Vol. 80 Monday, 

No. 163 August 24, 2015 

Part II 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 171 

Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators; Proposed Rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51356 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 171 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0183; FRL–9931–83] 

RIN 2070–AJ20 

Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide 

Applicators 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing changes to 

the existing regulation concerning the 

certification of applicators of restricted 

use pesticides (RUPs) in response to 

extensive stakeholder review of the 

regulation and its implementation since 

1974. EPA’s proposed changes would 

ensure the Federal certification program 

standards adequately protect 

applicators, the public, and the 

environment from risks associated with 

use of RUPs. The proposed changes are 

intended to improve the competency of 

certified applicators of RUPs, increase 

protection for noncertified applicators 

of RUPs operating under the direct 

supervision of a certified applicator 

through enhanced pesticide safety 

training and standards for supervision 

of noncertified applicators, and 

establish a minimum age requirement 

for certified and noncertified 

applicators. In keeping with EPA’s 

commitment to work more closely with 

Tribal governments to strengthen 

environmental protection in Indian 

country, certain changes are intended to 

provide more practical options for 

establishing certification programs in 

Indian country. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 23, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0183, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC) (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. In 

addition, please mail a copy of your 

comments on the information collection 

provisions to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, ATTN: Desk 

Officer for EPA, 725 17th St. NW., 

Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michelle Arling, Field and External 

Affairs Division (7506P), Office of 

Pesticide Programs, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone number: (703) 308–5891; 

email address: arling.michelle@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you apply RUPs. You may 

also be potentially affected by this 

action if you are: Certified by a State, 

Tribe, or Federal agency to apply 

pesticides; a State, Tribal, or Federal 

agency who administers a certification 

program for pesticide applicators or a 

pesticide safety educator; or other 

person who provides pesticide safety 

training for pesticide applicator 

certification or recertification. 

The following list of North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

to help readers determine whether this 

rulemaking applies to them. Potentially 

affected entities may include: 

• Agricultural Establishments (Crop 

Production) (NAICS code 111). 

• Nursery and Tree Production 

(NAICS code 111421). 

• Agricultural Pest Control and 

Pesticide Handling on Farms (NAICS 

code 115112). 

• Crop Advisors (NAICS codes 

115112, 541690, 541712). 

• Agricultural (Animal) Pest Control 

(Livestock Spraying) (NAICS code 

115210). 

• Forestry Pest Control (NAICS code 

115310). 

• Wood Preservation Pest Control 

(NAICS code 321114). 

• Pesticide Registrants (NAICS code 

325320). 

• Pesticide Dealers (NAICS codes 

424690, 424910, 444220). 

• Research & Demonstration Pest 

Control, Crop Advisor (NAICS code 

541710). 

• Industrial, Institutional, Structural 

& Health Related Pest Control (NAICS 

code 561710). 

• Ornamental & Turf, Rights-of-Way 

Pest Control (NAICS code 561730). 

• Environmental Protection Program 

Administrators (NAICS code 924110). 

• Governmental Pest Control 

Programs (NAICS code 926140). 

B. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

This action is issued under the 

authority of the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

(FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136–136y, particularly 

sections 136a(d), 136i, and 136w. 

C. What action is the Agency taking? 

The proposed rule would revise the 

existing Certification of Pesticide 

Applicators (certification) rule at 40 

CFR part 171 to enhance the following: 

Private applicator competency 

standards, exam and training security 

standards, standards for noncertified 

applicators working under the direct 

supervision of a certified applicator, 

Tribal applicator certification, and State, 

Tribal, and Federal agency certification 

plans. The proposed rule would revise 

the existing certification rule at 40 CFR 

part 171 to add: Application methodspecific categories of certification for 

commercial and private applicators, 

predator control categories for 

commercial and private applicators, 

recertification standards and interval, 

and minimum age for certified 

applicators and noncertified applicators 

working under direct supervision. 

1. Private applicator competency 

standards. The proposed rule would 

clarify the standards of competency a 

private applicator must meet in order to 

be certified. The proposed rule would 

expand the private applicator 

competency standards to include the 

general standards of competency for 

commercial applicators (also known as 

‘‘core’’ competency), standards 

generally applicable to pesticide use in 

agriculture, and specific related 

regulations relevant to private 

applicators, such as the Worker 

Protection Standard (WPS) (40 CFR part 

170). The proposed rule also would 

amend the options for determining 

private applicator competency by 

requiring the applicator to complete a 

training program or to pass a written 

exam that covers the specific 

competency standards. 

2. Application method-specific 

categories of certification for 

commercial and private applicators. 

The proposed rule would require that 

commercial and private applicators who 

apply pesticides aerially or by 

fumigation demonstrate competency to 

make these types of applications. The 

proposal would add categories for aerial 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51357 

application, soil fumigation, and nonsoil fumigation. 

3. Recertification standards and 

interval. The proposed rule would 

require that commercial and private 

applicators demonstrate continued 

competency to use RUPs every 3 years 

by either passing written exams for each 

certification they hold or completing 

specific training in a continuing 

education program administered by the 

certifying authority. Commercial 

applicators would be required to 

demonstrate continued competency in 

the core standards and each category in 

which they intend to maintain their 

certification. Private applicators would 

be required to demonstrate continued 

general competency and competency in 

each relevant application methodspecific category in which they intend 

to maintain their certification. 

4. Standards for noncertified 

applicators working under the direct 

supervision. The proposed rule would 

include several new requirements to 

ensure that noncertified applicators are 

competent to use RUPs under the 

supervision of a certified applicator. In 

order for noncertified applicators to 

work under the direct supervision of a 

certified applicator they would have to 

complete specific training as outlined in 

the proposed rule, complete training 

required for handlers under the WPS, or 

pass the exam covering general 

standards of competency for commercial 

pesticide applicators (‘‘core exam’’). 

