or applicator incompetency

.

8 The reporting requirements can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations in Title 40, Section 159.184(c)(5)(i ii) , which can be found in the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations here: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi

-bin/text

idx?SID=100c94cd811a48658e383a956da0ef65&node=40:24.0.1.1.10.2.1.1314

 Possibly

preventable incidents: In cidents where there was a clear link between the application/applicator and the effect and there was a significant impact so an applicator error seemed likel y but the available information did not identify any applicator errors.  In cidents where there is not enough information: Incidents where there was a clear link between the application/applicator and the effect and an applicator error was possible but the available information did not identify any applicator errors.  Not preventable incidents: Incidents that did not meet any of the above criteria, such as incidents where there was no clear link between the application/applicator and the effect, incidents where there was no evidence of applicator error or if there just was not enough information. Only incidents that were definitely related to RUP use and considered preventable or possibly preventable are reported below. The incidents often do not have sufficient information to quantify the damage. For example, some of the incidents reported damage to a crop from misuse or misapplication, but the information is insufficient to determine the actual loss to growers. Even when damage to crop plants may result in total yield loss, the response by the grower to the problem has not been identified. They could choose to accept the yi eld loss, or replant the crop, or to plant another crop, which might reduce the losses below those of total yield loss. In the narrative about the incident, the crop damage is described (e.g. stunting, reduced yields, bleaching, leaf burn, etc.), but even when the information has been confirmed by agronomists or other experts, the actual yield loss has not been quantified. For the non

- crop damage, such as the deaths of wild animals, in addition to the difficulty in identifying the numbers of animals affected, it is very difficult to provide a value for the potential losses. For example, if a substantial number of bald eagles are killed in a preventable incident (as we see in the data), to quantify the value of preventing that incident, we would need to know the value of those eagles to society , which is difficult to determine. Loosel y speaking, environmental amenities can have multiple sources of value. Economists often categorize some of th ese as a “use value,” where people gain value from somehow using or interacting with the resource, such as visiting a beach, catching a fish, or observing wild birds. Another category

is “non

- use value,” because these environmental goods have value to soc iety beyond their use to people. These non

- use values for the preservation of environmental goods have several sources, including that people may want the option to have the goods available in the future, or the value that people place on maintaining the good for future generations, or value placed b y society for the mere existence of environmental goods. Non

- use values may comprise a substantial fraction of total values for some wildlife species

– especiall y for charismatic species, threatened or endangered species, or species that are not popular targets for hunting or wildlife viewing

– that have been harmed b y misuse of RUPs, and these values are difficult to estimate. A standard approach would be to use a stated

- preference method, like contingent valuation (EPA 2010a) to estimate the societal willingness to pay to preserve the animals or plants that were harmed in preventable RUP incidents. This is not done for this analy sis because a high

- quality

contingent valuation study is very time consuming and expensive, and more importantly , the environmental damage here is very diffuse, involving different types of plants and animals in all parts of the country , whereas the most reliable contingent valuation work involves very

concrete choices in a specific l ocation.15

An alternative is benefits transfer, where the benefits of preserving environmental goods have been estimated in one context, and we can adjust or apply those benefit estimates for the relevant context. In our case, we are unable to find speci fic values for the many incidents that can be used for benefits transfer. As an example, consider the loss of a bald eagle. There are estimates of the societal value of preserving bald eagles . Two studies from the literature (Stevens et al ., 1991, or Bo yl e and Bishop 1987 ) report household estimates that range from $21.11 to $42.21 in 2006 dollars. This indicates substantial societal value for eagles, and aggregated across households in a region or the United States would result in a very large number ( $34 billion for the 115 million households in the US). However, the values that are reported, and which were estimated using the underlying contingent valuation studies was a willingness to pay to maintain the existence of eagles in a specific state; no attempt was made to estimate the value of protecting individual eagles, as we have here. However, we could use these estimates, after adjusting them to transform estimates for eagles as a whole into estimates for individual eagles. The non

- use value for eagles could be defined as: Non
- use value = ∆ ∗ ∆ ∆ ∗ ∗ Where ∆N is the number of eagles saved per year, ∆P/∆N is the change in extinction probability for the population per the number of saved eagles per year, WTP X is the willingness to pay to prevent the (local) extinction of the species, and H Region is the number of households in the region. Incident reports may shed light on ∆N

, but of course the ability

to account for under

reporting is important, and we have n o information on under

- reporting

. WTP X for eagles and a handful of other species in the incident data may be gleaned from the literature, but estimates ∆P/∆N would be at best speculative. Because of the challenge of providing reliable estimates of the value of preventing ecological damage from RUP incidents, we make no attempt to quantify them here. Below we provide information on the ty

pes of incidents that can be prevented by changes to the Certification standards, based on the incident data that are available. Incidents The EIIS data were queried in two passes, the first for the period 2009

– 2010, because it matched the period used for the human incident data, and later for 2011

– 2013, to see whether the data were similar, and to have a larger sample if the incidents varied significantly from year to year. There were total of 245 incidents returned when the EIIS was queried for incidents that were probabl y related to an RUP. The incidents that are described here are those that EPA staff deter mined were related to an RUP (some active ingredients have RUP and non

- RUP products), and the incident was deemed “preventable” or “possibly preventable” by

the rule changes using the above criteria. As shown in Table 6.4

- 1, there were a total of 68 RUP i ncidents recorded in EII S deemed preventable or likely preventable. T here were 16 preventable or possibly preventable incidents involving fish or other aquatic animals, such as crayfish, 5 involving birds, 12 involving mammals (dogs, co yot e, and fox), 7 i ncidents involving damage to bee colonies, and 28 involving crop damage. The table also shows the number of organisms affected by the16

incidents. There were more incidents related to RUPs available, but these were either determined to be unlikely to be pr evented b y the rule, or there was not enough information to make a determination. It is worth mentioning that these are the incidents remaining after the screening process, and that there is likel y significant under

- reporting of ecological incidents.

Table 6.4

- 1. Preventable Incidents from the EII S Database, 2009

– 2013 Affected Organism Number of In cidents Reported Quantity Affected Fish and Aquatic Animals 1 6 2 3 , 633 Killed

B irds 5 504 Killed Mammals 1 2 2 3 Killed B ees 7 394 Colonies Killed C rops 28 6 , 6 37 Acres Damaged Source: EPA EIIS Database ; EPA staff determined preventability. As shown in Table 6.4

- 1, there were 28 reported preventable or possibly preventable incidents involving crop damage. As mentioned above, because we do not know how the damage ultimately

affected yi eld, we are unable to determine the value of preventing incidents like these. These crop incidents ty

pically involve applicator error that more frequent training on the importance of following label requirements would be able to prevent. The type of errors found include appl yi ng pesticides when weather conditio ns are not appropriate for the pesticide, contamination or improper cleaning of application equipment, the wrong active ingredient is applied to the crop, incorrect rate or timing of the application. The crops involved were mostl y corn, including sweet co rn. Five of the incidents involve a popcorn crop, all in 2011, and four of them occurred in two adjacent counties in Indiana. Although we are unable to estimate the damage caused by these preventable incidents, it is possible to put an upper bound on some of them, as an example. If we were to assume the crops were a total loss, then in some cases we could multiply the expected yield by

the price growers received that year to find an estimate of the total revenue lost to the grower. For example, a to tal for 367 acres of popcorn were reported damaged in Indiana. If the 367 acres of popcorn were to achieve the 2011 average yield for Indiana of 4,000 pounds per acre (NASS, 2012) at the 2011 average price (NASS, 2012) of $0.258 per pound (2011 was a relativel y high value year) would have netted a grower $1,032 per acre (over $378,000 for the total area), which would be the lost revenue in Indiana. Of course, if the crop were lost, there would be some savings in unneeded harvest activities, etc., but this is a substantial loss to growers. If yi eld were reduced somewhat, rather than fully , the losses would be somewhat lower. Similarly, for field corn, the average incident involved 238 acres. At 2013 yields and prices (158.8 bushels per acre (NASS, 2014 a) and $4.50 per bushel (NASS, 2014b)), preventing the average incident could save revenue to the grower of up to $170,000. These example numbers show that misuse incidents involving RUPs can be very costl y, and avoiding the incidents potentially

has subs tantial value.17

As shown in Table 6.4

- 1, the EII S data show 7 reported preventable incidents involving RUPs that killed colonies of bees. In two of the incidents, there was insufficient information to determine how many colonies were harmed, although th e beekeeper reported mortality (reported as 50% mortality

in one case). These two incidents are included in the count of 7, but not the count of colonies harmed. In all cases, the bees were killed by misapplication of RUPs, when the applicator applied th e pesticide to the area where bees were activel y foraging or allowed the pesticide to drift into areas where significant numbers of bees were present. It is difficult to know the value of the colonies destroyed in the preventable incidents that show up in the EIIS data. The value of a bee colony can be thought of in several way s, all of which are incomplete. One is the replacement cost for the colony , which includes purchasing of new bees, and possibly new hives and frames, if the beekeeper is concerned about past contamination. According to Rucker and Thurman (2012), the cost of a new packet of bees which includes a queen is about $50. This could be considered the rough cost of replacing a colony, but it ignores the lost value of ecos ys tem services. T he first of these is the loss of honey production for the beekeeper. Depending on how late in the year the new colony is established, there may be a substantial reduction in the honey

produced b y the bees. Average yi eld per colony in the US for 2012 was 56 pounds, with a value of about $1.99 per pound, or about $112 per colony, which could be lost if the colony

could not produce enough honey to maintain itself and allow harvesting (Rucker and Thurman, 2012). Another important service that bees provide is pollination services, critical to U.S. agriculture. Beekeepers are contracted to provide bees for pollination for some crops, and the price they

are paid for this service varies by the crop. Among the more valuable crops that depend on pollination servi ces are almonds, which in recent years paid beekeepers about $140 per colony (Rucker et al. , 2012). This represents a revenue source for beekeepers, but it may not reflect the losses to growers if pollination is not available during the essential time when plants are flowering. At a very conservative estimate of $100 per hive, the reported loss of hives would have a value of over $39,000. The remainder of the preventable incidents from the EIIS data are animals, generall y counted after they have died. The mammal incidents include the killing of 14 dogs, at least six coyotes and two fox. Five of the coyote s were killed in one incident, due to improper disposal of RUP containers, but it is possible that they were killed intentionally , which would be a misuse of an RUP. The other co yote incident involved a farmer baiting for raccoons to protect a corn crop in Connecticut. The farmer used an RUP insecticide, which resulted in the deaths of the co yote and a dog, and severe injury

to another dog. This was a case where the RUP was mishandled several way s, including off

- label use and distributed to noncertified a pplicators. There were substantial fines in this case, of $55,000 to the distributor and $15,000 to the farmer, although the fines to the distributor also included distribution to other noncertified applicators. In a similar incident in Missouri, a man b aiting for co yote used an RUP insecticide, which resulted in the death of three crows, a red

- tailed hawk, three dogs, a gray fox, a skunk and “several” coyote s . The remainder of the mammal incidents were the killing of dogs and one fox. In all cases, they were killed b y predacides. In most cases , these incidents were caused by applicators not following the label instructions, which have clear use restrictions to protect dogs. One of the cases involves a landowner lacing deer meat with predacides to protect deer from co yote, but18

where a dog actually

consumed the poison. In this case, the RUP compound was distributed illegall y, and applied by someone without following label instructions. Most of the deaths of aquatic animals came from the applicatio n of RUPs to control lamprey

. These event s ty

pically resulted in the deaths of hundreds of non

- target fish, because the conditions of the application were insufficiently monitored or the application rate was too high. One case from California was a result of confusion in the appropriate rate of application, which allowed the chemical to move downstream at high concentration beyond the irrigation canal targeted for treatment, resulting in the deaths of several hundred fish, along with crayfish and tadpoles . Because of the vague description of the numbers killed, these were not counted in Table 6.4

- 1, although the incident was. The final case with aquatic impacts involves non

- aquatic applications of RUPs that ended up killing aquatic animals. The disposal ran into an adjacent creek, resulting in the deaths of approximately 6,000 fish, 600 crayfish, and four aquatic snakes. There are some estimates in the literature that provide a starting place for valuation for fish, but these ty pically provide estimated values for maintaining populations of well

- known fish, like salmon, rather than individual aquatic animals from these RUP incidents. A 2006 meta

- analy sis of willingness to pay

per fish based on recreational fishing reported a mean value of about $17 per fish protected, but the range of estimates in the underl yi ng studies, even after outliers were removed was from under five cents to over $300 per fish (Johnston et al. , 2006), which highlights the amount of uncertainty in estimates of aquatic valuation. For birds, there are five incidents involving bird fatalities, one of which was already described above that resulted in the death of three crows and one hawk in addition to several mammals. Two of the remaining incidents, both in 2009, stem from a rodenticide being applied in a faulty and careless manner which resulted in the deaths of a total of 30 dead geese in Oregon. Fifty Brewer’s blackbirds and grackles were killed in an urban area of Sacramento, C alifornia in 2010. Although the pesticide was targ eting these types of birds, it is designed to frighten rather than kill most of the birds, and the application was in an inappropriate area. The final bird kill was substantial, and very

well documented. An RUP was used for a rat eradication project on an island in Alaska, and misuse resulted in the deaths of 420 birds, of which 219 were identified. The birds were killed because, although the label requires picking up spilled bait and any animal carcasses to prevent killing of non

- target animals, this wa s not done until months after the application. There were many birds killed in this incident: 157 gulls, 41 bald eagles, one peregrine falcon, along with many others. As with the other species involved in RUP incidents, it is difficult to find estimates of the value of individual birds, but it is clear that they have substantial societal value, both among recreational bird observers and the general public. There are available estimates for protecting populations of birds, and they confirm the substantial value for protecting these animals. Kotchen and Reiling (2000) report a mean annual willingness to pay per household (in Maine) of about $26 (1997 dollars) to protect the population of peregrine falcon. Richardson and Loomis (2009) report annual mean wi llingness to pay per household in their meta

- analy sis of contingent valuation studies. These include bald eagles, which were one of the species in the above incidents, for which they reported the mean values for maintaining the population of bald eagles: studies that report an average value of $39 (2006 dollars) per household per ye ar, and studies that report a lump sum, or an average value of $297 (2006 dollars) per household per year . These estimates are based on protecting populations of birds at19

a reg ional level, so it is difficult to translate losses of individual birds into extinction probabilities that these estimates reflect. In all the cases involving wildlife, EPA is unable to estimate the value of these preventable losses described above, although they could be substantial. The provisions to the proposed rule could help to prevent incidents like these. These incidents likel y represent a small percentage of the actual ecological incidents caused b y certified applicator errors. In addition to the reasons for under

- reporting mentioned earlier, the approach used to search the EIIS database onl y captured the incidents that occurred from 2009 through 2013. An example of under

- reporting involves deaths of geese in Oregon from zinc phosphide pois oning. EPA’s search of 2009

– 2013 incidents identified two of these cases during 2009. By

limiting ourselves to that time period, this analy sis did not capture a number of similar incidents. A paper published in the Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Inv estigation discussed investigations of ten goose mortality events in Oregon from 2004 to 2008. The number of birds impacted in these incidents ranged from 5 to over 300 birds (Bildfell, et al ., 2013).


### 6.5. **Quantified Human Health**  **Benefit s**  **of Reduced Acute I llness from**  **Restricted Use Pesticides** EPA expects the proposed changes to the certification standards to result in benefits b y reducing exposure to certified pesticide applicators, their families and the public . EPA estimates that the benefits from reduc ed acute RUP exposure to be up to $77 million annually, although important non - quantifiable human health benefits are discussed later in the chapter , and important ecological but unquantified benefits were discussed in the previous section. This section quantif ies benefits from the reductions in adverse health effects associated with acute pesticide exposure. 