Noncertified applicators who qualify by 

satisfying the training requirement 

under the proposed rule or the training 

required for handlers under the WPS 

would be required to renew their 

qualification after a year; noncertified 

applicators who qualify by passing the 

core exam would need to renew their 

qualification after 3 years. Noncertified 

applicators can renew their 

qualifications using any of these same 

options. All applicators would be 

required to ensure noncertified 

applicators have met these 

qualifications and commercial 

applicators would be required to 

maintain records of the noncertified 

applicators’ qualifications. The proposal 

would require a certified applicator 

supervising noncertified applicators to 

be certified in each category in which he 

or she supervises applications, to 

provide to the noncertified applicators a 

copy of the labeling for the RUPs used, 

and to ensure that a means for 

immediate communication between the 

supervising applicator and noncertified 

applicators under his or her direct 

supervision is available. 

5. Minimum age. The proposed rule 

would require commercial and private 

applicators to be at least 18 years old 

and noncertified applicators using RUPs 

under the direct supervision of certified 

applicators to be at least 18 years old. 

6. Indian country certification. The 

proposed rule would offer three options 

for certification for applicators in Indian 

country. A Tribe may choose to allow 

persons holding currently valid 

certifications issued under one or more 

specified State or Federal agency 

certification plans to apply RUPs within 

the Tribe’s Indian country, develop its 

own certification plan for certifying 

private and commercial applicators, or 

take no action, in which case EPA may, 

in consultation with the Tribe(s) 

affected, implement an EPAadministered certification plan. EPA 

currently administers a Federal 

certification program covering Indian 

country not otherwise covered by a 

certification plan (Ref. 1) as well as a 

certification program specifically for 

Navajo Indian country (Ref. 2). 

7. State, Tribal, and Federal agency 

certification plans. The proposed rule 

would update the requirements for 

submission, approval, and maintenance 

of State, Tribal, and Federal agency 

certification plans. The proposed rule 

would delete the section on Government 

Agency Plans (GAP) and would codify 

existing policy on review and approval 

of Federal agency certification plans. 

D. Why is the Agency taking this action? 

The Agency is proposing revisions to 

the existing certification regulation at 40 

CFR part 171 in order to reduce 

occupational pesticide exposure and the 

incidence of related illness among 

certified applicators, noncertified 

applicators working under their direct 

supervision, and agricultural workers, 

and to ensure that when used according 

to their labeling, RUPs do not cause 

unreasonable adverse effects to 

applicators, workers, the public, or the 

environment. Discussions with State 

regulatory partners and key stakeholders 

over many years, together with EPA’s 

review of incident data, have led EPA to 

identify several shortcomings in the 

current regulation that should be 

addressed, including: 

• Absence of a minimum age for 

certified pesticide applicators and 

noncertified applicators working under 

their direct supervision. 

• Absence of standards or a time 

period for ensuring that certified 

pesticide applicators maintain 

continued competency. 

• Lack of certification standards for 

specific types of pesticide application 

(aerial and fumigation) that may pose 

risks to applicators, bystanders, and the 

environment if not performed correctly. 

• Vague standards for evaluating the 

competency of private applicators to use 

RUPs. 

• Incomplete protections for persons 

applying pesticides under the direct 

supervision of a certified applicator. 

• Inconsistent national program for 

applicator certification that hinders 

applicators’ ability to work in different 

states without duplicative burden and 

inhibits EPA’s ability to develop 

certification and training materials that 

can be used nationally. 

• Limited options for establishing 

applicator certification programs in 

Indian country. 

• Incomplete information 

incorporated into the regulation about 

certification of applicators by Federal 

agencies. 

A detailed discussion about the 

rationale for the proposed rule and 

EPA’s regulatory objectives are provided 

in Units III. and VI. through XX. The 

proposed changes would offer targeted 

improvements that are reasonably 

expected to reduce risk to applicators, 

workers, the public, and the 

environment and improve applicator 

certification programs’ operational 

efficiencies. EPA expects the proposed 

changes would: 

• Improve competency of private and 

commercial applicators and noncertified 

applicators using RUPs under their 

direct supervision. 

• Provide more uniform competency 

among certified applicators across the 

nation, thereby assuring the 

effectiveness of restricted use 

registration as a risk management tool. 

• Protect applicators, workers, the 

public, and the environment from 

unreasonable adverse effects from the 

use of RUPs. 

• Ensure that applicators are 

competent to use high-risk application 

methods. 

• Ensure applicators’ ongoing 

competency to use RUPs. 

• Protect children by establishing a 

minimum age for commercial, private, 

and noncertified applicators. 

• Improve human health and 

environmental protection in Indian 

country. 

• Clarify and streamline requirements 

for States, Tribes, and Federal agencies 

to administer their own certification 

programs. 

E. What are the estimated impacts of 

this action? 

EPA has prepared an economic 

analysis (EA) of the potential costs and 

impacts associated with this rulemaking 

(Ref. 3). This analysis, which is 

available in the docket, is discussed in 

more detail in Unit III., and is briefly 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51358 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

summarized here. The following chart provides a brief outline of the costs and 

impacts of this proposed rule. 

Category Description Source 

Monetized Benefits Avoided acute 

pesticide incidents.

$80.5 million/year after adjustment for underreporting of pesticide incidents ... EA Chapter 6.5. 

Qualitative Benefits .............................. Willingness to pay to avoid acute effects of pesticide exposure beyond cost 

of treatment and loss of productivity.

EA Chapter 6.4 & 6.6. 

• Reduced latent effect of avoided acute pesticide exposure.

• Reduced chronic effects from lower chronic pesticide exposure to workers, 

handlers, and farmworker families, including a range of illnesses such as 

Non-Hodgkins lymphoma, prostate cancer, Parkinson’s disease, lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, and asthma.

Total Costs ........................................... $47.2 million/year ............................................................................................... EA Chapter 5. 

Costs to Private Applicators ................. 490,000 impacted; $19.5 million/year; average $40 per applicator ................... EA Chapter 5 & 5.6. 

Costs to Commercial Applicators ......... 414,000 impacted; $27.4 million/year; average $66 per applicator ................... EA Chapter 5 & 5.6. 

Costs to States and Other Jurisdictions.63 impacted; $359,000/year ............................................................................... EA Chapter 5. 

Small Business Impacts ....................... No significant impact on a substantial number of small entities ....................... EA Chapter 5.7. 

• The rule may affect over 800,000 small farms that use pesticides, although 

about half are unlikely to apply 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 employment ........................ EA Chapter 5.6. 

• Most private and commercial applicators are self-employed.

• Incremental cost per applicator represents from 0.3 to 0.5 percent of the 

cost of a part-time employee.

II. Background 

A. Regulatory Framework 

This unit discusses the legal 

framework within which EPA regulates 

the safety of those who apply RUPs as 

certified applicators and noncertified 

applicators working under the direct 

supervision of certified applicators, as 

well as of the general public and the 

environment. 

1. FIFRA. FIFRA, 7. U.S.C. 136 et seq., 

was signed into law in 1947 and 

established a framework for the 

regulation of pesticide products, 

requiring them to be registered by the 

Federal government before sale or 

distribution in commerce. Amended in 

1972 by the Federal Environmental 

Pesticide Control Act, FIFRA broadened 

Federal pesticide regulatory authority in 

several respects, notably by making it 

unlawful for anyone to use any 

registered product in a manner 

inconsistent with its labeling, 7 U.S.C. 

136i(a)(2)(G), and limiting the sale and 

use of RUPs to certified applicators and 

those under their direct supervision. 7 

U.S.C. 136i(a)(2)(F). The amendments 

provided civil and criminal penalties for 

violations of FIFRA. 7 U.S.C. 136l. The 

new and revised provisions augmented 

EPA’s authority to protect humans and 

the environment from unreasonable 

adverse effects of pesticides. 

As a general matter, in order to obtain 

a registration for a pesticide under 

FIFRA, an applicant must demonstrate 

that the pesticide satisfies the statutory 

standard for registration, section 3(c)(5) 

of FIFRA. 7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5). That 

standard requires, among other things, 

that the pesticide performs its intended 

function without causing ‘‘unreasonable 

adverse effects on the environment.’’ 

The term ‘‘unreasonable adverse effects 

on the environment’’ takes into account 

the economic, social, and environmental 

costs and benefits of the use of any 

pesticide and includes any 

unreasonable risk to man or the 

environment. 7 U.S.C. 136(bb). This 

standard requires a finding that the risks 

associated with the use of a pesticide 

are justified by the benefits of such use, 

when the pesticide is used in 

compliance with the terms and 

conditions of registration or in 

accordance with commonly recognized 

practices. See Defenders of Wildlife v. 

Administrator, EPA, 882 F.2d 1294, 

1298–99 (8th Cir. 1989) (describing 

FIFRA’s required balancing of risks and 

benefits). 

A pesticide product may be 

unclassified, or it may be classified for 

restricted or for general use. 

Unclassified and general use pesticides 

generally have a lower toxicity than 

RUPs and so pose less potential to harm 

humans or the environment. The 

general public can buy and use 

unclassified and general use pesticides 

without special permits or restrictions. 

Where EPA determines that a 

pesticide product would not meet these 

registration criteria if unclassified or 

available for general use, but could meet 

the registration criteria if applied by 

experienced, competent applicators, 

EPA classifies the pesticide, or 

particular uses of the pesticide, for 

restricted use only by certified 

applicators. 7 U.S.C. 136a(d)(1). 

Generally, EPA classifies a pesticide as 

restricted use if its toxicity exceeds one 

or more human health toxicity criteria 

or based on other standards established 

in regulation. EPA may also classify a 

pesticide as restricted use if it meets 

certain criteria for hazards to non-target 

organisms or ecosystems, or if EPA 

determines that a product (or class of 

products) may cause unreasonable 

adverse effect on human health and/or 

the environment without such 

restriction. The restricted use 

classification designation must be 

prominently placed on the top of the 

front panel of the pesticide product 

labeling. 

The risks associated with products 

classified as RUP require additional 

controls to ensure that when used they 

do not cause unreasonable adverse 

effects on human health or the 

environment. However, RUPs can be 

used safely when labeling instructions 

are followed. These products may only 

be applied by certified applicators or 

persons working under their direct 

supervision who have demonstrated 

competency in the safe application of 

pesticides, including the ability to read 

and understand the complex labeling 

requirements. FIFRA requires EPA to 

develop standards for certification of 

applicators (7 U.S.C. 136i(a)(1)) and 

allows States to certify applicators 

under a certification plan submitted to 

and approved by EPA. 7 U.S.C. 

136i(a)(2). 

Provisions limiting EPA’s authority 

with respect to applicator certification 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51359 

include 7 U.S.C. 136i(a)(1), (c), and (d); 

7 U.S.C. 136w–5; and 7 U.S.C. 

136(2)(e)(4). Section 136i(a)(1) of FIFRA 

prohibits EPA from requiring private 

applicators to take an exam to establish 

competency in the use of pesticides 

under an EPA certification program, or 

from requiring States to impose an exam 

requirement as part of a State plan for 

certification of applicators. 

Section 136i(c) of FIFRA instructs 

EPA to make instructional materials on 

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) 

available to individuals, but it prohibits 

EPA from establishing requirements for 

instruction or competency 

determination on IPM. EPA makes IPM 

instructional materials available to 

individual users through the National 

Pesticide Applicator Certification Core 

Manual, which is used directly or as a 

model by many States. Additionally, 

EPA has developed and implemented a 

variety of programs in other areas of the 

pesticide program to inform pesticide 

applicators about the principles and 

benefits of IPM. These include the 

EPA’s IPM in Schools Program, the 

Pesticide Environmental Stewardship 

Program (PESP), and the Strategic 

Agricultural Initiative (SAI) Grant 

Program, as well as several other efforts. 