### 6.5.1. Methodology and Data We use a two
- step process to estimate the benefits of the proposed rule that accrue through avoiding acute effects. EPA first estimates the number of acute pesticide poisoning incidents that will be avoided through provisions in the proposed rule. This is done by evaluating a sample of pesticide incident reports to identify the proximate causes of the exposure. EPA then determ ines whether the provisions of the proposed rule address the causes to estimate the proportion of pesticide incidents that would be avoided. This proportion is applied to the total number of reported incidents to estimate the annual number of avoided inci dents. As explained in Section 6.5.2 , under

- reporting is likely large, which will lead to a downward bias in the estimated benefits . This downward bias could be eliminated, if the amount of under

- reporting was known. A discussion of under

- reporting and the effect on estimated benefits is provided at the end of Section 6.5.4. Data for the first step in the estimation come from the Sentinel Event Notification Sy stem for Occupational Risks

– Pesticides ( SENSOR

- Pesticides ), administered b y the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. SENSOR

- Pesticides is a surveillance20

program that monitors occupational illnesses related to pesticide exposure. EPA also reviewed its own Incident Data S ystem and annual reports from the Poison Control Centers t o document unintentional deaths from RUPs over time. The second step is to estimate the value of avoided incidents, given the severity of the effects. The estimates here are based on avoided medical cost and avoided productivity loss and thus will undere stimate the true willingness to pay of an individual to avoid illness. Avoided deaths are valued using the value of a statistical life (VSL). The value of avoided incidents is measured as avoided cost for treatment and lost productivity

. In formation on medical costs comes from two sources. Cost of inpatient care comes from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), which is a famil y of health care databases and related software tools and products developed through a Federal

- State

- Industry partn ership and sponsored b y the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) 9 . HCUP databases bring together the data collection efforts of state data organizations, hospital associations, private data organizations, and the federal government to create a national information resource of patient

level health care data. HCUP includes the largest collection of longitudinal hospital care data in the United States, with all

- payer, encounter
- level information beginning in 1988. Outpatient costs come from the Healthcare Common Procedure Code (HCPC) Criteria, which is a Centers for Medi care & Medicaid Services (CMS) classification sy stem used for identifying medical services and procedures furnished by phy sicians and other health care professionals 10

. Finally , data to estimate the value of productivity loss avoided comes from a variety o f reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Details are presented in Section 6.5.4

. 

### 6.5.2. Under

- reporting of RUP Incidents There is concern that pesticide incidents in general are underreported. At least four steps are necessary before a pesticide

- related illness can be recorded b y any counting sy stem: (1) the exposed person must perceive that they have treatable sy

mptoms; (2) the person must seek medical attention; (3) the phy sician must diagnose the sy mptoms as being pesticide related; and (4) the phys ic ian or the injured person must report the incident to the correct recordkeeping sy stem, and the incident must be recorded as pesticide related. A breakdown at any of the steps would prevent a pesticide poisoning case from being tallied in surveillance data bases (Das et al ., 2001). (1) The exposed person must perceive that they have treatable s ymptoms of an illnes s. Sy mptoms of acute pesticide poisoning illnesses and injuries are, unfortunately , usuall y not uniquely indicative of pesticide effects. Dermatologic and ophthalmologic effects, such as skin rashes and eye irritation, also have many other causes. Systemic poisoning by some of the more common pesticides results in flu

- like or cold

- like sy mptoms, such as headache, nausea, vomiting,

9 More information on the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project is available here: http://www.ahrq.gov/research/data/hcup/ 10 More information on the Healthcare Common Procedure Code sy stem and codes is available here : http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coding/MedHCPCSGenInfo/index.html21

dizziness, and a general feeling of malaise. Allergic effects may be either upper

- respiratory problems that mimic hay fever s ymptoms, or dermatologic effects similar to those caused b y exposure to poison ivy

. When farmworkers or b ystanders are exposed, they may not pe rceive that their sy

mptoms are related to pesticide exposures because they are not working directl y with pesticides and may

not realize that they

were exposed to pesticide residues. (2) The person must seek medical attention. Except in life

- threatening emergencies, many pesticide

- related acute health effects will gradually disappear without medical intervention. For example, the cholinesterase enzy me, when inhibited by

pesticide exposure, causes some of the more common acute s ys temic poisoning s ymptoms. Inmany cases, this inhibition will gradually (depending on the family of pesticide, severity , and repetition of exposure) recover without treatment. Allergic, dermatologic, and ophthalmologic effects will gradually disappear when exposure to the causal pesticide diminishes. Therefore, many people with treatable s ymptoms may not seek phy sician care. A survey of California workers whose illnesses had been reported to a surveillance s ys tem showed that in 40% of the cases, other workers exposed in the sam e incidents did not seek medical treatment (Das et al ., 2001), an example of cases that are underreported. (3) The phys ician must diagnose the s ymptoms as being pesticide related. When medical treatment is sought, the treating medical personnel may no t specificall y diagnose the illness or injury as being caused b y an occupational exposure to pesticides. Many signs and sy mptoms of such poisoning may

be treated s ymptomaticall y or an occupational connection may not be drawn. It is unknown how often phys i cians mistake pesticide poisonings for other causes, but phy sicians may

not associate vague s ymptoms with pesticide poisonings. The person seeking care may not know or identify

the cause of the poisoning as a pesticide. In addition, there may not be labo ratory

tests to confirm suspicions of pesticide exposure, and physicians may be more concerned with treating symptoms rather than confirming the causes. (4) The phys ician must report the incident to a recordkeeping s ys tem, and the incident must be reco rded as pesticide related. Occupational diseases in general are more likely to be under

reported than occupational injuries. A 1991 study of farmworker health and safety in the State of Washington say s: "Frequently , occupational diseases simply do not appe ar in workers' compensation records, even when clear

- cut. This is due to reporting disincentives and inherent difficulties in health care providers recognizing conditions as work

- related." (Washington State Department of Labor and Industries , 1991) Barriers to accurate reporting by phy sicians include a lack of awareness of reporting requirements and opportunities, reluctance to engage in reporting that might result in legal or bureaucratic difficulties, and the time constraints on phy sicians that may prevent them from completing records and reporting incidents (Azaroff et al ., 2002, Baker et al ., 1998). For example, a report b y the Arizona Office of the Auditor General found: "[S]ome physicians and healthcare officials suggest that cases may not be repo rted because healthcare professionals fear becoming involved in a lawsuit or occupational injury claim in which they

might have to defend an uncertain diagnosis in court. Our review of literature on the subject corroborated this statement" (Arizona, 1990)

.22

If any of the four steps needed for accurate recording of an occupational pesticide incident are not completed, then it will not appear in surveillance databases. There is evidence in the literature that occupational medical incidents, especiall y expos ures to poisons, are underreported, although some of this is anecdotal. This may be even more likel y in the agricultural sector, due to the nature of the workforce (Kandel, 2008). Exposures that do not cause immediate sy mptoms are unlikel y to be reported . Several studies indicate that under

- reporting of illness is common, both for occupational illnesses and for poisoning incidents, with an estimate of under

- reporting ranging from 20

– 70%. These studies are summarized in Table 6.5

- 1 , and a discussion of the importance on benefit estimates is given in Section 6.5.4

.23

**Table 6.**  **5 -**  **1 Summary of Results from Underreporting Studies** Date Title Goal of Study Underreporting Estimate

1990 Treated vs. Reported Toxic

Exposures: Discrepancies Between a Poison Control Center and a Member Hospital (Harchelroad et al ., 1990) Compare poison control center reports to actual toxic exposures presented to an urban area hospital 74% a

1983 Patterns in Hospitals’ Use of

a Regional Poison Information Center (Chafee

Bahamon et al ., 1983) Observing usage patterns of a poison information center by hospital staff over a two

-ye ar period “Sufficiently Large” b

1987 Interpretation and Uses of

Data Collected in Poison Control Centers in the United States (Veltri et al ., 1987) Identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the American Association of Poison Control Centers National Data Collection System 67%

2006 California Surveillance for

Pesticide

- Related Illness and Inj ury: Coverage, Bias, and Limitations (Mehler, et al

. , 2006) Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the California Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program 47% of hospitalizations for agricultural workers, 84% of poison control reports for all occupational exposure
2008 Hidden Tragedy:

Underreporting of Workplace Inj uries and Illnesses (US House of Representatives, 2008) Identifying issues involving the inclusiveness of reported workplace injuries and illnesses 69%

2008 Examining Evidence on

Whether BLS Undercounts Workplace Injuries and Il lnesses (Ruser , 2008) Identifying underreporting for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and how they can be corrected 20

- 70% c

2008 Acute Pesticide Poisoning

Among Agricultural Workers in the United States, 1998

–2005 (Calvert, et al. , 2008) Identifying agricultural pesticide exposure incidents and estimate incident rates 88% to 95%, when compared to the Department of Labor National Agricultural Workers Surveyd Notes: a The E mergency M edical D ispatcher evaluated found only 26% of cases were relayed to the regional P oison C ontrol C enter ; resulting in underreport of 74% b “Sufficiently Large” represents the authors’ interpretation of the differences between hospital’s poisoning reports and the hospital records, indicating a problematic discrepancy. c Undercount estimates related to the Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, conducted by BLS d Based on calculation in Calvert et al., 2008, comparing SEN SOR

- Pesticides to the National Agricultural Workers Survey The Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts an annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII), which provides a summary on the safety of the nation’s workplaces. Ruser (2008) estimates that the SOII undercounts occupational illnesses, but the estimate range is wide, 20 to 70 percent. Although attempting to record injuries and illnesses on a national scale, the SOII omits some groups from the survey entirel y. Self

- employed, household and small

- farm workers24

are not recorded in the SOII. The BLS realizes the undercount of its SOII, noting that many conditions, notably

those caused b y exposure to carcinogens, are often difficult to associate to the workplace. The House Committee on Education and Labor estimates that up to nearly 70% of illnesses and injuries may

never make it to the often cited SOII (U.S. House of Representatives, 2008). According to experts, a major cause of under

- reporting may be due to the fact that employers may have certain incentives to minimize reporting, because those operations with fewer injuries and illnesses are less likely to be inspected by

the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

. There have been three studies on undercounts involving poison c ontrol data. The studies each focus on a specific region and compare cases reported to poison control centers with those poisonings for which there are hospital records. In all three cases, the studies indicate a substantial under

- reporting of poisoning incidents. Note that these studies only estimate the under

- reporting by

phy sicians ( i.e. , Step 4 in the chain of events for an event to be recorded)

– poisoned people not seeking medical care or where the cause is misdiagnosed would not be counted in these studies. Harchelroad et al . (1990) compared cases, reported to Poison Control Centers (PCC), of actual toxic exposure results documented b y an emergency department to a member hospital. Of the 470 exposures that were observed b y the emergency depar tment, onl y 26% were ever documented and reported. The study suggests that lack of awareness or complacency to toxic exposure on the part of the potential callers are probably the major cause for non

- reporting. Chafee

- Bahamon et al . (1983) investigat ed the variability of reporting by

different hospitals. In similar regional hospitals, there were significant differences in the identification of poisonings among admitted patients. The authors doubt that the large difference between the documented hosp itals is due to diagnostic practices alone. In particular, emergency room staff in rural hospitals or hospitals far from poison control centers were identified as being less likel y to call poison control centers, so the cases were less likely to be recorded in poisoning databases. The third study , by

Veltri et al . (1987), noted problems with the reporting of diagnoses of illnesses and injuries. This study suggests that not only under

- reporting but misreporting may occur . In this case, onl y about one

- thi rd of the cases evaluated at a regional medical center could be directl y matched to respective poisoning reports. Misclassifications of illnesses and injuries are believed to be a frequent occurrence, which indicates that existing data on pesticide poison ings may

be consistently

low

. Calvert et al. , (2008), estimated incidence rates of agricultural pesticide poisoning, finding that, among agricultural workers annual pesticide poisonings occurred at a rate of 51 per 100,000 farmworkers. Calvert compares these to results from the Department of Labor’s National Agricultural Worker’s Survey (NAWS), which in 1999 survey farmworkers about pesticide exposure, illness and medical treatment. Calvert et al. report, based on the SENS OR

- Pesticides data, that 0.07% of farmworkers suffer acute occupational pesticide poisonings annually . They compare that to the NAWS, which reports that 1.4% of agricultural workers suffered medical25

sy mptoms as a result of pesticide exposure, and that 0.6 % received medical treatment for illness from pesticide exposure. If these numbers are correct, that suggest 0.53% (the difference between 0.6% and 0.07%) of farmworkers received medical treatment but were not reported to the pesticide illness surveillanc e s ys tem, and 1.33% (the difference between 1.4% and 0.07%) suffered s ymptoms that were not recorded in counts of pesticide incidents. These number suggest substantial underreporting: if 0.53% of the 0.6% were not recorded, that is an underreporting rate of 88%. If we were to think about incidents including those where medical treatment is not sought, then 1.4% of farmworkers had illness from pesticide exposure, but 1.33% were not recorded, which is an underreporting rate of 95%. There are several reaso ns to think that pesticide incidents specifically are underreported. The OPP Report on Incident Information (EPA, 2007) lists several factors that cause pesticide incidents to be underreported, most of which are consistent with breakdowns in steps 3 and 4 above. According to the OPP Report on Incident Information, these include

 The lack of a universal, mandatory legal duty to report incidents;  No central reporting point for all incidents;  Sy mptoms associated with pesticide poisonings often mimic sy mptoms from other causes;  Phy sicians may

misdiagnose due to a lack of familiarity with pesticide effects;  In cidents may

not be investigated adequatel y to identify the pesticide that caused the effects;  Difficulty

in identifying and tracking chronic effects;  Relu ctance or inability to report by

phy sicians; and  Limited geographic coverage for individual poisoning databases. The limited available data for pesticide poisonings by RUPs are consistent with the conclusion that only a small fraction of the sy mptoms of p esticide poisoning are likel y to lead to medical attention and possible diagnosis . Later in this section estimates of acute benefits from avoided pesticide incidents are provided, based on reported data. A discussion of the impacts of under

reporting on those estimates is provided at the end of Section 6.5.4 

### 6.5.3. Pesticide Incidents Avoided For estimating the proposal’s effect on pesticide incidents we use a database from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) called the Sentinel Event Notification Sy stem for Occupational Exposure (SENSOR

- Pesticides). This database contains detail on the exposures that led to the incident report , their severity and their causes, although the data are not national in scope. SENSOR

- Pesticides is a surveillance program that monitors occupational illnesses related to pesticide exposure. EPA obtained data for a two - ye ar period, 200 9 to 20 10 , during which time nine states ( California , Florida, Io wa, Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina , Oregon , Texas, and Washington) reported incidents involving RUPs to SENSOR

- Pesticides (Fortenberry

and Calvert, 2014). SENSOR

- Pesticides reports generall y contain sufficient detail to identify

the type of pesticide involved in the incident to determine if it was an RUP and to evaluate the circumstances of the incident. These data are used to estimate the proportion of26

incidents that would be avoided under the proposed rule. Although SENSOR

- Pesticides data are available for earlier ye ars, only data from 2009

– 2010 are u sed here. 2009 and 2010 are the most recent ye ars for which the reporting states are consistent. In addition, for these two ye ars SENSOR

- Pesticides reports any contributing factor (also known as the “prevention code”) identified for each incident. EPA initially focused this query

on cases with prevention codes to draw upon the training and expertise of NIOSH and the SENSOR