The Agency will continue to place a 

high priority on initiatives and 

programs that promote IPM practices. 

For additional information about the 

range of programs and activities, visit 

the Office of Pesticide Programs 

PestWise Web page on the EPA Web site 

at: http://www.epa.gov/pesp/about/

index.html. 

Section 136i(d) of FIFRA prohibits 

EPA from requiring private applicators 

to keep records or file reports in 

connection with certification 

requirements. However, private 

applicators must keep records of RUP 

applications containing information 

substantially similar to that which EPA 

requires commercial applicators to 

maintain pursuant to USDA regulations 

at 7 CFR 110.3. 

Section 136w–5 of FIFRA prohibits 

EPA from establishing training 

requirements for maintenance 

applicators (certain applicators of nonagricultural, non-RUPs) or service 

technicians. 

FIFRA section 2(e)(4)’s definition of 

‘‘under the direct supervision of a 

certified applicator’’ allows noncertified 

applicators to apply RUPs under the 

direct supervision of a certified 

applicator even though the certified 

applicator may not be physically 

present at the time and place the 

pesticide is applied. EPA can, on a 

product-by-product basis and through 

the pesticide’s labeling, require 

application of an RUP only by a 

certified applicator. 

2. Pesticide registration. In order to 

protect human health and the 

environment from unreasonable adverse 

effects that might be caused by 

pesticides, EPA has developed and 

implemented a rigorous process for 

registering and re-evaluating pesticides. 

The registration process begins when a 

manufacturer submits an application to 

register a pesticide. The application 

must contain required test data, 

including information on the pesticide’s 

chemistry, environmental fate, toxicity 

to humans and wildlife, and potential 

for human exposure. The Agency also 

requires a copy of the proposed labeling, 

including directions for use, and 

appropriate warnings. 

Once an application for a new 

pesticide product is received, EPA 

conducts an evaluation, which includes 

a detailed review of scientific data to 

determine the potential impact on 

human health and the environment. The 

Agency considers the risk assessments 

and results of any peer review, and 

evaluates potential risk management 

measures that could mitigate risks above 

EPA’s level of concern. Risk 

management measures could include, 

among other things, classifying the 

pesticide as restricted use, limitations 

on the use of the pesticide or requiring 

the use of engineering controls. 

In the decision-making process, EPA 

evaluates the proposed use(s) of the 

pesticide to determine whether it would 

cause adverse effects on human health, 

non-target species, and the 

environment. FIFRA requires that EPA 

balance the benefits of using a pesticide 

against the risks from that use. 

If the application for registration does 

not contain evidence sufficient for EPA 

to determine that the pesticide meets 

the FIFRA registration criteria, EPA 

communicates to the applicant the need 

for more or better refined data, labeling 

modifications, or additional use 

restrictions. Once the applicant has 

demonstrated that a proposed product 

meets the FIFRA registration criteria 

and—if the use would result in residues 

of the pesticide on food or feed—a 

tolerance or exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance under the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq., is 

available, EPA approves the registration 

subject to any risk mitigation measures 

necessary to achieve that approval. EPA 

devotes significant resources to the 

regulation of pesticides to ensure that 

each pesticide product meets the FIFRA 

requirement that pesticides not cause 

unreasonable adverse effects to the 

public and the environment. 

Part of EPA’s pesticide regulation and 

evaluation process is determining 

whether a pesticide should be classified 

as for restricted use. As discussed in 

Unit II.A., EPA classifies products as 

RUPs when they would cause 

unreasonable adverse effects on the 

environment, the applicator, or the 

public when used according to the 

labeling directions and without 

additional restrictions. 7 U.S.C. 

136a(d)(1)(C). EPA maintains a list of 

active ingredients with uses that have 

been classified as restricted use at 40 

CFR 152.175. In addition, EPA 

periodically publishes an ‘‘RUP Report’’ 

that lists RUP products’ registration 

number, product name, status, 

registration status, company name, and 

active ingredients (http://www.epa.gov/

opprd001/rup/). EPA has classified 

about 900 pesticide products as RUPs, 

which is about 5% of all registered 

pesticide products. EPA does not have 

data on the relative usage of RUPs 

versus general use or unclassified 

pesticides. 

When EPA approves a pesticide, the 

labeling reflects the risk mitigation 

measures required by EPA. The 

potential risk mitigation measures 

include requiring certain engineering 

controls, such as use of closed systems 

for mixing pesticides and loading them 

into application equipment to reduce 

potential exposure to those who handle 

pesticides; establishing conditions on 

the use of the pesticide by specifying 

certain use sites, maximum application 

rate or maximum number of 

applications; or limiting the use of the 

product to certified applicators (i.e., 

prohibit application of an RUP by a 

noncertified applicator working under 

the direct supervision of a certified 

applicator) to protect users, the public, 

and the environment against risks 

associated with misapplication by 

unqualified or incompetent applicators. 

Since users must comply with the 

directions for use and use restrictions 

on a product’s labeling, EPA uses the 

labeling to establish and convey 

mandatory requirements for how the 

pesticide must be used to protect the 

applicator, the public, and the 

environment from pesticide exposure. 

3. Pesticide Reregistration and 

Registration Review. Under FIFRA, EPA 

is required to review periodically the 

registration of pesticides currently 

registered in the United States. The 

1988 FIFRA amendments required EPA 

to establish a pesticide reregistration 

program. Reregistration was a one-time 

comprehensive review of the human 

health and environmental effects of 

pesticides first registered before 

November 1, 1984 to make decisions 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51360 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

about these pesticides’ future use. The 

Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 

(FQPA) amendments to FIFRA require 

that EPA establish, through rule making, 

an ongoing ‘‘registration review’’ 

process of all pesticides at least every 15 

years. The final rule establishing the 

registration review program was signed 

in August 2006. The purpose of both reevaluation programs is to review all 

pesticides registered in the United 

States to ensure that they continue to 

meet current safety standards based on 

up-to-date scientific approaches and 

relevant data. 