- Pesticides state surveillance coordinators who investigate and code these cases. However, while investigating deaths and high severi ty

cases over time in SENSOR, EPA realized that some relevant incidents were not captured because the prevention code was identified as “other” or “unknown.” To ensure that all relevant cases were considered, EPA took a second step while querying the SENSOR

- Pesticides data to identify cases to support the Worker Protection Standard (WPS). The WPS

- relevant cases involve the use of agricultural pesticides used in the production of crops. For the WPS

- cases, EPA identified whether the incident involved a R UP and compared the list to the initial query for 2009

– 2010 certification rule incidents that was based solel y on prevention codes. About 20 additional incidents involving the use of RUPs were identified that were added to the list of cases that were reviewed. EPA reviewed pesticide incident cases reported to SENSOR

- Pesticides from 2009

- 2010 that involved a pesticide ingredient commonly associated with RUPs. There were initially 197 cases, but 55 were removed from consideration. Fifteen were removed because they were either intentional exposures, because state follow

- up investigation concluded that the sy mptoms were unlikely to be related to pesticide exposure, or because EPA determined that a certified applicator was not involved in the incident. Another 30 were eliminated because they were more relevant to the protections for workers and handlers under the agricultural Worker Protection Standard. EPA is finalizing changes to the Worker Protection Standard, which will also prevent acute pesticide p oisoning incidents, and these incidents were removed to eliminate potential double

- counting under both rules. Finally , ten incidents were eliminated because they were related to soil fumigant exposures. Recent changes to soil fumigant labeling requiring i ncreased training and safety equipment would probably have prevented those incidents. The proposed new soil fumigant category in the changes to the certification standards codifies the current label requirements, so we do not include those incidents (which occurred before the label changes) here. Using the pesticide incident reports from SENSOR

- Pesticides along with the NIOSH assigned prevention codes , EPA was able to identify the proximate causes of the exposure causing the incident

. EPA reviewed the narrative description of the se cases , the information identified in the SENSOR

- Pesticide database and, additional information from the state if it was available for the cause of the incident and determined whether the provisions of the proposed rule would mitigate the exposure that caused the incident. Cases were categorized as “preventable ” or “possibl y preventable ” b y the rule amendments. Categories were assigned using the following guidelines:

 Preventable Incidents: incidents where there was a clear link between the application/applicator and the effect and the information demonstrated an error b y the applicator or applicator incompetency

.27

 Possibly

Preventable Incidents: incidents where there was a clear link between the application/applicator and the effect and an applicator error was possible but the available information did not identify any specific applicator errors.  In cidents where the proposed changes would not have prevented the incident, or where there is not enough information to make a determination: incidents with a clear link between the application/applicator and the effect and an applicator error was possible but the available information did not identify any applicator errors. The review of the SENSOR

- Pesticides data identified 100 ca ses that were preventable under the proposed revisions to the rule . Another 20 cases were possibl y preventable . Cases deemed
“preventable ” were used to calculate the low

- end ratio of acute exposure cases to total unintentional pesticide incidents

. Table 6.5

- 2 presents the results of the review of the SENSOR

Pesticides data. EPA concludes that 70 to 85 percent of RUP incidents would be preventable or at least possibly

avoidable through the proposed changes. The lower estimate is based on avoiding onl y c ases similar to those deemed preventable due to the proposed changes, as discussed above. The higher estimate is based on those cases, plus those deemed as possibl y preventable after the proposed changes. **Table 6.5 -**  **2: Estimated SENSOR** **- Pesticides**  **Case s Avoided under the Proposed Changes**  **, 2009**

**- 2010** 

**Likelihood of being avoided by Proposed Rules**  **Number of Cases**  **Avoided ,**  **2009 -**  **2010 Percent of** 

**RUP Cases**  **( 142**  **Cases) Annual** 

**Avoidable Incident rate**  **per 1,000 certified**  **applicators National** 

**Estimate of RUP**  **Cases Avoided**  **Annually** Preventable 100 70% 0. 177 159 Possibl y Preventable 20 14% 0.0 35 32 Both Preventable and Possibly Preventable 120 85% 0.2 13 191 Source: EPA estimates from SENSOR

- Pesticides data. The incident rates are based on an average of 282,323.5 certified applicators in the SENSOR

- Pesticides states during 2009

– 2010, and the national estimates are based on an average of 896,496 certified applicators during 2009

– 2010. Note: The number of cases avoided is based on two years of inform ation, while the final column is an annual estimate. Also shown in Table 6.5

- 2 are the estimated annual avoided cases per 1,000 certified applicators, and the national estimate of annual avoided cases. To estimate the annual national number of pesticide incidents avoided by this rule, we need to scale the data from the SENSOR

- Pesticides states that reported RUP incidents to the national level. If we let PI s,l be the number of preventable incidents in the SENSOR

- Pesticides states, and APP s be the number of certified applicators in the SENSOR

- Pesticides states , the n we can define RP s,l = PI

s,l /APP s , which will be an estimate of the number of preventable incidents per certified a pplicator , which is done for each level of likelihood for the incident being avoided

. We will assume that the rate of preventable inci dents per applicator nationall y, RPn ,l , is equal to RP s,l . Therefore, we can estimate the national level of preventable incidents by multiplying RPn ,l by

the number of certified applicators nationally

.28

The SENSOR

- Pesticides data that we are using is from the years 2009

– 2010. Over those two ye ars, the CPARD data on the number of certified applicators show the average number of certified applicators as 282,323.5. This number includes existing certified private and commercial applicators plus the number of new certified applicators in the SENSOR

- Pesticides states, averaged for 2009 and 2010. RP s , the rate of preventable incidents per applicator, is estimated by

taking the number of avoided incidents annually , and dividing it by the average number of certified applicators in the SENSOR

- Pesticides states, and then scaling the result into preventable incidents per 1,000 certified applicators. The number of incidents avoided annuall y is half what is shown in the second column of Table 6.5

- 2, because th e prevented incidents shown there are for both years, 2009 and 2010. These estimates are presented for both preventable and possibly preventable illnesses, as shown in the table. For every

1,000 certified applicators in the SENSOR

- Pesticides states, there are an estimated 0.213 RUP incidents that are preventable or possibly preventable by

the rule. The final column in Table 6.5

- 2 shows the national estimate of avoided RUP incidents. The estimates in this column were calculated b y multiplying the annual preventable incident rate per applicator (

RPn ,l = RP

s,l) times the number of certified applicators nationally. Nationally the average number of certified applicators for 2009 and 2010 was 896,496, which includes new and existing private and commercial app licators. These calculations yield an estimate of annual RUP incidents prevented b y the rule of 159 on the low end, and 191 on the upper end. This estimate accounts onl y for reported incidents, which are likely to be a small proportion of the total number of incidents. In Section 6.5.4 below, we consider other sources for unreported deaths.


### 6.5.4. Value of Incidents Avoided As explained in Section 6.5.1 , EPA estimates the value of avoided incidents in terms of the medical costs avoided, the productivity los ses avoided, and the reduction in premature mortality

. These are not the onl y sources of value, but are quantifiable; other, unquantifiable benefits are discussed in Section 6.4 and 6.6 . The value of avoided incidents depends on the severity of the effec t caused by

the pesticide exposure. More severe effects are more costly because they require more treatment, including hospitalization. People suffering from more severe effects are more likely

to seek medical treatment. Further, a more severe effect is likely to result in a longer period of recovery

during which the victim is unable to work or engage in other activities. Finally , we need to estimate the probability that an acute incident will prove fatal in order to estimate the value of a reduction in premature mortality

. Therefore, EPA estimates two quantifiable sources of value from avoiding pesticide incidents given the severity of effects. For each severity level i , the value of an avoided case is given b y

= [ ] + where V

i Av is the value of an avoided case, E[MedCosti ] is the expected medical cost for the case, and VPL i is the value of productivity lost as a result of the case. We use the four severity levels29

described in the SENSOR

- Pesticides database as described below: Lo w Severity, Moderate Severity , High Severity, and Death

. The expected medical costs for an incident is estimated as

E [ ] = ( | ) × [ + ]

where Prob(HCF|i) is the probability a person exposed visits a health care facility given the severity of the effect, OutPtnti is the outpatient treatment cost for the severity of effect, and InPtnti is the inpatient treatment cost. Note that this measure of cost does not include any self

treatments
. The value of lost productivity is VPL i = (ω w ·work + ω H ·housekeeping + ω L ·leisure)·DUR i where VPL is the value of productivity lost , work is the time spent at work, housekeeping is the time spent in household activities, leisure is leisure time, ω is th e value of time spent in each activity , and DUR is the duration of the effect. The value of a reduction in premature mortality, is simply the value of a statistical life (VSL). The VSLis a summary

measure for the dollar value of small changes in mortali ty risk experienced b y a large number of people. VSL estimates are derived from aggregated estimates of individual values for small changes in mortality risks. For example, if 10,000 individuals are each willing to pay , $500 for a reduction in risk of 1/10 ,000, then the value of saving one statistical life equals $500 times 10,000

– or $5 million. Note that this does not mean that any identifiable life is valued at this amount, but rather that the aggregate value of reducing a collection of small individual risks is worth $5 million in this hy pothetical case. This anal ys is uses $7.9 million for the VSL , as recommended by EPA guidance. This value is based on a distribution of values in 26 published estimates of VSL , and then adjusted from the base value ($4. 8 million in 1990 dollars) using the Consumer Price Index (EPA, 2010 a). Probability of Effect The SENSOR

- Pesticides data on RUP illnesses contains information about the severity of the illness for each incident. As shown in Table 6.5

- 3 , considering only the preventable and possibl y preventable incidents, about 61% of the acute cases considered resulted in “ low severity illness or injury” , over 32% percent in “moderate severity illness or injury , ” 5% in “high severity illness or injury ,” and under 2% in death. The majority of cases prevented are in the categories of low or moderate severity .
**Table 6.5 -**  **3: Severity of Symptoms from Preventable SENSOR -**  **Pesticides Cases**30

**Clinical Effect Number of Cases**  **Share of Total** Category S

- 4: L ow severity

illness or injury 73 60.83% Category S

- 3: Moderate severity illness or injury 39 32.50% Category S

- 2:High severity

illness or injury 6 5.00% Category S

- 1: Death 2 1.67% Total 120 100.00% Source: EPA estimates from SENSOR

- Pesticides data, 2009

- 2010 The f our severity categories in the SENSOR

- Pesticides data are defined as follows (NIOSH, 2001):

 S

- 4 L ow severity illness or injury This is the category

of lowest severity. It is often manifested b y skin, eye or upper respiratory

irritation. It may

also include fever, headache, fatigue or dizziness. Ty pically the illness or injury

resolves without treatment. There is minimal lost time (<3 days) from work or normal activities

 S

- 3 Moderate severity illness or injury This category

includes cases of less severe illness or injury often involving sy stemic manifestations. Generally , treatment was provided. The individual is able to return to normal functioning without any residual disability . Usually , less time is lost from work or normal activities ( 3

- 5 day s), comp ared to those with severe illness or injury . No residual impairment is present (alth ough effects may be persistent)

 S

- 2 High severity illness or injury The illness or injury

is severe enough to be considered life threatening and ty picall y requires treatment. This level of effect commonly involves hospitalization to prevent death. Signs and s ymptoms include, but are not limited to, coma, cardiac arrest, renal failure and/or respiratory depression. The individual sustains substantial loss of time (> 5 day s ) from regular work (this can include assignment to limited/light work duties) or normal activities (if not employed). This level of severity might include the need for continued health care following the exposure event, prolonged time off of work, and lim itations or modification of work or normal activities. The individual may sustain permanent functional impairment

 S

- 1 Death This category

describes a human fatality resulting from exposure to one or more pesticides. Given the distribution of effects from the sample of pesticide incidents shown in Table 6.5

- 3 and the estimated number of cases avoided from Section 6.5

- 2 , EPA estimates the distribution of preventable RUP incidents across the four severity levels. Table 6.5

- 4 shows the estimated number of national incidents that may be prevented by

the rule for each severity level, based on31

the high and low estimates of cases prevented from Table 6.5

- 2. The estimates, except for “Death,” are rounded to whole numbers.

**Table 6. 5**  **- 4 Estimates of Annual Illnesses Prevented by the Proposed Rule, by Severity**  **Estimate of Number of Cases Prevented**  **Annually Clinical Effect**  **Share of Total Low End**  **Estimate (70%)**  **High End**

**Estimate (85%)**  Category S

- 4: L ow severity

illness or injury 60.8% 97 116 Category S

- 3: Moderate severity illness or injury 32.5% 52 62 Category S

- 2:High severity

illness or injury 5.0% 8 10 Category S

- 1: Death 1.7% 2.65 3.18 Total 100.0% 158.77 190.53 Source: EPA calculations based on the figures in Tables 6.5

- 2 and 6.5

- 3. Note: Estimates are rounded to w hole numbers, except for “Death” and the total. Death estimates are later revised based on further investigation, as shown in Table 6.5

- 10 and 6.5

- 11.
**6.5.4.1 Additional Sources for Counting**  **Preventable Deaths** Because deaths from pesticide exposure are such infrequent events, there is concern that only using two ye ars of data from one data set that covers only a subset of states will not be representative of the actual risk and benefit from p reventing deaths. In addition to the estimates of preventable deaths presented in Table 6.5

- 4, there are other data sources available that can be used to document the number of unintentional fatalities over time. In addition to the SENSOR

- Pesticides data, there were two other sources with information on deaths from pesticide exposure: Annual reports prepared by the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) and the EPA’s Incident Data Sy stem (IDS). SENSOR

- Pesticides data are also available beginning in 1999, although the states where data were collected were inconsistent, and incidents prior to 2009 were not evaluated b y N IOSH staff to determine possible causes of incidents. The National Poison Data Sy stem (NPDS) is the AAPCC’s database management sy stem used to compile poisoning information gathered b y the AAPCC

- certified poison centers 11 . There are

11 More information about the data available from the NPDS is available here: http://www.aapcc.org/data

- system/32

currentl y 57 certified poison centers. Poison center staff are health care professionals and are available for advice about poisonings free of charge, 24 hours a day , 365 day s a year. In addition to responding to calls from the general public, staff also field calls from health care professionals and the public health agencies. The poison centers collectively receive over 3.6 million call encounters annuall y. These are primaril y consumer oriented incident calls rather than occupational “work related” incident calls (Bronstein et al ., 2011). EPA does not have access to the raw data from the NPDS, and only summary information on pesticide ev ents is available for incidents that did not result in deaths. However, for poisoning incidents that did result in deaths, including pesticide incidents, the AAPCC annual reports include an appendix of case abstracts that provide more information on death s, with a description of the scenario in which the poisoning occurred and the treatment received (American Association of Poison Control Centers, 1999

– 2012). These descriptions in the annual reports are not a full list of deaths reported to the AAPCC, b ecause onl y a subset of fatal cases are chosen for reporting. Case abstracts presented in the annual reports meet a number of criteria b y AAPCC report authors (e.g., completeness of therap y details, educational value of the incident, etc.). Therefore, th e cases gathered from this source, while limited, provides EPA with a number of compelling incidents. EPA/OPP’s Incident Data Sy stem (IDS) contains reports of alleged human health incidents from a variety of sources, including mandatory Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 6(a)(2) reports from registrants, reports from other federal and state health and environmental agencies and individual consumers. Case reports or “narratives” may be provided for the reported incidents, with varying levels of detail; however, there is no effort at validating or assessing how likel y it is that the reported exposure is causall y related to the reported outcome. This sy stem receives information pertaining to occupational and consumer oriente d incidents. OPP focused on incidents categorized at the highest severity level (death). These two sources were investigated to determine if there was information that would shed additional light on the frequency of preventable deaths from RUPs. The data from the AAPCC annual reports was available from 1999

– 2012, and there were 13 deaths that EPA staff determined were a result of a preventable exposure to an RUP. The EPA IDS was queried from 2008

– 2014, and showed a total of six deaths that EPA staf f classified as preventable. A summary of the information about deaths from these different databases is provided in Table 6.5

- 5. EPA considered several methods for combining the additional information from AAPCC and IDS to better estimate the number of deaths prevented by the rule annually , without any potential double counting of the information already available from SENSOR

- Pesticides, or from earlier ye ars of SENSOR

- Pesticides data. When using the SENSOR

- Pesticides data set from 2009

– 2010 to create Table 6.5

- 4, we extrapolated from the SENSOR

- Pesticides states to the national level b y creating an index of incidents per certified applicator, which yi elded an estimate of 2.65 to 3.18 preventable deaths per year. The simplest way to estimate the number of deaths prevented b y the rule is to look at the total number of preventable deaths across all the data sets for the years in which all are available, without any scaling to the national level for SENSOR

- Pesticides data. By using three different data sets and only using unique incidents, a reasonable estimate can be obtained without double counting. There are onl y three ye ars for which all three data series were available, from33

2008, 2009, and 2010. There were a total of six unique preventable death s for those three years, or two preventable deaths per year. Three were from SENSOR

- Pesticides (one each in 2008, 2009, and 2010). The AAPCC data reported three preventable deaths, one for each year, but the deaths for 2008 and 2009 were duplicates of th e deaths reported in SENSOR

- Pesticides, leaving one unique death. There were three preventable deaths reported in IDS for 2010 (none for other ye ars), one of which was a duplicate to a report in SENSOR

- Pesticides, leaving two unique deaths. This suggests that our extrapolation from the SENSOR

- Pesticides data in 2009

– 2010 yi elding 2.65 to 3.18 deaths per year may be an overestimate. This approach is not much of an improvement on the initial approach using SENSOR

- Pesticides data, however, because it only uses three ye ars of data, rather than two. The relative rarity of deaths gives an important reason to look beyond the three years available for all three data sets. Another possible approach is using the maximum years available, from 1999

– 2014, over which time there were 21 unique preventable deaths, or 1.31 per year. The problem with this approach is that the correct number of years is not obvious, because none of the data sets spans the entire range. That would not be of concern if most of the inci dents appear in all the data sets, but that is rare

– there is surprisingl y little overlap (3 cases), even for this most severe of outcomes. To use the data available without double counting the incidents, one option is to combine the initial SENSOR

- Pesticides estimate for deaths with new estimates from AAPCC and the IDS. The estimated rate for the nation estimated from SENSOR

- Pesticides is be tween 2.65 and 3.18 preventable deaths per ye ar. We exclude any deaths that were reported in AAPCC that were also reported in the SENSOR

- Pesticides data from 2009

– 2010; there were two, leaving 11 unique preventable deaths reported by AAPCC between 1999 and 2012, or 0.786 per year. Finally, we consider the IDS cases reported from 2008

– 2014. There were five unique preventable deaths from IDS, or an estimated 0.714 per ye ar, although data for 2014 are incomplete. Because these estimates from the three different data sources only consider unique preventable deaths, they can be added together, which would yield between 4.15 and 4.68 estimated preventable deaths per ye ar. However, the estimate based on SENSOR

- Pesticides data from 2009

– 2010 was extrapo lated to the national level, and hypothetically, one of the cases from AAPCC or IDS could have been one of the cases accounted for by the extrapolation. For that reason, instead of using the estimate of preventable deaths from Table 6.5

- 4 as our starting point, we use only the reported estimates from SENSOR

- Pesticides, not the extrapolated figures. Two preventable deaths from RUP exposure were reported in SENSOR

- Pesticides from 2009

– 2010, or one per year. This is a conservative estimate because SENSOR

- Pesticides only covers a few states, but we use it here. Combining that number with estimates from the unique incidents from AAPCC and IDS yields an estimate of 2.50 preventable deaths per year.34

**Table 6.5 -**  **5 : Summary of Pesticide Deaths from Additional**  **Data Sources** SENSOR

Pesticides 2009

- 2010 AAPCC

1999

- 2012 EPA

In cident Data Sy stem 2008

- 2014 Preventable RUP Deaths 2 13 6 Total Deaths Reported 3 267 49 Preventable RUP Deaths per Year 1 0.9 0. 9 Total Deaths per Year 1 .5 19.1 7.0 Sources: EPA estimates from SENSOR

- Pesticides data; EPA analysis of the AAPCC Annual Reports; EPA queries and analysis of the Incident Data System Note: The EPA IDS data for 2014 are not complete Deaths from applicator errors involving RUPs occur for a variety of reasons . These include people accidentall y ingesting an RUP that was improperl y transferred to a beverage container , misuse of RUPs in or around homes, faulty equipment and failure to wear appropriate protective equipment , and failure to conf irm a living space is empty before fumigating

. Valuation of Effect The value of the illnesses prevented is presented below (in Tables 6.5

- 10 and 6.5

- 1 1 ). The estimates presented are almost surely underestimates for two reasons

. First , the estimated number of cases prevented is based on the estimated number of reported cases annuall y, which is likely to be a poor estimate, as discussed in Section 6.5. 2
. Second, the estimates are based solel y on the cost of medical care and lost wages to those affected b y pesticide illnesses, sometimes called a “cost of illness” (COI) estimates. Cost of illness (COI) estimates, however, may significantly

underestimate individual willingness to pay for a variety of reasons (EPA , 2010 a). In particular, these estimate s do not: (1) address the value of avoiding pain and suffering; (2) include costs that individuals incur to avoid the illness ( i.e. , defensive or averting expenditures); (3) reflect aversion to risk (the fear of becoming ill); (4) consider person’s anticipated value of preventing illness values (they are based on ex post costs); and (5) consider whether treatment returns individuals to their original health state ( i.e. , is equivalent to avoiding the illness entirely). In Table 6.5

- 4, estimate s of the number of cases that may be avoided as a result of the proposed rule were presented and categorized by the level of severity. The savings due to prevented cases are estimated here. These costs include avoided outpatient phy sician visits and inpatient hospitalizations, lost productivity , and premature mortality . For each severity level except “death,” expected medical costs are estimated, based on the probability that medical treatment is sought, and the cost of that treatment. For each severity level except “death,” the value of lost productivity

is estimated. Valuing lost productivity is an attempt to value the time lost due to illness. Work time is obviously lost, but lost leisure and household time is considered as well.35

For each severity level, an average length of illness is multiplied by the value of time spent on work, household activities, and leisure. Direct Medical Costs As explained above, the expected medical cost is given b y

E [ ] = ( | ) × [ + ]

where Prob(HCF|i) is the probability of visiting a health care facility , Outptnt and InPtnt are treatment costs, and i indicates the level of severity of the effect. In order to determine the probability of visiting a health care facil ity for each severity level, we used the SENSOR

- Pesticides information for those cases which deemed preventable or possibl y preventable for 2009

- 2010. The SENSOR

- Pesticides data has a variable which indicates whether medical care was sought, and we included those cases that were treated at a phys ician’s office, an emergency

room, or admitted to a hospital. Table 6.5

- 6 presents the number of cases that were seen at a health care facility , the total number of cases over these years, as well as the each category ’s percentage of the total by medical outcome (or severity level). As our measure of the probability

of treatment at a health care facility Prob(HCF|i) , we use the share of cases from that were treated at a health care facility , in the final column of Table 6.5

- 6
. Itis not surprising that the share receiving medical care is so high, because to be included in the SENSOR

- Pesticides database requires at least two reportable s ymptoms of pesticide exposure, and because the cases treated by medical profe ssionals are more likely to be reported to SENSOR

- Pesticides.

**Table 6.5 -**  **6: Health Care Sought for Preventable Pesticide -**  **Related Acute Exposures, SENSOR** **- Pesticides 2009**  **- 2010.** 

**Clinical Effect Cases Seen at**  **Health Care Facility**  **Total**

**Cases Share of** 

**Cases Seen**  **at Health Care**  **Facility** Category S

- 4: L ow severity

illness or injury 55 73 75% Category S

- 3: Moderate severity illness or injury 39 39 100% Category S

- 2: High severity

illness or injury 5 6 83% Source: SENSOR

- Pesticides data, 2009

– 2010. Incidents from Category S

- 1, death, are not included, so the total number of preventable cases is 118.36

Inpatient costs were obtained from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), specificall y the cost for hospital stay s from the HCUP 3

– Hospital Inpatient Statistics, average for 2009 and 2010. For Diagnosis Related Group 16.243 (poisoning b y no n - medical substances) the average charges reported by Clinical Classifications Software was $2 9,970 in 2007. Outpatient unit costs were estimated using data from phy sician visit benchmark fees for evaluation and management costs by Healthcare Common Procedure Code (HCPC) Criteria (a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) classification s ys tem used for identifying medical services and procedures furnished b y physicians and other health care professionals) 12

. Evaluation and management costs are av ailable for the level of service required for both new and established patients. Outpatient unit costs are obtained for HCPC Criteria 99213, which describes a patient visit with an evaluation and management based on a focused problem. For 200 9

- 2010 , th e average medical facility charge for outpatient visits that fall into this HCPC category was $ 68.72 for patients with an existing relationship with a doctor and $ 75.61 for new patients. Given an equal chance that the person exposed to a pesticide will have a doctor or not, the average cost of an outpatient visit is estimated to be $ 72.17 . That cost seems low, but the data reflects the maximum allowable reimbursement that Medicaid has authorized for those services. This may

be an underestimate, which would imply that the outpatient cost is underestimated, but there is no available data on additional treatment costs. Expected medical costs, based on the probability of visiting a health care facility and the cost of treatment, are shown in Table 6.5

- 7
. **Table 6.5 -**  **7 Medical Cost by Severity of Effect**

**Clinical Effect Prob(HCF|**  **i )**  **Outpatient Cost**  **Inpatient**

**Cost Expected** 

**Medical Cost**  **1** Category S

- 4: L ow severity

illness or injury 75% $72.17 $0 $54.37 Category S

- 3: Moderate severity illness or injury 100% $72.17 $0 $72.17 Category S

- 2:High severity

illness or injury 83% $72.17 $29,970 $25,035.14 Source: EPA estimation. 1 Calculated as Prob(HCF|i)×[Outpatient Cost + Inpatient Cost].
The Value of Lost Productivity

12 The average facility charge for all providers in 2009

- 2010 using the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, from http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PFSlookup/02_PFSSearch.asp37

The value of lost productivity is estimated as the value of various activities in which a person is ty picall y engaged over the course of the day, but which he or she could not accomplish when ill. As noted above, we calculate this value as

E [ ] = ( + h + ) ×
where VPL is the value of productivity lost, work is the time spent at work, housekeeping is the time spent in household activities, leisure is leisure time, ω is the value of time spent in each activity , and DUR is the duration of the effect. BL S data were used to calculate the average number of hours spent on work, housekeeping, and leisure for a ty

pical working adult. According to the Current Population Survey (BL S, 2013d) , an employed person works an average of 38.6 hours per week or 5. 51 hours per day over a seven - day week. According to the American Time of Use Survey (BL S, 2013e) , the average time spent by

those over 16 in housekeeping is 1.78 hours per day

. Leisure is calculated as the remaining ti me, assuming an average of eight hours of sleep, or 8.71 hours per day

. The hourl y value of work is measured as the weighted average wage rate for adult private and commercial certified pesticide applicators, weighted using the number of certified applicators of each type in 2014 (see Section 3.3.2 of this economic anal ys is), or $ 38.41 per hour . This is an assumption made for simplicity , but the af fected person may

not be a certified applicator, and wages vary

by occupation. This analy sis assumes that workers work 40 hours a week. The value of housekeeping is the median hourl y earnings for a personal/home care aide, $ 11.23 (BLS, 2013f). This labo r category was chosen as most closely representative, given the occupations available, for the value of housekeeping activities if an injured worker had to hire outside help. For this analy sis, we calculate the value of leisure as the after

- tax wage rate for certified applicators , because theoretically the take home pay

is the rate at which work and leisure are traded. The overall average tax rate in the United States is 29.4 percent (Tax Foundation , 2013) , which leaves an after

- tax return of $ 27.12 per ho ur for leisure

. Table 6.5

- 8 presents EPA’s estimate of the value of a full y productive day, the parenthetical term in the equation for VPL, including work, housekeeping, and leisure activity. For each activity , Table 6.5

- 8 presents the average number of hours spent in the activity per day for a seven

- day week and the estimated value of time spent in each activity . The sum over the three activities is estimated to be $ 467.87 per day

.3 8

**Table 6.5 -**  **8 : Value of a Day of Full Productivity**  **Activity Hours/Day**  **Hourly Value (ω)**  **Total Value per**

**Day** Work 5. 51 a $ 38.41 c $211.80 Housekeeping 1.78 a $ 11.23 d $18.07 Leisure 8.71 b $ 27.12 e $236.08 **Total Value of a Day of Full Productivity $467.86**  Sources: a BLS, 20 13d , Current Population Survey (CPS) b Calculated by taking 24 hours per day times and subtracting the time known for work and housekeeping and assuming 8 hours per day for sleep c EPA Estimates

– see Chapter 3 d BLS, 2013 f CPS: Calculated by taking the median weekly earnings for personal/home care aides ($ 449 ) and assuming an average of 40 hours per week: $ 11.23 per hour. e Calculated as the wage rate less the overall tax rate for the nation ( 29.4 %). The SENSOR

- Pesticides data do not report the duration of illness from the RUP incident, although the bounds of the duration can be inferred by the severity category. The definitions of the severity categories contain ranges of time lost from work 13 . For the lowest severity category , time lost from work is less than three day s, while for moderate severity incidents, between three and five day s of work are lost. For high severity i ncidents, time lost from work is greater than five day s, although the description of the category cautions that “[t]his level of severity might include the need for continued health care following the exposure event, prolonged time off of work, and limitations or modification of work or normal activities. The individual may sustain permanent functional impairment.” This description indicates that the damage from an R UP incident could last substantially longer than five day s. As shown in Table 6.5

- 9, for the moderate severity category, we use the low end (three days) and the high end (five days) of the range as the estimate of the time lost from the RUP exposure. For the low severity category, the high end (three day s) is defined, but the low end is not, so we use the midpoint of the range between zero and three day s, or 1.5 day s. For the high severity category , the low end of the range is defined as five day s, but the upper end is not defined, and could be permanent. For this anal ys is, we assume that the upper end is 30 day s, which is somewhat arbitrary

. Table 6.5

- 9 shows the estimated average duration of clinical effects at each level of severity , with a high en d and a low end estimate, as discussed above. The time of effects, measured in day s, is multiplied by the value of a full day of productivity

($ 467.86 ) to yi eld high and low estimates of lost productivity for each severity level.