Pesticides reviewed under the 

reregistration program that met current 

scientific and safety standards were 

declared ‘‘eligible’’ for reregistration. 

The results of EPA’s reviews are 

summarized in Reregistration Eligibility 

Decision (RED) documents. The last 

RED was completed in 2008. Often 

before a pesticide could be determined 

‘‘eligible,’’ certain risk reduction 

measures had to be put in place. For a 

number of pesticides, measures 

intended to reduce exposure to certified 

applicators and pesticide handlers were 

needed and are reflected on pesticide 

labeling. To address occupational risk 

concerns, REDs include mitigation 

measures such as: Voluntary 

cancellation of the product or specific 

use(s); limiting the amount, frequency 

or timing of applications; imposing 

other application restrictions; 

classifying a product or specific use(s) 

as for restricted use; requiring the use of 

specific personal protective equipment 

(PPE); and establishing specific 

restricted entry intervals; and improving 

use directions. 

Under the registration review 

program, EPA will review each 

registered pesticide at least every 15 

years to determine whether it continues 

to meet the FIFRA standard for 

registration. Pesticides registered before 

1984 were reevaluated initially under 

the reregistration program. These 

pesticides also are subject to registration 

review. 

Rigorous ongoing education and 

enforcement are needed to ensure that 

these mitigation measures are 

appropriately implemented in the field. 

The framework provided by the 

pesticide applicator certification 

regulation and associated training 

programs are critical for ensuring that 

the improvements brought about by 

reregistration and registration review are 

realized in the field. For example, the 

requirement for applicators to 

demonstrate continued competency, or 

to renew their certifications 

periodically, is one way to educate 

applicators about changes in product 

labeling to ensure they continue to use 

RUPs in a manner that will not harm 

themselves, the public, or the 

environment. The changes being 

proposed are designed to enhance the 

effectiveness of the existing structure. 

In summary, EPA’s pesticide 

reregistration and registration reviews 

assess the specific risks associated with 

particular chemicals and ensure that the 

public and environment do not suffer 

unreasonable adverse effects from the 

risks. EPA implements the risk 

reduction and mitigation measures that 

result from the pesticide reregistration 

and registration review programs 

through individual pesticide product 

labeling. 

4. Related rulemaking. EPA also 

issued proposed amendments to the 

WPS (Ref. 4). Since 40 CFR parts 170 

and 171, along with other components 

of the pesticide program, work together 

to reduce and prevent unreasonable 

adverse effects from pesticides, EPA’s 

experience with the proposed 

amendments to 40 CFR part 170 

significantly informs its effort to amend 

the current certification rule at 40 CFR 

part 171. 

B. Overview of Certified Applicator 

Information 

1. Existing Certification of Pesticide 

Applicators Rule. The certification 

regulation is intended to ensure that 

persons using or supervising the use of 

RUPs are competent to use these 

products without causing unreasonable 

adverse effects to human health or the 

environment and to provide a 

mechanism by which States, Tribes, and 

Federal agencies can administer their 

own programs to certify applicators of 

RUPs as competent. FIFRA 

distinguishes three categories of persons 

who might apply RUPs: 

• Commercial applicators. 

‘‘Commercial applicator’’ is defined at 7 

U.S.C. 136(e)(3). This group consists 

primarily of those who apply RUPs for 

hire, including applicators who perform 

agricultural pest control, structural pest 

control, lawn and turf care, and public 

health pest control. 

• Private applicators. ‘‘Private 

applicator’’ is defined at 7 U.S.C. 

136(e)(2). This group consists primarily 

of farmers or agricultural growers who 

apply RUPs to their own land to 

produce an agricultural commodity. 

• Noncertified applicators. A 

noncertified applicator is a person who 

uses RUPs under the direct supervision 

of a certified applicator. The phrase 

‘‘under the direct supervision of a 

certified applicator’’ is defined at 7 

U.S.C. 136(e)(4). 

The current certification regulation 

establishes requirements for submission 

and approval of State plans for the 

certification of applicators. Consistent 

with the provisions of FIFRA section 

11(a)(2) and the State plan requirements 

in the current rule, programs for the 

certification of applicators of RUPs are 

currently implemented by each of the 

fifty States. The certification programs 

are conducted by the States and Tribes 

in accordance with their State or Tribal 

certification plans, which are approved 

by the EPA Administrator and filed with 

EPA after approval. (Ref. 5) In some 

cases, certification programs are also 

carried out by other Federal agencies 

under approved Federal agency plans or 

by EPA under EPA-administered plans. 

In addition to the 50 State-implemented 

plans, EPA has approved plans for 3 

territories, 4 Federal agencies, and 4 

Tribes. EPA also directly administers a 

national certification plan for Indian 

country (Ref. 1) and has implemented a 

specific certification plan for the Navajo 

Nation (Ref. 2). As used in FIFRA, the 

term State means a State, the District of 

Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico, The Virgin Islands, Guam, the 

Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, 

and American Samoa; the term State 

will have the same meaning in this 

proposed rulemaking. 

The current certification regulation 

establishes competency standards for 

persons seeking to become certified as 

private or commercial applicators. For a 

person to become certified as a private 

applicator, he or she must either pass an 

exam covering a general set of 

information related to pesticide 

application and safety or qualify 

through a non-exam option 

administered by the certifying authority. 