13 The description of the severity indices can be found here: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pesticides/pdfs/pest

sevindexv6.pdf39

**Table 6.5 -**  **9: Averag e Clinical Effect Duration and Value of Lost Productivity by**  **Clinical Effect**

**Clinical Effect Scenario**  **Duration of Clinical**  **Effect (Days) E[VPL**  **i ]**  **a** Category S

- 4: L ow severity

illness or injury Low
- End 1.5 $701.79 Category S

- 4: L ow severity

illness or injury High

- end 3 $1,403.58 Category S

- 3: Moderate severity illness or injury Low
- End 3 $1,403.58 Category S

- 3: Moderate severity illness or injury High

- end 5 $2,339.31 Category S

- 2: High severity

illness or injury Low
- End 5 $2,339.31 Category S

- 2: High severity

illness or injury High

- end 30 $14,035.83 Sources: EPA calculations
aThe unit cost for lost productivity day by severity category was calculated by multiplying the average duration of clinical effect in days by the value of a full day of productivity ($467.86). The Value of Reduced Premature Mortality The value of reduced premature mortality is simply the value of a statistical life, which EPA (2010) estimates at $7.9 million. The VSLis an aggregated estimate of the value of a small reduction in the risk of death over a large group of people. Onl y the VSL is used for poisonings resulting in death, because any medical value is dwarfed b y the value of life itself, and lost productivity

is included in the VSL

. Annual A verage Benefits, Avoided Acute Effects of Incidents The estimates of the total cost avoided b y the rule are given in Tables 6.5

- 10 and 6.5

- 1 1 . For each level of severity , cost is the sum of direct medical costs, lost productivity costs, and the value of premature mortality multiplied by

the number of cases avoided. We then sum across all severity levels to estimate the total avoided costs for the rule. Table 6.5

- 10 shows the low end estimates, which are based on the low end estimates of costs and the lo w end estimate of the number of prevented cases, while Table 6.5

- 1 1 shows the high end estimates.40 **Table 6.5 -**  **10: “Low -**  **End” Estimate of Avoided Average Annual Costs for Proposed Changes to the Certification Rule** 

**Clinical Effect Avoided**  **Cases per Year**  **Medical**

**Costs per Case**  **Lost**

**Productivity per Case**  **Premature**

**Mortality per Case**  **Average Annual**

**Total Cost Avoided**  Category S

- 4: L ow severity illness or injury 97 $54.37 $701.79 $0 $73,348 Category S

- 3: Moderate severity illness or injury 52 $72.17 $1,403.58 $0 $76,739 Category S

- 2:High severity illness or injury 8 $25,035.14 $2,339.31 $0 $218,996 Category S

- 1: Death 2.5 $7,900,000 $19,750,000
**Total** 159.50 $20,119,083 Source: EPA calculations. Note: Estimates of both avoided cases except for death and the total, as well as average annual costs are rounded. **Table 6.5 -**  **11: “High -**  **End” Estimate of Avoided Average Annual Costs for Proposed Changes to the Certification Rule** 

**Clinical Effect Avoided**  **Cases per Year**  **Medical**

**Costs per Case**  **Lost**

**Productivity per Case**  **Premature**

**Mortality per Case**  **Average**

**Annual Total Cost Avoided**  Category S

- 4: L ow severity illness or injury 116 $54.37 $1,403.58 $0 $169,123 Category S

- 3: Moderate severity illness or injury 62 $72.17 $2,339.31 $0 $149,512 Category S

- 2:High severity illness or injury 10 $25,035.14 $14,035.83 $0 $390,710 Category S

- 1: Death 2.5 $7,900,000 $19,750,000
**Total** 190.5 $20,459,344 Source: EPA calculations. Note: Estimates of both avoided cases except for death and the total, as well as average annual costs are rounded.41

The annual estimated benefits from avoiding acute effects of pesticide incidents range from $ 20.1 to 20.5 million. Over a ten ye ar period of analy sis, the present value of these benefits is between $ 172 million and $ 175 million when a 3 percent discount rate is applied and between $ 141 million and $ 144 million when a 7 percent discount rate is applied. Note that these estimates are based on the number of deaths using additional sources of information to the SENSOR

- Pesticides data, as described in Section 6.5.4.1. Therefore, the estimated number of preventable deaths per ye ar, 2.50, is lower than either the low

- or high

- end estimates (2.65 or 3.18 preventable deaths per year) based on SENSOR

- Pesticides alone, which were shown in Table 6.5

- 4. The overall estimates of the benefits for the rule are lower than they would be if only the SENSOR

- Pesticides estimate s were used. If the estimates based on SENSOR

- Pesticides data alone were used, the total benefit estimate would be between $21.4 and $25.9 million annually

. There are limitations to these estimates. Because of the substantial value associated with preventing a death from RUPs, the estimates are very sensitive to the estimate of deaths prevented, although we use the most conservative estimate available here. Also, a s discussed above , we expect that a large proportion of accidental (acute) pesticide poiso ning never get reported or investigated for various reasons. All indications are that under

- reporting is substantial. Unreported cases are therefore not included in the poisoning surveillance database s and, hence, not included in this analy sis. This under- reporting will bias estimates of acute benefits downward. In Table 6.5

- 1 2 , we show the effect of under

- reporting at different rates on our monetized estimates of avoiding acute pesticide poisonings. With 100% reporting (or 0% under

- reporting), the actual benefits of acute illnesses are equal to the estimated benefits. If there is under

reporting , then the actual benefits can be substantially higher. Table 6.5

- 1 2 shows a range of benefit estimates corresponding to different reporting rates ( 100%, 50%, 25%, 20%, and 10%), which provide a range of values and show the sensitivity to different assumptions about under

reporting . As an example, if only 10% of cases are reported, and under

- reporting is equall y likely in all poisoning cases across all severity levels , then the high

- end estimate of the value of prevented poisoning due to the rule would be over $ 204 million per year, substantially higher than those reported above , which assume 100% reporting. The distribution of health effects associated with these unreported acute exposures are also not known. If reporting rates vary by severity, in such a way that more severe (and expensive) cases are more likely to be reported, then the effects of under

- reporting would be correspondingl y lower. A plausible estimate for under

- reporting , based on the studies reported in Section 6.5.2 is 75%, which corresponds to 25% reporting in Table 6.5

- 12. This would yield annual estimated benefits from reduced RUP exposure of between $81 and $82 million. The estimated cost of the rule is approximately $4 7. 2 million per year, based on a 3% discount rate (see Chapter 5). If we assume that there is no under

- reporting of RUP incidents, then the annual estimated benefits from the rule do not reach that level. Annual benefits of $4 7
. 2 million per year corresponds to a reporting rate of about 4 3 % for the high

- end estimates, or 5 7 % of incidents not being recorded in the surveillance databases. This is a low assumption for under

reporting, based on the information from the studies in Section 6.5.2. Also, we have made no42

attempt to measure the willingness to pay to avoid sy

mptoms, which is likely

to be substantial ; the estimates are based on the avoided costs in medical care and lost productivity to workers. **Table 6.5 -**  **12. Sensitivity of Annual Quantified Benefit Estimates to Assumptions about**  **Under -**  **reporting Share of**  **Cases Reported**  **Low -**  **End**

**Estimate of Prevented**  **Cases Low**  **- End** 

**Estimate of Benefits**  **High -**  **End**

**Estimate of Prevented Cases**  **High -**  **End**

**Estimate of Benef**  **its** 100% 159.5 $20,119,083 190.5 $20,459,344 50% 319.0 $40,238,165 381.0 $40,918,688 25% 638.0 $80,476,330 762.0 $81,837,377 20% 797.5 $100,595,413 952.5 $102,296,721 10% 1,595. 0 $201,190,826 1,905.0 $204,593,442 Source: EPA Calculations The value s shown in Table 6.5

- 12 assume that under

- reporting is equal across all severity levels. It is plausible that deaths, for example, are less likely to be underreported than less severe events, although the lack of duplication in the available databases discussed above suggests this may not be the case. Because such a large portion of the overall value is from prevented deaths, different assumptions about reporting rates are important. For example, if 100% of deaths were reported, even if we assumed that that only 10% of less severe incidents were reported would not yield annual benefits that exceeded the annual costs

– the estimated benefits would be about $27 million annually

at the high

- end. For the estimated acute benefits of th e rule to exceed the cost, the reporting rate for deaths is just under 50%, even when only 10% of less severe incidents are reported. All quantitative benefits estimates presented in this section include only the effects of reduced illness from acute exposure

– the effects of chronic exposure are discussed in the next section , which will discuss the potential risks of chronic pesticide exposures to workers, handlers and families, or acute exposure s that have developmental effects.


### 6.6. **Risk s to Human Health from**  **Chronic RUP**  **Exposure** In the p revious section, estimates of reduced illness from acute exposures to pesticides are presented. Although these estimates are based on the best available data, there are uncertainties reflected in the estimates, e.g. , potential under

- reporting. In addition to these acute effects, there are chronic health effects that may be associated with chronic, generalized pesticide exposure. EPA anticipates that benefits from reduced chronic health effects would accrue primarily to commercial pesticide applicators, since they are most likely

to face long

- term minor exposures, but there may

also be benefits from reduced exposure to applicators’ families and those working43

under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. This section will describe the potential chronic health effects to commercial pesticide applicators from pesticide exposure. It is important to note that EPA is not stating that there is a causal link between certain health outcomes and exposure to specific pesticides. Available data do not establish a causal link between these exposures and the health outcomes. However, information finding correlations between pesticide exposure and illness is comp elling enough to suggest some of the observed statistical associations may at some point in future be determined to be causal in nature. Therefore, overall pesticide exposure reduction through changes to the certification rule may have substantial benefits that cannot be quantified at this time. While there is limited epidemiological evidence of a definitive causal link between specific pesticide exposures and adverse chronic health outcomes at this time, this section presents evidence of well

- documented a ssociations between pesticide exposure and certain cancer and non - cancer chronic health effects in the peer

- reviewed literature. Ty picall y , several epidemiology

studies conducted over time, using different study designs, and taking place within different study

populations in addition to other streams of scientific evidence are required before researchers can move from a statistical association to a causal determination. The environmental epidemiology

literature is growing rapidl y in terms of both quantity and quality of pesticide epidemiology

studies, and EPA expects additional causal links between pesticide exposure and adverse health outcomes in the human population will be provided over time. However, at this time, EPA is not making definitive causal connections between any one specific pesticide exposure and a specific adverse health outcome. Even though there have been relatively few proven cause and effect associations between real world pesticide exposure and long

- term health effects in human populations, many exposure chronic disease associations have been tested in observational studies and critically evaluated in the scientific pee r- reviewed literature, and research is ongoing. The breadth and depth of this collective research shows the si gnificant interest in public health organizations worldwide on the issue of chronic, long

- term health effects of pesticides. There is a large body of epidemiological evidence and ongoing research on long

- term health effects (such as cancer, neurological, respiratory , fertility , behavioral, and other long

- term health effects) that may result from pesticide exposure, but the state of the science at this time yield s few causal relationships to specific pesticides, which highlights the importance of reduced general pesticide exposure. There are several ongoing studies with large agricultural cohorts funded b y federal governments in the U.S. and abroad, and studies within these populations suggest several plausible hy potheses to link pesticide exposure to chronic health effects. The most notable of these is the Agricultural Health Study 14 funded b y the National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and co

- sponsored by EPA, among other collaborating agencies. This i s a study

with 89,000 participants in I owa and North Carolina, including private and commercial pesticide applicators and their spouses . The nature of this powerful epidemiologic study design allows investigators to examine many different adverse health

14 More information on the Agricultural Health Study and partners can be found on their website, here: http://aghe alth.nih.gov/44

outcomes within the study population, i.e. , pesticide exposure is ascertained at the beginning of the study and updated periodically , while health information is continually updated and/or collected over time. Another study cohort in Norway includes over 245 ,000 people to investigate links between cancer and other diseases and agricultural chemicals (Kristensen et al ., 1996, Nordb y et al ., 2005). In France a large study is underway to investigate the links between agricultural work and cancer, with an emphas is on pesticides (Lebailly et al ., 2006). The Korean Multi

- Center Cancer cohort is collecting pesticide exposure data on tens of thousands of people as part of a large scale study of environmental and genetic factors associated with cancer risk (Yoo et al ., 2002). The se investigators have initiated a collaborative effort, AGRI COH , which is designed to encourage international collaboration

. It encompasses 22 cohorts from nine countries pooling data to study cancer and other disorders that can result from p esticide exposure and other causes (Leon, et al ., 2011). A complicating factor is that, over time, EPA and others, such as state governments, have implemented risk mitigation measures including increased requirements for the use of personal protective equipment, revised re

- entry intervals, and at times the cancellation of pesticide products or specific pesticide uses. It should be noted that while studies published today contribute to the general body of scientific knowledge, not all epidemiologic research would necessarily

have current regulatory

relevance, e.g. , if the pesticide was already cancelled or withdrawn from the marketplace. Additionall y, changes in pest pressure, agronomic practices, pesticide product formulation c hanges and other factors may have resulted in significant changes in the use of pesticides over the last several decades, which is the relevant period for investigating chronic effects with ty picall y long latency

periods such as cancer

. As a result, studi es which reflect past exposure scenarios must be interpreted with caution when applied to current use patterns
. Emerging research suggests that early exposure, either pre

- natal or in earl y childhood, may be linked to chronic health outcomes later in life. These earl y life exposures may occur from pesticides that are on the bodies or clothes of commercial pesticide applicators and brought into the applicator home environment. A number of studies have shown the potential for “take home” exposures, where a commercial applicator or an agricultural worker may bring pesticide residues home on their body or clothing (see Section 6.2.2). These studies on chronic pesticide exposure and other scientific information are evaluated to determine the potential for in dividual pesticides to cause adverse long

- term health effects in the applicator population and their families. EPA take s action to mitigate the estimated risk s of individual pesticides to human health. However, there are also instances in which there is ca use for concern over generalized pesticide exposure (beyond those that can be modeled using aggregate and/or cumulative risk assessment practices). The proposed r ule changes are also designed to protect against commercial pesticide applicator exposures from all RUPs even when the causal link between individual pesticides and specific health outcomes is not demonstrated. In this section, EPA summarizes research on potential chronic health effects that result from pesticide exposure . These case study examples are selected for discussion here because they meet EPA data quality standards, and due to e ither the relative strength and plausibility of the hy pothesized link, the number of studies available, or the relativel y high prevalence of either the45

health o utcome or a particular pesticide exposure. Overall, the totality of reported findings suggests long term health benefits from the rule, but, due to the state of scientific research and measures of chronic exposure at this time, estimates of the quantitati ve benefits from the proposal are not possible

. 