For a person to become certified as a 

commercial applicator, he or she must 

pass at least two exams—one covering 

the general or ‘‘core’’ competencies 

related to general pesticide application 

and environmental safety and an exam 

related to each specific category in 

which he or she intends to apply 

pesticides. The current certification rule 

lists 10 categories of certification for 

commercial applicators: Agricultural 

pest control—plant; agricultural pest 

control—animal; forest pest control; 

ornamental and turf pest control; seed 

treatment; aquatic pest control; right-ofway pest control; industrial, 

institutional, structural and health 

related pest control; public health pest 

control; regulatory pest control; and 

demonstration and research pest 

control. 40 CFR 171.3(b). (Note: EPA 

and other certifying authorities may 

sometimes refer to 11 categories of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51361 

certification if the two subcategories 

under agricultural pest control are 

counted as individual categories.) 

Although EPA only requires 

certification of applicators who use 

RUPs, most States require all 

commercial ‘‘for hire’’ applicators to be 

certified, regardless of whether they 

plan to use RUPs. Once the applicator 

completes the necessary requirements, 

the certifying authority issues to the 

applicator a certification valid for a set 

period of time, ranging from 1–6 years 

depending on the State, Tribe, or 

Federal agency that provides the 

certification. 

The current regulation requires States 

to implement a recertification process to 

ensure that applicators maintain 

ongoing competency to use pesticides 

safely and properly. 40 CFR 171.8(a)(2). 

However, the current rule does not have 

a requirement for the frequency, 

content, or standards for applicator 

recertification. States, Tribes and 

Federal agencies have established 

varying requirements for applicators to 

be recertified, such as attending a fullday workshop, earning a specific 

number of ‘‘continuing education 

units,’’ or passing written exams. 

Applicators who do not complete the 

recertification requirements in the 

established period no longer hold a 

valid certification and cannot use RUPs 

after their certification expires. 

Under the current certification 

regulation, noncertified applicators, i.e., 

persons using RUPs under the direct 

supervision of certified applicators, 

must receive general instructions and be 

able to contact their supervisor in the 

event of an emergency. The rule does 

not have specific training requirements, 

a limit on the distance between the 

supervisor and noncertified applicator, 

or a restriction on the number of 

noncertified applicators that one 

certified applicator can supervise. 

An overview of the development of 

the certification rule and the process 

leading to this proposal appear in Unit 

IV. 

2. Applicator demographics. The 

profile of certified applicators of RUPs 

has shifted over time. The U.S. is 

moving away from small agricultural 

production and more individuals seek 

professional pest control to address 

issues in their home or workplace. In 

1987, around 1.2 million applicators 

held a certification, almost 80% of 

which were private applicators, and 

20% of which were commercial 

applicators (Ref. 6). In 2013, the total 

number of certified applicators 

decreased to just over 900,000 (Ref. 5). 

The respective proportions of private 

and commercial applicators changed 

more significantly—private applicators 

account only for 53% of the total 

certified applicator population and 

commercial applicators now make up 

about 47%. 

Applicators work in a diverse array of 

situations including agricultural 

production, residential pest control, 

mosquito spraying for public health 

protection, treating weeds along 

roadside and railroad rights of way, 

fumigating rail cars and buildings, 

maintaining lawns and other 

ornamental plantings, and controlling 

weeds and algae in waterways through 

pesticide application. Specific 

information on applicators across all 

industries or in each certification 

category is difficult to find and 

summarize. However, the broad trends 

indicate a decrease in agricultural 

applicators and an increase in urban 

and public health pest control. 

Since publication of the original rule, 

pesticide usage and reliance on hired 

pest control applicators have increased. 

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

expects that ‘‘employment of pest 

control workers [will] grow by 15 

percent between 2008 and 2018, . . . 

[because] more people are expected to 

use pest control services as 

environmental and health concerns and 

improvements in the standard of living 

convince more people to hire 

professionals, rather than attempt pest 

control work themselves’’ (Ref. 7). 

3. Incident data and general 

information. 

i. Incident Databases. Incident 

monitoring programs have informed 

EPA’s understanding of common types 

of pesticide exposures and their 

outcomes. In 2007, EPA released a 

report detailing the coverage of all 

pesticide incident reporting databases 

considered by EPA (Ref. 8). When 

developing the proposed changes to the 

certification rule, EPA consulted three 

major databases for information on 

pesticide incidents involving applicator 

errors while using RUPs. 

To identify deaths and high severity 

incidents associated with use of RUPs, 

EPA consulted its Incident Data System 

(IDS). IDS is maintained by EPA’s Office 

of Pesticide Programs (OPP) and 

incorporates data submitted by 

registrants under FIFRA section 6(a)(2), 

as well as other incidents reported 

directly to EPA. FIFRA allows the 

aggregation of individual events in some 

circumstances, meaning an incident 

with negative impacts to a number of 

individuals (persons, livestock, birds, 

pollinators) and/or the environment 

could be reported as a single incident. 

In addition to incidents involving 

human health, IDS also collects 

information on claims of adverse effects 

from pesticides involving plants and 

animals (wild and domestic), as well as 

detections of pesticide in water. EPA 

uses this information to identify 

incidents involving the use of RUPs that 

have ecological effects. While IDS 

reports may be broad in scope, the 

system does not consistently capture 

detailed information about incident 

events, such as occupational exposure 

circumstances or medical outcome, and 

the reports are not necessarily verified 

or investigated. 

The second database, the Sentinel 

Event Notification System for 

Occupational Risk (SENSOR), is 

maintained by the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention’s National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH). SENSOR covers all 

occupational injuries and has a specific 

component for pesticides (SENSORPesticides). EPA uses SENSORPesticides to monitor trends in 

occupational health related to acute 

exposures to pesticides, to identify 

emerging pesticide problems, and to 

build and maintain State surveillance 

capacity. SENSOR-Pesticides is a Statebased surveillance system with 12 State 

participants. The program collects most 

poisoning incident cases from: 

• U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) 

workers’ compensation claims when 

reported by physicians. 

• State Departments of Agriculture. 

• Poison control centers. 

A State SENSOR-Pesticides contact 

specialist follows up with workers and 

obtains medical records to verify 

symptoms, circumstances surrounding 

the exposure, severity, and outcome. 

SENSOR-Pesticides captures incidents 

only when the affected person has two 

or more symptoms. Using a 

standardized protocol and case 

definitions, SENSOR-Pesticides 

coordinators enter the incident 

interview description provided by the 

worker, medical report, and physician 

into the SENSOR data system. SENSORPesticides has a severity index, based 

partly on poison control center criteria, 

to assign illness severity in a 

standardized fashion. SENSORPesticides provides the most 

comprehensive information on 

occupational pesticide exposure, but its 

coverage is not nationwide and a 

majority of the data come from 

California and Washington State. Since 

2009, SENSOR has been including 

information about how the incidents 

may have been prevented. 

The third database, the American 

Association of Poison Control Centers 

maintains the National Poison Data 

System (NPDS), formerly the Toxic 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51362 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Effects Surveillance System (TESS). 

NPDS is a computerized information 

system with geographically-specific and 

near real-time reporting. While the main 

mission of Poison Control Centers (PCC) 

is helping callers respond to 

emergencies, not collecting specific 

information about incidents, NPDS data 

help identify emerging problems in 

chemical product safety. Hotlines at 61 

PCCs nationwide are open 24 hours 

every day of the year. There are many 

bilingual PCCs in predominantly 

Spanish speaking areas. Hotlines are 

staffed by toxicology specialists to 

provide poisoning information and 

clinical care recommendations to callers 

with a focus on triage to give patients 

appropriate care. Using computer 

assisted data entry, standardized 

protocols, and strict data entry criteria, 

local callers report incidents that are 

retained locally and updated in 

summary form to the national database. 

Since 2000, nearly all calls in the 

system are submitted in a computerassisted interview format by the 61 

certified PCCs, adhering to clinical 

criteria designed to provide a consistent 

approach to evaluating and managing 

pesticide and drug related adverse 

incidents. Information calls are tallied 

separately and not counted as incidents. 

The NPDS system covers nearly the 

entire United States and its territories, 

but the system is clinically oriented and 

not designed to collect detailed 

occupational incident data. 

Additionally, NPDS does not capture 

EPA pesticide registration numbers, a 

critical element for identifying the 

specific product and whether it was an 

RUP. 

Three studies showing undercounting 

of poison control data indicate the 

magnitude of the problem. The studies 

each focus on a specific region and 

compare cases reported to poison 

control with those poisonings for which 

there are hospital records. In all three 

cases, the studies indicate a substantial 

underreporting of poisoning incidents to 

poison control, especially related to 

pesticides (Refs. 9, 10 and 11). 

Underreporting of pesticide incidents is 

a challenge for all available data sources 

for a number of reasons. 

Symptoms of acute pesticide 

poisoning are often vague and mimic 

symptoms with other causes, leading to 

incorrect diagnoses, and chronic effects 

are difficult to identify and track. The 

demographics of the populations that 

typically work with or around 

pesticides also contribute to 

underreporting of incidents. There may 

not be enough information to determine 

if the adverse effects noted were in fact 

the result of pesticide exposure and not 

another contributing factor because 

many incident reports lack useful 

information such as the exact product 

that was the source of the exposure, the 

amount of pesticide involved, or the 

circumstances of the exposure. A more 

complete discussion of the 

underreporting and its effect on 

pesticide incident reporting is located in 

the Economic Analysis for this proposal 

(Ref. 3). 

The data available do provide a 

snapshot of the illnesses faced by those 

applying RUPs and others impacted by 

the application and the likely avenues 

of exposure. Review of these data 

sources shows that certified applicators 

continue to face avoidable occupational 

pesticide exposure and in some 

instances cause exposures to others. 

EPA notes that RUPs can be used safely 

when labeling directions for use are 

carefully followed. Deaths and illnesses 

from applicator errors involving RUPs 

occur for a variety of reasons, including 

misuse of pesticides in or around 

homes, faulty application and/or 

personal protective equipment, failure 

to confirm a living space is empty before 

fumigating, or unknowing persons 

accidentally ingesting an RUP that was 

improperly put in a beverage container. 

Common reasons for ecological 

incidents include failure to follow 

labeling directions, inattention to 

weather patterns at the time of 

application, and faulty application 

equipment (Ref. 12). Generally, reports 

on the data note that many of the 

incidents could be prevented with 

strengthened requirements for initial 

and ongoing applicator competency 

(certification and recertification), 

improved training for noncertified 

applicators working under the direction 

of a certified applicator, and knowledge 

of proper techniques for using specific 

methods to apply pesticides (Ref. 12). 

ii. Agricultural Health Study. The 

National Institutes of Health (National 

Cancer Institute and National Institute 

of Environmental Health Sciences) and 

EPA have sponsored the Agricultural 

Health Study since 1994. This longterm, prospective epidemiological study 

collects information from farmers who 

are certified applicators in Iowa and 

North Carolina to learn about the effects 

of environmental, occupational, dietary, 

and genetic factors on the health of the 

farmers, pesticide applicators, and their 

families. The study design involves 

gathering information over many years 

about the pesticide applicator and his or 

her family’s health, occupational 

practices, lifestyle, and diet through 

mailed questionnaires and individual 

interviews (Ref. 1). 

The Agricultural Health Study 

includes approximately 52,000 private 

applicators, 32,000 spouses of private 

applicators, and 5,000 commercial 

applicators. All applicators participating 

in the study are certified (or licensed) in 

every State in which they work and in 

each category in which they make 

applications. All participants were 

healthy before enrolling in the study, 

allowing the researchers to consider a 

number of variables such as pesticide 

use, lifestyle, and diet. 