### 6.6.1. Cancer Risks Although o nl y a small number of pesticides have been determined to be human carcinogens b y various peer

- review bodies , there is a wide range of literature demonstrating statistical associatio ns between pesticide exposure and some anatomical cancer sites , with biological plausibility

illustrated in experimental toxicology studies. M any

studies have evaluated other possible links between pesticide exposure and cancer. While it is premature to state there is a causal association between the studied pesticides and cancer in the applicator population, EPA presents this information to demonstrate the growing body of knowledge as to possible chronic health effects of pestici de exposure. Sy nthesizing across the studies of the carcinogenic potential of pesticide exposure, review articles and meta

- analy

tic results indicate evidence of an association between various pesticide exposure and ly

mphohematopoetic cancers (non

- Hodgkin ’s l ymphoma (NHL) and leukemia specificall y); among solid tumors (brain and prostate cancers); and, some evidence of pediatric cancer risk in association with either in utero exposure or parental pesticide occupational exposure (Bassil et al

. ; 2007; Blair and Beane

- Freeman 2009; Koutros et al ., 2010 a ; Van Maele et al

. ; 2011 ; Wigle et al ., 2009 ; Turner et al ., 2009 ; Alavanja and Bonner, 2012 ; and Alavanja et al ., 2013). This section will discuss some of the evidence for the possible connection between pesti cide exposure and these cancer effects. Blair and Beane

- Freeman (2009) provides a review of epidemiologic studies of cancer among agricultural populations. They report that meta

- analy ses of mortality survey s of farmers find excesses of several cancers , including those of the connective tissue, NHL and multiple myeloma and cancers of the skin, stomach and brain and deficits for total mortality , heart disease, total cancer, and cancers of the esophagus, colon, lung and bladder. They reported that meta

- an al ys es of studies of individual cancers show the importance of identifying specific exposures that lead to these cancers. It should also be noted, however, that these authors conclude factors other than pesticide exposures may

partially explain the observ ed increased risk of cancer among those engaged in agriculture (Blair and Beane

- Freeman 2009). Lymphohematopoetic Cancers Over time, evidence of a link between pesticide exposure and blood cancers has increased. For example, since the 1980s several studies have illustrated a possible link between pesticide exposure and various l ymphohematopoetic cancers (Zahm and Ward, 1998, Zahm et al ., 1997). In cidence of NHL and other blood cancers have increased between1973

- 1990, a time period coincident with an increased use of pesticides as well as other environmental chemicals (Hardell46

et al ., 2003). While biological mechanisms remain to be determined (for example, Chiu and Blair 2009), the role of a particular chromosomal translocation (t14:18) has been implicated, possibly as a result of pesticide exposure; however , this is not known with certainty at this time. Comparing rates of ne w blood cancers among pesticide applicators relative to the general population, Koutros, et al . (2010 a) reports higher incidence rates for multiple myeloma and ly mphoma. Eriksson et al

. (2008) reported elevated rates of NHL among herbicide users in a population

- based case

- control study in Sweden (Eriksson et al ., 2008). There may be a link between pesticide exposure and these cancers ; however , additional research is necessary to understand whether the link is causal in nature, and the degree to which pesti cide exposures and other farm related exposures may contribute to the risk of these cancers. In a review b y Bassil et al . (2007), 14 out of 16 papers examining the association between leukemia and pesticides found a positive result. Of the 16 papers, 8 were case - control studies with statistically

significant results. Several case

- control studies looked at children that had been exposed to pesticides and found increased rates of all ty pes of leukemia for children whose parents used insecticides on the garden and on indoor plants and from those mothers exposed while pregnant (Bassil et al ., 2007). These authors note several limitations of each of the studies included in the sy stematic review, and note they were not able to assess whether publication bias was a factor in the results of this review. In the Bassil et al

. (2007) review, 27 studies met their criteria for inclusion into their review that examined the association between pesticide exposure and NHL, and 23 found an association. For the case

- control studies in this review, 12 of 14 papers had positive associations and 8 of those associations were statistically significant. In one study

that examined children’s exposure to pesticide s, elevated odds ratios for NHL were found in children who lived in ho mes where pesticides were used most day s for professional home extermination, when children had direct postnatal exposure or when children had parents that were occupationally exposed. The elevated risks found were over several classes of pesticides (Bassi l et al ., 2007). Wigle et al . (2008) conducted a review of studies investigating links between occupational exposure to pesticides and leukemia in farmworkers ’ children. They found no evidence of a direct link between children’s leukemia and all parents’ occupational exposure, but they report an association between a mother’s occupational exposure to general pesticides and insecticides and their children’s risk of leukemia, with an association slightly higher for farm and other related exposures. Prostate Cancer For decades, studies have suggested an increased risk of prostate cancer among farmers. Farmers are generally

more healthy

than the overall population, with lower rates of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, mortality , etc. (Blair et al. , 2005). However, farmers have an increased risk of prostate cancer , which may be explained by

pesticide exposure, or possibly by other farm

- or non - farm related exposures. Comparing the incidence of prostate cancer in farmers with members of the general population , researchers have estimated that farmers have a roughl y 20% increased risk of this cancer (Koutros et al ., 2010 a). Case

- control anal ys is within the AHS suggest exposure to several organophosphate pesticides may be related to prostate cancer, but47

only amon g men with a family history of the disease (Alavanja et al

. , 2003). Additional follow

up within the AHS cohort corroborate s this initial finding (Mahajan et al ., 2006 and 2007; Christensen et al ., 2010). The association of prostate cancer with certain pesticide exposure varies by famil y history

of prostate cancer, and molecular epidemiology studies are underway that may shed light as to the potential role of genetic variation in the association. This work is not yet complete. However, initial investigation s recentl y released indicate that a genetic variation in genetic region 8q24 may partially explain the association between pesticide exposure and prostate cancer (Koutros et al ., 2010 b )

. Since these genetic variations do not fully explain the cancer relationships within a family , other shared environmental exposures may play an important role. Overall, however, across studies published, results are not consistent, possibly due to differing study designs used. Recently , AHS researchers produced a new analy sis of pesticide exposure and prostate cancer, this time focusing upon more aggressive cases of the disease (Koutros et al . 2012). For the purposes of this study , aggressive prostate cancer was defined as a distant stage (tumor tissue outside of prostat e), and advanced grade (more poorly differentiated cell structure) indicative of a more advanced disease. Researchers observed an increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer among those who reported using higher amounts of four pesticides over their working lifetime. This work supports previous analy ses noting links between specific organophosphate pesticides and prostate cancer . It also extends an understanding of the possibility of a link with the aggressive form of the disease, which is thought to have a different set of causal factors than slow

- growing tumors. This is the first study on an aggressive disease, and more work is needed to distinguish clear causal pathway s . H owever , the study is supportive of previous work concerning an apparent increased risk of prostate cancer among pesticide applicators enrolled in the AHS. Lung Cancer There have been studies reporting a link between pesticide exposure and lung cancer. Alavanja et al

. (2004), reported a positive association between four pesticides and pesticide exposure among the AHS cohort. In this study , exposure to these pesticides was associated with lung cancer risk in the cohort, despite the fact that, in general the lung cancer risk for the cohort is lower than the population as a whole. Other studies have also shown an association between pesticides and lung cancer in the AHS cohort (Beane

- Freeman et al., 2005; Le e et al., 2004 ). 

### 6.6.2. Non
- Cancer Health Effects Many epidemiological studies have posited a non

- cancer chronic health consequence of pesticide exposure ; however , none have been determined to be causal in nature at this time. Preliminary investigations have identified elevated risks of respiratory and neurological effects; a s these are preliminary

investigations , other explanations for these effects cannot be eliminated at this time. However, some of the more plausible hypotheses involve a potential role of pesticide exposure and some neurological outcomes in adults such as Parkinson’s disease (PD) and general neurological health (discussed below)

. To the extent that the proposed changes to the48

certification rule reduce chronic exposure to pesticides, they may reduce the incidence of these chronic health effects as well. Ne urological Function The possible connection between pesticide use and sy mptoms of Parkinson’s disease (PD) has spurred a great deal of research. Using the AHS cohort, Kamel et al . (2007), investigated the hy pothesis that PD is associated with pesticide exposure. Study participants included licensed private pesticide applicators and spouses, enrolled in the AHS from 1993 through 1997 and contacted for a follow

- up study from 1999 through 2003. They report a positive association of PD in those who reported ev er using pesticides, and a “strong association” with PD for those who personall y applied pesticides. Cumulative lifetime days of use was associated with a dose

response relationship in cases diagnosed after the beginning of the study, but there was no asso ciation with a dose

- response function and cases diagnosed prior to the study . This study has recentl y been updated with physician

- diagnosed cases of PD, as opposed to participant self

reporting of PD, and authors reported statistically significant 2.5

- fol d increased odds of PD if participants used either paraquat or rotenone (Tanner et al ., 2011). In a review study on the non

- cancer effects of pesticides mentioned earlier, Sanborn et al . (2007) evaluated prior work on the association between Parkinson’s s ymptoms and pesticide exposure, and reported a positive association in 15 out of the 26 studies reviewed. The authors conclude that these studies “provide remarkabl y consistent evidence of a relationship between PD and past exposures of pesticides on the job.” Sanborn et al . (2007) examined the non

- cancer health effects of pesticides in a review, and found most (39/41) studies displayed an increase in one or more neurological abnormalities in association with pesticide exposure. These outcomes ranged from neurodevelopmental effects in preschool children, general malaise and mild cognitive function, minor psychological morbidity , depression, suicide and death from mental disorders (Sanborn et al ., 2007). Kamel et al . (2007), using the AHS cohort, found ass ociations between neurological s ymptoms and lifetime pesticide exposure, with the greatest association for organophosphate pesticides. Research on the neurological effects of pesticide exposure continues. Three recent studies (Rauh et al. , 2011; Engel et al. , 2011; and Bouchard et al. , 2011) have investigated the relationship between prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides including chlorp yrifos and neurological effects in children through the age of 7 years. Another recent study (Rohlman et al ., 2011) reviews the possible relationship between adult occupational exposure to pesticides and adverse neurological sy mptoms. The authors acknowledge uncertainties present in the data at this time which limit causal inference including a clear biologically plausible mechanism of action, among other study characteristics. Respiratory Function Several studies have shown linkages with both permanent and transitory (but chronic) respiratory effects. Asthma is a temporary inflammation of the lungs, often cau sed by an environmental trigger, which leads to coughing, wheezing and shortness of breath. Although the s ymptoms of49

asthma last for minutes or day s, being susceptible to asthma attacks is a lifelong problem, and several studies have shown an association b etween pesticide exposure and asthma. Hoppin et al

. (2008) reported an association between exposure to a range of pesticides and asthma in farm women, despite the fact that growing up on a farm reduced the likelihood of asthma attacks. This study focuses on the spouses of pesticide applicators and may show an important effect from generalized agricultural pesticide exposure to families, rather than exposure as a pesticide applicator

. An association has been reported for children, as well. Salam et al . (20 04) describe a range of risk factors related to childhood asthma. Among those risk factors were pesticides, and other farm exposures. The effects were largest for children with early onset asthma. An i nternational study

on childhood exposure to pesticides in Lebanon (Salameh et al ., 2003) also reports a relationship between exposure and respiratory s ymptoms. While acute bronchitis usually has s ymptoms over a short term, chronic bronchitis is a recurring chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that makes it difficult to breathe for months at a time, with coughing that expels sputum from the airways. Hoppin et al . (2007) reports a statistically significant association between eleven pesticides and chronic bronchitis among the AHS cohort

– an association that was stronger among those with a high pesticide exposure event. 

### 6.6.3. Summary of Chronic Exposure and Risks Overall, epidemiological or human study data do not suggest a clear cause

- effect relation between specific pesticide exposure and certain chronic health outcomes . However , the totality of national and international research efforts and initial research results in conjunction with plausible hy

potheses, taken together, suggest that pesticide exposure may result in chronic adverse health effects beyond those mitigated as a result of chemical

- specific label requirements and standards. The proposed changes to the certification rule are designed to reduce occupational exposure to all RUPs , as well as reduce non

- occupational exposure to the families of certifi ed applicators and the general public . There is sufficient evidence in the peer

- reviewed literature to suggest that reducing pesticide exposure would result in a benefit to public health through reduced chronic illness (Section 6. 6 above). In general, wh ile there is sufficient evidence to suggest associations between exposure and illness, the literature does not provide sufficient data to quantify health effects of specific pesticides for use in a benefits analy sis. The totality of findings suggests the proposed rule changes are a way to reduce overall pesticide exposure, which will result in an overall benefit to health. The health effects potentially caused b y occupational pesticide exposure can have dramatic effects on the health and welfare of those who suffer from these diseases. These illnesses do not only affect those who become ill, but they also may require extensive caregiving by famil y members or others. Itis also important not to underestimate the effects on those stricken with illness. Because of the uncertainties in the number of chronic illnesses that may be caused by , and therefore prevented b y reduced pesticide exposure, it is impossible to derive quantified estimates of pesticide

- specific benefits from illness reduction

. Inthe U.S ., health care costs for chronic50

disease are high , in addition to the direct human cost of illness mentioned in the previous paragraph. As examples, the additional medical costs for a patient suffering from Parkinson’s disease have been estimated at over $10,000 annually (Huse et al ., 2005). NHL treatment costs have been estimated at over $5,800 monthly for aggressive NHL, and over $3,800 monthly for slower

- growing NHL (Kutikova, et al. , 2006 )

. For prostate cancer, average cost of treatment over 5 and half years of the study was over $42,500 (Wilson et al ., 2006 )

. These costs are onl y treatment costs, which is an under

- estimate of the true cost of illness. EPA’s preferred approach for valuation of reduced risk is to use an estimate of “willingness to pay” (WTP) to reduce the risk of experiencing an illness ( EPA , 2010). As described in Freeman (2003), this measure consists of four components:

 “Averting costs” to reduce the risk of illness;  “Mitigating costs” for treatments such as medical care and medication;  Indirect costs such as lost time from paid work, maintaining a home, and pursuing leisure activities; and  Less easil y measured but equally real costs of discomfort, anxiety , pain, and suffering. WTP represents the amount of money that an individu al or group would pay to receive the benefits resulting from a policy change, without being made worse off. There are other values excluded by

using WTP as the metric. WTP is usually characterized as a WTP for improved health outcomes for oneself, which is true here, as well. This does ignore that people may also value the health of others, and place some value on seeing others protected. As with the estimated value of prevented acute illness in Section 6.5, we are unable to use the WTP to value prevent ed chronic illnesses, but the WTP for these serious chronic illnesses is surely much higher than the cost of illness estimates provided above. This indicates that prevention of these illnesses would have substantial value.1



## Chapter**7 Informatio n Requested** 

**– Paperwork Burden**  **Requir ements**  The information collection activities ( IC R) for the current requirements for the c ertification of p esticide a

pplicators are addressed in an information collection request document and approved under OMB Control No. 2070

- 0029 ( EPA ICR No. 0155.10)

. The proposed rule contain s some information collection activities that must be approved by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., in accordance with the procedures at 5 CFR 1320.11

. Therefo re, EPA prepared a rule

- related IC R document ( EPA I CR number 249 9 .01 ; OMB Control No. 2070

-NEW) to address the information collection requirements contained in the proposed rule and the related total incremental burden related

. The rule

- related IC R addresses various the paperwork requirements contained in the propose rule, including:  Annual reports required from States, Indian tribes, and Federal agencies with EPA approved certification programs

.  P esticide dealer record keeping

.  C ommercial applicator records for both federal and state agencies

.  C ertified applicator training for both private and commercial applicators including records and exams

.  N oncertified commercial and private applicator training record keeping including rec ords and ex ams.  State plan revisions. The currently

approved ICR for the Certification of Pesticide Applicators also includes paperwork burden estimates for anthrax related products which are ancillary to the Certification ICR and have not been changed. The burden estimates for anthrax products is due to the requirement for anthrax product registrants to develop trainings, exams, and keep records of purchases of anthrax products. This annual burden is estimated to include 87 hours and $5,050 in costs both of which are included respectivel y i n the total estimates below. Because of the changes to existing requirements as well as new requirements under the proposed rule, there will be an estimated increased burden for information collection rel ated activities. The total annual hours for the information collection related activities associated with this action is estimated to be 1,853,117 hours for all respondents. This represents a 140 percent increase in the number of hours estimated in the c urrentl y- approved ICR, bringing the total burden of activities under this I CR to 3,173,371 hours. The total annual cost burden annualized at 3% for the information collection related activities associated with this action are estimated to be $57,363,250 f

or all respondents, an increase of 134 percent in paperwork costs over the currentl y- approved IC R. The total annual paperwork cost of activities under this I CR is estimated to be $100,001,116.1



## References
Abdel Rasoul, GM, Abou Salem ME, Mechael AF, Hedy OM, Rohlman DS, I smail AA, Effects of occupational pesticide exposure on children applying pesticides , NeuroToxicology 29 (2008) 833

– 838 Alavanja, MC, M Dosemeci, C Samanic, J Lubin, CF Ly nch, C Knott, J Barker, JA Hoppin, DP Sandler, J Coble, K Thomas, and A Blair. 2004. Pesticides and lung cancer risk in the agricultural health study

cohort. Am J Epidemiol, 160:876

- 85. Alavanja, MC, and MR Bonner. 2012. Occupational Pesticide Exposures and Cancer Risk: A Review, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B: Critical Reviews, Volume 15, I ssue 4, 2012, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22571220

. Alavanja, MC, MK Ross, and MR Bonner. 2013. Increased cancer burden among pesticide applicators and others due to pesticide exposure, CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, January 15, 2013. Alavanja MC, Samanic C, Dosemeci M, Lubin J, Tarone R, Lynch CF, Knott C, Thomas K, Hoppin JA, Barker J, Coble J, Sandler DP, Blair A., Use of agricultural pesticides and prostate cancer risk in the Agricultural Health Study cohort, Am J Epidemiol. 2003 May 1;157(9):800

- 14. Anger WK, Patterson L, Fuchs M, Will LL, Rohlman, DS, Learning and Recall of Worker Protection Standard (WPS) Training in Vineyard Workers, Journal of Agromedicine , 14:336

– 344, 2009
. American Association of Poison Control Centers. 2000

– 2013. Annual Reports from 1999

– 2012, available here: http://www.aapcc.org/annual

- reports/ Arizona, Office of the Auditor General, 1990. Audit o f the Arizona Department of Health Services’ Activities Related to Agricultural Pesticides. Azaroff LS, C Levenstein, and DH Wegman. 2002. Occupational injury and illness surveillance: conceptual filters explain underreporting.American Journal of Public Health , 92: 1421

– 1429. Baker, EL, JM Melius, and JD Millar. 2009. Surveillance of Occupation Illness and Injury in the United States: Current Perspectives and Future Directions, Journal of Public Health Policy , Summer:9(2). Bassil KL, C Vakil, M Sanborn , DC Cole, JS Kaur, and KJ Kerr. 2007. Cancer health effects of pesticides: sy stematic review. Can Fam Phy sician 53(10): 1704

- 11. Beamer, P, R Canales, A Bradman, and J L eckie. 2009. "Farmworker Children's Residential Non
- dietary

Exposure Estimates fro m Micro

- level Activity Time Series." Environmental International 35.8 (2009): 1202

- 209. Beane
- Freeman LE, MR Bonner, A Blair, JA Hoppin, DP Sandler, JH Lubin, et al . 2005. Cancer incidence among male pesticide applicators in the Agricultural Health Study cohort exposed to diazinon. Am J Epidemiol 162:1070

– 1079.2

Blair, A., DP Sandler, R Tarone, J Lubin, K Thomas, JA Hoppin, and MC Alavanja. 2005. Mortality among participants in the agricultural health study . Annals of epidemiology , 15(4), 279

- 285. Blair, A., and L Beane

- Freeman. 2009. Epidemiologic Studies of Cancer in Agricultural Populations: Observations and Future Directions J Agromedicine . 2009; 14(2): 125

– 131. Bildfell RJ, Rumbeiha WK, Schuler KL, Meteyer CU, Wolff PL , and Gillin CM. A review of episodes of zinc phosphide toxicosis in wild geese (Branta spp.) in Oregon (2004

- 2011). Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation , 2013 25: 162. Blondel, Jerome and Monica Spann. Review of the methyl parathion incident reports DP Barcode D242333, Chemical #053501, Reregistration Case #0153. http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/chem_search/cleared_reviews/csr_PC

- 053501_5

- Feb

98_039.pdf BL S. 2014a. Employed persons by detailed occupation and age, including median age. Demographics, Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey (2013). Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S., Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/cps/demographics.htm , accessed June 2014 BL S. 2014b. OES Research Estimates by S tate and Industry , various Sectors, May 2013. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/oes/2012/may /oes_research_estim ates_2012.htm, accessed June 2014 BL S. 201 4 c. O ccupational Employment Statistics: May 2013 National Industry

- Specific Occupational Employment and W age Estimates NAICS 999200

- State Government, excluding schools and hospitals (OES Designation) . Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999200.htm BL S. 201 4d . O ccupational Employment Statistics: May 2013 National Industry

- Specific Occupational Employment and W age Estimates, Sector 11

- Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting . Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_11.htm BL S. 2013b. Economic News Release: Table 2. Civilian workers, by occ upational and industry group . Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t02.htm BL S. 2013 d . Current Population Survey : Persons at work in agriculture and nonagricultural industries by

hours of work. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat19.pdf BL S. 2013e. American Time Use Survey . Bureau of Labor St atistics, U.S. Department of Labor. June 18, 2014. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/atus.pdf BL S. 2013f. Current Population Survey : Median weekl y earnings of full

- time wage and salary workers b y detailed occupation and sex . Bureau of Labor Statistics , U.S. Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.pdf Bouchard MF, DC Bellinger, RO Wright, and MG Weisskopf. 2010. Attention

deficit/hy peractivity

disorder and urinary

metabolites of organoph osphate pesticides. Pediatrics . Jun;125(6):e1270

- 7. Epub 2010 May 17. PubMed PMID: 20478945.3

Bouchard MF, Chevrier J, Harley KG, Kogut K, Vedar M, Calderon N, Trujillo C, Johnson C, Bradman A, Barr DB, Eskenazi B., Prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides and IQ in 7

- year- old children, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Aug;119(8):1189

- 95. Bo yl e, K.J. and R.C. Bishop. 1987. Valuing Wildlife in Benefit

- Cost Analy ses: A Case Study Involving Endangered Species. Water Resources Research 23(5): 943

- 950. Bronstein J, P Carvey , H Chen, D Cory

- Slechta, D DiMonte, J Duda, P English, S Goldman, S Grate, J Hansen, J Hoppin, S Jewell, F Kamel, W Koroshetz, JW Langston, G Lo groscino, L Nelson, B Ravina, W Rocca, GW Ross, T Schettler, M Schwarzschild, B Scott, R Seegal, A Singleton, K Steenland, CM Tanner, S Van Den Eeden, M Weisskopf. 2009. Meeting report: consensus statement

- Parkinson's disease and the environment: collaborative on health and the environment and Parkinson's Action Network (CHE PAN) conference 26

–28 June 2007. Environ. Health Perspect . 117, 117

– 121 Calvert GM, LN Mehler, R Rosales, LBaum, C Thomsen, D Male, O Shafey , R Das, M Lackovic, and E Arvizu. 2003 Acute pesticide

- related illnesses among working youths, 1988

- 1999. Am J Public Health , 93 :605

- 610. Calvert, G, J Karnik, LMehler, J Beckman, B Morrissey , J Sievert, R Barrett, M Lackovic, L Mabee, A Schwartz, Y Mitchell, and S Moraga

- McHaley . 2008. Acute pesticide poisoning among agricultural workers in the United States, 1998

- 2005. Americ an Journal of Industrial Medicine , 51(12): 883

- 898. Chafee

- Bahamon, C, DL Caplan, and FH Lovejoy, Jr. 1983. "Patterns in Hospitals' Use of a Regional Poison Information Center." American Journal of Public Heath 73.4 (1983): 396

- 400. Chiu BC, and A Blair. 2009. Pesticides, chromosomal aberrations, and non

- Hodgkin's ly mphoma. JAgromedicine . 2009;14(2):250

- 5. Review. PubMed PMID: 19437285; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2790329 Christensen, CH, EA Platz, G Andreotti, A Blair, JA Hoppin, S Koutros, CF Ly nch, DP Sandler, and MC Alavanja. 2010. Coumaphos exposure and incident cancer among male participants in the Agricultural Health Study (AHS). Environmetnal Health Perspectives , 118(1):92

- 6. Coronado, G D, et al. “Organophosphate Pesticide Exposure and Work in Pome Fruit: Evidence for the Take

- home Pesticide Pathway .” Environ Health Perspect 114, no. 7 (2006): 999

- 1006. CPARD. 20 14 . Certification Plan and Reporting Database maintained b y the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture and EPA at the Washington State University

website. http://cpard.wsu.edu/

. Curl, CL , et al. “Evaluation of Take

- home Organophosphorus Pesticide Exposure Among Agricultural Workers and their Children.” Environ Health Perspect 110, no. 12 (2002): A787

- A792. Curwin BD, MJ Hein, WT Sanderson, MG Nishioka, SJ Rey nolds, EM Ward, and MC Alavanja. 2005. Pesticide contamination inside farm and nonfarm homes, . J Occup Environ Hyg

. 2(7):357

- 67, July

.4

Curwin, BD, MJ Hein, WT Sanderson, C Striley , D Heederik, H Kromhout, SJ Rey nolds, and MC Alavanja. 2007. Pesticide dose estimates for children of Iowa farmers and non

farmers, Environmental Research , Volume 105, Issue 3, November 2007, Pages 307

- 315 CTAG. 1999. Pesticide Safety in the 21 st Century: The Findings and Proposals of the Certification &Training Assessment Group . January 1999. http://pep.wsu.edu/ctag/pdf/1999_21stCentRpt.pdf Das R, A Steege, S Baron, J Beckman, R Harrison. 2001. Pesticide

- related illness among migrant farm w orkers in the United States. Int J Occup Environ Health 7:303

- 312. Dayan J, A Bernard, B Olliac, AS Mailhes, and S Kermarrec. 2010. Adolescent brain development, risk

- taking and vulnerability to addiction, Journal of Physiology

- Paris Volume 104, I ssue 5, November 2010, Pages 279

- 286. DoL . 2005. National Agricultural W orkers Survey (NAWS) 2001

- 2002 A Demographic and Employment Profile of United States Farm W orkers Research Report No. 9 , Office of the Assistant Secretary

for Policy , Office of Programmati c Policy , U.S. Department of Labor, March. Available here: http://www.doleta.gov/agworker/report9/naws_rpt9.pdf Dun and Bradstreet. 2010. Database of business information maintained b y Dun and Bradstreet, Inc. http://www.dnb.com/us/ Engel SM, GS Berkowitz, DB Barr, SLTeitelbaum, J Siskind, SJ Meisel, JG Wetmur, and MS Wolff. 2007. Prenatal organophosphate metabolite and organochlorine levels and performance on the Brazelton Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale in a multiethnic pregnancy

cohort. Am J Epidemiol . 165(12):1397

- 404
. Engel SM, Wetmur J, Chen J, Zhu C, Barr DB, Canfield RL , Wolff MS., Prenatal exposure to organophosphates, paraoxon ase 1, and cognitive development in childhood, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Aug;119(8):1182

- 8. EPA. 2014 a . Economic Analysis of the Proposed Agricultural Wo rker Standard Revisions

. Biological and Economic Analy sis Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. EPA. Available at regulations.gov, docket EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2011

- 0184. EPA. 2014b. Personal communication with North Carolina, California, Indiana, Wyoming and Florida on the subject of communication between certified applicators and noncertifie d applicators under their direct supervision. EPA. 2014c. National Assessment of the Pesticide Worker Safety Program. Web page: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/workshops.htm EPA. 2014d. Proprietary data on pesticide use. EPA. 2012. Transmittal ofMeeting Minutes of the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting held April 10

– 12, 2012 on Chlorpyrifos Health Effects. Memorandum, July 11, 2012. http://www.epa.gov/scipoly /sap/meetings/2012/april/041012minutes.pdf EPA, 2011. Environmental and Economic Benefits Analy sis for Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Rule. EPA 821

- R
- 11

- 002 March 28, 2011

. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/316b/upload/environbenefits.p df5

EPA. 2010 a . Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

. http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/pages/Guidelines.html/$file/Guidelines.pdf EPA. 2008a. EIIS Incident Report: I018678

- 001 . Report on fish kill from acrolein on the Cub River, I daho, updated March 5, 2008. EPA. 2008b. Child

- Specific Exposure Factors Handbook

. September 2008

. http://ofmpub.epa.gov/e ims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=484738 EPA. 2007. OPP Report on Incident Information: The Baseline . Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . Available here: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/2007/oct2007/session10

- finalrpt.pdf

. EPA. 2006. EPA Interim National Program Guidance for EPA Regional Offices on EPA’s Pesticide Applicator Certification Program (40 CFR Part 171 ). July 2006. Eriksson M, LHardell, M Carlberg, and M Akerman. 2008. Pesticide exposure as risk factor for non - Hodgkin ly

mphoma including histopathological subgroup anal ys is. Int J Cancer

. 123(7):1657

- 63 Oct 1. ERS. 2000. Farm Resource Regions. Economic Research S ervice, U.S. Department of Agriculture. September. Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/926929/aib

760_002.pdf

. Eskenazi, B, AR Marks, A Bradman, K Harley , DB Barr, C Johnson, N M orga, and NP Jewell. 2007. Environmental organophosphate pesticide exposure and neurodevelopment in yo ung Mexican

- American children. Health Perspect . 115:792

–798. Fortenberry

GZ and Calvert GM, Identifying contributing factors associated with restricted use pesticides (RUPs), unpublished document, April 22, 2014. Freeman III, A.M. 2003. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. 2nd Ed. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. Golub, MS. 2000. Adolescent Health and the Environment, Environmental Health Perspectives , Vol. 108, No. 4 (Apr., 2000), pp. 355

- 362. Harchelroad F, RF Clark, B Dean, and EP Krenzelok. 1990. Treated vs. reported toxic exposures: discrepancies between a poison control center and a member hospital. Vet Hum Toxicol. 32(2):156

- 9, April. Hardell, L, and M Erikkson. 2003. "Is the Decline of the Increasing Incidence of Non

- Hodgkin Lymphoma in Sweden and Other Countries a Result of Cancer Preventive Measures?" Environmental Health Perspectives 111.14 (20 03): 1704

- 706. Hoppin JA, DM Umbach, SJ L ondon, PK Henneberger, GJ Kullman, MC Alavanja, and DP Sandler. 2008. Pesticides and atopic and nonatopic asthma among farm women in the Agricultural Health Study

. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 177(1):11

- 8, Jan 1. At http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17932376

. Hoppin JA, M Valcin, PK Henneberger, GJ Kullman, DM Umbach, SJ London, et al . 2007. Pesticide use and chronic bronchitis among farmers in the Agricultural Health Study

. Am J Ind Med 50:969

–979.6

Huse DM, K Schulman, L Orsini, J Castelli

- Haley, S Kennedy, and G Lenhart. 2005. Burden of illness in Parkinson's disease. Movement Disorders , 20(11):1449

- 54, Nov. At http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16007641

. Institute for Highway

Safety . 2008. Fatality Facts, 2008: Teenagers . At http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2008/teenagers.html , accessed February , 24, 2011. Johnston, R. Ranson, M.Besedin, E.Helm, E. “What Determines Willingness to Pay per Fish? A Meta
- Anal ys is of Recreational Fishing Values” Marine Resource Economics Vol 21:1

- 32 , 2006 Kamel, F, C Tanner, D Umbach, J Hoppin, M Alavanja, A Blair, K Comy ns, S Goldman, M Korell, J L angston, G Ross, and D Sandler. 2007. Pesticide exposure and self

- reported Parkinson's disease in the agricultural health study

. Am J Epidemiol , 165:364

- 74. Kandel, W. 2008. Profile of Hired Farmworkers, 2008 Update , Economic Research Report No. 60, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, June. Karpf, Elissa. Results of Assessments of Controls Over Emergency Removal Actions at Methyl Parath ion Sites, Report No. E1SFB7

- 06

- 0020

- 7400069 . September 23, 1997. http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/900K1G00.PDF?Dockey=900K1G00.PDF Kotchen, Matthew J. and Reiling, Stephen D., Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species , Ecological Economics 32(1): 93

- 107. Koutros S, MC Alavanja, JH Lubin, DP Sandler, JA Hoppin, DF Ly nch, C Knott, A Blair, LE Beane
- Freeman. 2010 a . An update of cancer incidence in the Agricultural Health S tudy

. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine , 52(11):1098

- 105. Koutros S, LE Beane
- Freeman, SIBerndt, G Andreotti, JH Lubin, DP Sandler, JA Hoppin, K Yu, Q Li, LA Burdette, J Yuenger, M Yeager, and MC Alavanja. 2010 b . Pesticide use modifies the association between genetic variants on chromosome 8q24 and prostate cancer. Cancer Res , 70(22):9224

- 33. Koutros, S, LE Beane
- Freeman, JH Lubin, SL Heltshe, G Andreotti, KH Barry , CT Dellavalle, JA Hoppin, DP Sandler, CF Ly nch, A Blair, and MC Alavanja . 2012. Risk of Total and Aggressive Prostate Cancer and Pesticide Use in the Agricultural Health Study

. American Journal of Epidemiology , 177(1):59

- 74. Epub 2012 Nov 21, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih .gov/pubmed/23171882

. Kristensen P, A Andersen, LM Irgens, P Laake, and AS Bye. 1996. Incidence and risk factors of cancer among men and women in Norwegian agriculture. Scand J Work Environ Health . 22(1):14

- 26, Feb. Kutikova, L , L Bowman, S Chang, SR L o ng, M Arning, and WH. Crown. 2006. Medical costs associated with non

- Hodgkin's l ymphoma in the United States during the first two years of treatment, Leukemia & Lymphoma 47:8, 1535

- 1544. Lebailly , P, E Niez, I Baldi, JP Grillet, and C Agrican. 2006. Cohort Study "Agrican" on the Causes of Death and Cancer Incidence Among French Farmers and Agricultural Workers: Enrolment Step, Epidemiology : Volume 17

- Issue 6

- pp S311

- S312, Nov.7

Lee WJ, A Blair, JA Hoppin, JH Lubin, JA Rusiecki, DP Sandler, et al . 2004. Cancer incidence among pesticide applicators exposed to chlorpy rifos in the Agricultural Health Study

. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:1781

– 1791. Leon ME, LE Beane
- Freeman, J Douwes, JA Hoppin, H Kromhout, P L ebailly, KC Nordby , M Schenker, J Schüz, SC Waring, MC Alavanja, I Annesi

- Maesano, I Baldi, MA Dalvie, G Ferro, B Fervers, H Langseth, LL ondon, CF Ly nch, J McLaughlin, JA Merchant, P Pahwa, T Sigsgaard, L Stay ner, C Wesseling, KY Yoo, SH Zahm, K Straif, and A Blair. 2011. Int AGRI COH: A Consortium of Agricultural Cohorts. J Environ Res Public Health . 2011 May ;8(5):1341

- 57. Epub 2011 Apr 29. Lovasi GS, Quinn JW, Rauh VA, Perera FP, Andrews HF, Garfinkel R, Hoepner L, Whyatt R, Rundle A. Chlorpy

rifos exposure and urban residential environment characteristics as determinants of earl y childhood neurodevelopment Am J Public Health. 2011 Jan;101(1):63

- 70 Lozier MJ, Curwin B, Nishioka MG, Sanderson W. Determinants of atrazine contamination in the h omes of commercial pesticide applicators across time. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2012;9(5):289

- 97 Lu C, Fenske R, Simcox N, Kalman D. Pesticide exposure of children in an agricultural community : evidence of household proximity to farmland and take home exposure pathway s. Environ Res. 2000;84:290

– 302 Madrigal, J.L ., Glen C. Pixton, Bruce J. Collings, Gary M. Booth, and H. Duane Smith (1996). A comparison of two methods of estimating bird mortalities from field

- applied pesticides. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry , 15(6): 878

– 885. Mahajan, R, A Blair, CF Lynch, P Schroeder, JA Hoppin, DP Sandler, and MC Alavanja. 2006. Fonofos exposure and cancer incidence in the agricultural health study

. Environ Health Perspect , 114:1838

- 42 Mahajan R, Blair A, Coble J, Ly nch CF, Hoppin JA, Sandler DP, Alavanja MC. Carbaryl exposure and incident cancer in the Agricultural Health Study . Int J Cancer. 2007 Oct 15;121(8):1799

- 805. Marks AR, K Harley , A Bradman, K Kogut, DB Barr, C Johnson, N Calderon, and B Eskenazi. 2010. Organophosphate pesticide exposure and attention in yo ung Mexican

- American children: the CHAMACOS study. Environ Health Perspect . 118(12):1768

- 74, Dec. McCauley , LA, et al. “Work Characteristics and Pesticide Exposures Among Migrant Agricultural Families: a Community

- based Research Approach.” Environ Health Perspect 109, no. 5 (2001): 533

- 538. NASS. 2014a. Crop Production: 2013 Summary . January , 2014. http://usda01.library .cornell.edu/usda/current/CropProdSu/CropProdSu

- 01

- 10

- 2014.pdf NASS. 2014b. Crop Values : 2013 Summary . February , 2014. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/CropValuSu/CropValuSu

- 02

- 14

- 2014.pdf NASS. 2014 c . 2012 Census of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. Available at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/8

NASS. 2013. Quick Stats, query on survey

data for number of farms and workers. http: //quickstats.nass.usda.gov/ . Accessed July 2013. NASS. 2012. Indiana Special Agriculture Report , 32:1, April 2, 2012. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by _State/Indiana/Publications/Ag_Report/2012/agrS pecCrop.pdf NASS. 2008. 2007 Census of Agricultu re. National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Updated December 2008. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/index.php

. National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Research Foundation. 2012a. National Pesticide Applicator Certification Core Manual

. http://nasda.org/9381/Foundation/11379/11 383/6684.aspx National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Research Foundation. 2012b. Framework for the National Soil Fumigation Manual and Exam Item Bank

. http://nasda.org/File.aspx?id=41 85 National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Research Foundation. 2011a

. Aerial Applicator's Manual

. http://nasda.org/File.aspx?id=3786 National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Research Foundation. 2011b

. National Right

- of

- Wa y Herbicide Applicator Test Plan and Training Syllabus

. http://nasda.org/File.aspx?id=3941 National Cancer Institute. 2011. Surveillance Epidemi ology and End Results Cancer Statistics, Fast Stats database, at http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/index.php Queried August 4, 2011. National Cancer Institute. 2007. Wh at you need to know about non -Hodgkin lymphoma , NIH publication 07

- 1567, September. At http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/wy ntk/non

hodgkin

- ly

mphoma.pdf

. NI OSH. 2001. Severity Index for Use in State

- based Surveillance of Acute Pesticide

- Related Illness and Injury . Web page revised 11/27/01. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pesticides/pdfs/pest

- sevindexv6.pdf Nordb y KC, A Andersen, LM Irgens, and P Kristen sen. 2005. Indicators of mancozeb exposure in relation to thy

roid cancer and neural tube defects in farmers' families. Scand J Work Environ Health . 31(2):89

- 96, April. OMB. 2003. Circular A

- 4. Office of Management and Budget. September 17, 2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a

- 4
. Oregon Department of Agriculture. 2013. Bumblebee incidents result in pesticide violations , Press Release, December 19, 2013. http://www.oreg on.gov/ODA/Pages/news/131219bees_pesticides.aspx Parkinson’s Disease Foundation. 2011. Sy mptoms website at http://www.pdf.org/en/s ymptoms Accessed August 4, 2011. Rao, P, et al. “Pesticide Safety Behaviors in Latino Farmworker Famil y Households.” Am J Ind Med. 49, no. 4 (2006): 271

- 280.9

Rauh, VA, R Garfinkel, FP Perera, HF Andrews, L Hoepner, DB Barr, R Whitehead, D Tang, and RW Whyatt. 2006. Impact of Prenatal Chlorpy rifos Exposure on Neurodevelopment in the First 3 Years of Life Among Inner
- City Children, Pediatrics 118: e1845

- e1859 Rauh, V., Arunajadai, S, Horton, M., Perera, F., Hoepner, L., Barr, D.,Whyatt, R., Seven

- Year Neurodevelopmental Scores and Prenatal Exposure to Chlorpy rifos, a Common Agricultural Pesticide, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 August; 119(8): 1196

– 1201. Reed, DB, SR Browning, SC Westneat, and PS Kidd. 2006. Personal Protective Equipment Use and Safety Behaviors Among Farm Adolescents: Gender Differences and Predictors of Work Practices. The Journal of Rural Health , 22: 314

– 320. Reigart, JR, and JR Roberts. 2013
. Management of Pesticide Poisonings , Sixth Edition, available here: http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide

- worker

- safety/recognition

- and

management
- pesticide

- poisonings Richard son, Leslie and John L oomis. 2009. The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: An updated meta

- anal ys is. Ecological Economics 68: 1535

- 1548. Rohlman, Diane S., W Kent Anger, and Pamela J Lein, Correlating Neurobehavioral Performance with Biomarkers of Organophosphorous Pesticide Exposure, Neurotoxicology . 2011 March; 32(2): 268

–276. Rowntree DA, L Stallones, PLSample, and K Sweitzer. 1998. Perceptions of Farm Hazards and Personal Safety

Behavior among Adolescent Farmworker s, Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health

. Special I ssue (1):159

- 169. Rucker, Randal R. and Thurman, Walter N. Colony Collapse disorder: The Market Response to Bee Disease , PERC Poli c y Series No. 50 , 2012
. http://perc.org/sites/default/files/ps50.pdf Rucker, Randal R., Thurman, Walter N., and Michael Burgett. “Honey Bee Pollination Markets and the Internalization of Reciprocal Benefits,” Am. J. Agr. Econ. (2012) 94 (4): 956

- 977 Ruser, JW. 2008. "Examining Evidence on Whether BLS Undercounts Workpl ace Injuries and Illnesses." Monthly Labor Review August (2008): 20

- 32. Salam, Muhammad Towhid and Yu

- Fen Li, Bryan L angholz, Frank Davis Gilliland, and Children's Health Study , Earl y- life environmental risk factors for asthma: findings from the Children's Health Study . Environ Health Perspect. 2004 May ; 112(6): 760

–765. Salameh PR, IBaldi, P Brochard, C Raherison, B Abi Saleh, and R Salamon. 2003. Respiratory sy mptoms in children and exposure to pesticides. Eur Respir J . 22(3):507

- 12, Sept. At http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14516143

. Sanborn, M, KJ Kerr, LH Sanin, DC Cole, KLBassil, and C Vakil. 2007. Non

- cancer health effects of pesticides: s ys tematic review and implications for f amil y doctors. Can Fam Physician 53(10): 1712

- 20. SBA. 2014. Table of Small Business Size Standards. U.S. Small Business Administration. At http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf . July 14. Accessed August 2014.10

Schulze, LD, CL Ogg, and EF Vitzthum. 1997. Signs and Symptoms of Pesticide Poisoning, University

of Nebraska Cooperative Extension EC97

- 2505

- A. Steinberg, L. 2005. Cognitive and affecti ve development in adolescence, Trends in Cognitive Sciences Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 69

- 74, Feb. Steinberg, L, and E Cauffman. 2008. Maturity of judgment in adolescence: Psychosocial factors in adolescent decision making. Law and Human Behavior, Volume 20, Number 3, 249

- 272. Stevens, T.H.; J. Echeverria; R.J. Glass; T. Hager; and T.A. More. 1991. Measuring the Existence Value of Wildlife: What Do CVM Estimates Really Show? L and Economics 67(4): 390

- 400. Stroud, Richard K., and Frank Kuncir (2005 ). Investigating wildlife poisoning cases. International Game Warden, Winter 2005: 8

– 13. Tanner CM, Kamel F, Ross GW, Hoppin JA, Goldman SM, Korell M, Marras C, Bhudhikanok GS, Kasten M, Chade AR, Comy ns K, Richards MB, Meng C, Priestley B, Fernandez H H, Cambi F, Umbach DM, Blair A, Sandler DP, L angston JW., Rotenone, paraquat, and Parkinson's disease, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Jun;119(6):866

- 72. Tax Foundation. 2013. Tax Freedom Day® 2013 is April 18, Five Day s Later Than Last Year

. April 2, 2014. http://taxfoundation.org/article/tax

- freedom

- day

- 2013

- april

- 18

- five

- day s later

- last

- ye ar Thompson B, Griffith WC, Barr DB, Coronado GD, Vigoren EM and Faustman EM. Variability in the take

- home pathway : Farmworkers and non

- farmworkers an d their children. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology (2014) 24, 522

– 531. Turner, MC, DT Wigle, and D Krewski. 2009. Residential pesticides and childhood leukemia: a sy stematic review and meta

- analy sis. Environmental Health Perspe ctives 118 (1):33

- 41. U.S. House of Representatives. 2008. Hidden Tragedy: Underreporting of W orkplace Injuries and Illnesses . Committee on Education and Labor. Washington: Government Van Maele

- Fabry , G, AC L antin, P Hoet, and D Lison. 2011. Residential exposure to pesticides and childhood leukaemia: a sy stematic review and meta

- anal ys is. Environment International . 37(1):280

- 91, Jan. Veltri, JC, NE McElwee, and MC Schumacher. 1987. "Interpretation and Uses of Data Collection in Poison Control Cent ers in the United States." Medical Toxicology : 389

- 97. Vida, P, and A Moretto. 2007. "Pesticide Exposure Pathway s among Children of Agricultural Workers." Journal of Public Health 15.4 (2007): 289

- 99. Washington State Department of Labor & Industries

. Farm Worker Health and Safety in Washington State: A L ook at Workers' Compensation Data. Ol ympia, WA: Safety and Health Assessment and Research for Prevention, Report No. 24

- 2

- 1991, 1991. Wigle, DT, MC Turner, and D Krewski. 2009. A systematic review and meta

- anal ys is of childhood leukemia and parental occupational pesticide exposure. Environmental Health Perspectives 117:1505

- 1513.11

Wigle DT, MC Turner, J Gomes, and ME Parent. 2008. Role of hormonal and other factors in human prostate cancer. J Toxi col Environ Health B Crit Rev . 11(3

- 4):242

- 59, Mar. Review. PubMed PMID: 18368555 Wilson, L S, R Tesoro, EP Elkin, N Sadetsky , JM Broering, DM Latini, J DuChane, RR Mody , and PR Carroll. 2006. Cumulative Cost Pattern Comparison of Prostate Cancer Treatm ents, CANCER ; Published Online: December 21. WHO IARC. 1999. World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO IARC), IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans , Volume 53. Occupational Exposures in Insecti cide Application, and Some Pesticides: Summary of Data Reported and Evaluation. Available here: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol53/volume53.pdf Wyatt, T. 2008. Screening Level Analysis of the Small Business Impacts of Revoking Carbofuran Tolerances . Biological and Economic Analy sis Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. EPA. Vyas, Nimish (1999). Factors influencing estimation of pesticide

- related wildlife mortality

. Toxicology

and Industrial Health, 15: 186

– 191. Yoo, K, H Shin , S Chang, K Lee, S Park, D Kang, and D Lee. 2002. "Korean Multi

- center Cancer Cohort Study

including a Biological Materials Bank." Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention 3.1 (2002): 85

- 92. Young, JG, B Eskenazi, EA Gladstone, A Bradman, LPedersen, C Johnson, DB Barr, CE Furlong, and NT Holland. 2005. Association between in utero organophosphate pesticide exposure and abnormal reflexes in neonates. NeuroToxicology 26 199

–209 Zahm, SH, J Dich, A Hanberg, and H Adami. 1997. "Pesticides and Cancer." Cancer Causes and Control 8.3 (1997): 420

- 33. Zahm, SH, MH Ward. 1998. Pesticides and childhood cancer. Environ Health Perspect 106 Suppl 3:893

- 908, June.