The Agricultural Health Study is 

observational and considers a variety of 

factors including, but not limited to, 

pesticide use and exposure. Therefore, 

establishing a link between a specific 

health outcome and pesticide exposure 

can be difficult. However, it is possible 

to demonstrate statistical associations 

between a certain activity and an 

outcome. Using the information 

collected, the investigators working on 

the Agricultural Health Study have 

produced a number of articles relevant 

to the health and safety of pesticide 

applicators. See http://aghealth.nih.gov/ 

news/publications.html. For instance, 

publications include information on 

characteristics of farmers who 

experience high pesticide exposure 

events and potential links between 

pesticide use and chronic health effects. 

EPA considers the information from 

the Agricultural Health Study when 

appropriate, such as during a chemical 

reassessment. The data also provide 

information on applicator practices that 

lead to exposures, some of which EPA 

plans to address through the changes 

proposed in this rulemaking. 

III. Rationale and Objectives for This 

Action 

A. Reasons for the Proposed Action 

Broadly defined, a pesticide is any 

agent used to kill or control undesired 

insects, weeds, rodents, fungi, bacteria, 

or other organisms. Chemical pest 

control plays a major role in modern 

agriculture and has contributed to 

dramatic increases in crop yields for 

most field, fruit and vegetable crops. 

Additionally, pesticides ensure that the 

public is protected from health risks, 

such as West Nile Virus, Lyme disease, 

and the plague, and help manage 

invasive plants and organisms that pose 

significant harm to the environment. 

Pesticides are also used to ensure that 

housing and workplaces are free of 

pests, and to control microbial agents in 

health care settings. EPA’s obligation 

under FIFRA is to register only those 

pesticides that do not cause 

unreasonable adverse effects to human 

health or the environment. EPA is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51363 

committed to protecting against these 

potential harms and to ensure access to 

a safe and adequate food supply in the 

United States. 

FIFRA requires EPA to consider the 

benefits of pesticides as well as the 

potential risks. This consideration does 

not override EPA’s responsibility to 

protect human health and the 

environment; rather, where a pesticide’s 

use provides benefits, EPA must ensure 

that the product can be used without 

posing unreasonable adverse effects to 

human health or the environment. Some 

pesticides 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 

labeling—EPA classifies these products 

as restricted use. To ensure that the 

necessary measures are followed, EPA 

requires an additional level of 

precaution—these pesticides may be 

applied only by applicators who are 

certified or by noncertified applicators 

working under the direct supervision of 

a certified applicator. Certification 

serves to ensure competency of 

applicators to use these restricted 

products, and therefore to protect the 

applicator, persons working under the 

direct supervision of the applicator, the 

general public, and the environment 

through judicious and appropriate use 

of RUPs. 

Applicator certification enables the 

registration of pesticides that otherwise 

could not be registered, allowing the use 

of RUPs for pest management in 

agricultural production, building and 

other structural pest management, turf 

and landscape management, forestry, 

public health, aquatic systems, food 

processing, stored grain, and other 

areas. 

The certification regulation, which 

sets standards for applicators using 

RUPs, is 40 years old and has not been 

updated significantly since it was 

finalized. In conjunction with various 

non-regulatory programs, the 

certification regulation requirements are 

intended to reduce unreasonable 

adverse effects from application of RUPs 

to applicators, bystanders, the public, 

and the environment. The certification 

regulation provisions are meant to: 

• Ensure that certified applicators are 

and remain competent to use RUPs 

without unreasonable adverse effects. 

• Ensure that noncertified applicators 

receive adequate information and 

supervision to protect themselves and to 

ensure they use RUPs without posing 

unreasonable adverse effects. 

• Set standards for States, Tribes, 

territories, and Federal agencies to 

administer their own certification 

programs. 

• Protect human health and the 

environment from risks associated with 

use of RUPs. 

• Ensure the continued availability of 

RUPs used for public health and pest 

control purposes. 

Within these five areas, EPA 

evaluated the costs and benefits of 

alternative requirements and is 

proposing a set of requirements that, in 

combination, is expected to achieve 

substantial benefits at minimum cost. 

The certification regulation must be 

updated to ensure that the certification 

process adequately prepares and 

ensures the continued competency of 

applicators to use RUPs. Several factors 

prompted EPA to propose changes to 

the current rule: The changing nature of 

pesticide labeling, risks associated with 

specific methods for applying 

pesticides, adverse human health and 

ecological incidents, inadequate 

protections for noncertified applicators 

of RUPs, an uneven regulatory 

landscape, and outdated and obsolete 

provisions in the rule related to the 

administration of certification programs 

by Tribes and Federal agencies. 

1. The changing nature of pesticide 

labeling. As discussed above, EPA uses 

a rigorous process to register pesticides. 

EPA has also implemented the pesticide 

reregistration program and the 

registration review program to review 

registered pesticides periodically to 

ensure they continue to meet the 

necessary standard. As a result of these 

ongoing evaluations, labeling for 

pesticides changes with some frequency 

to incorporate risk mitigation measures 

that allow the pesticide to continue to 

be used safely. Changes address, among 

other topics, pesticide product 

formulation and packaging, application 

methods, types of personal protective 

equipment, and environmental 

concerns, such as the need to protect 

pollinators. In addition, EPA conducts 

risk assessments that result in more 

detailed risk mitigation measures, 

which can make the pesticide labeling 

more complex. For pesticides classified 

as RUPs, it is essential that applicators 

stay abreast of the changes to the 

labeling and understand the risk 

mitigation measures, because if the 

products are not used according to their 

labeling, they may cause harm to the 

applicator, the public or the 

environment. EPA’s registration 

decisions assume that the applicator 

follows all labeling instructions; when 

the labeling is followed, RUPs can be 

used safely. The current regulation 

requires that applicators demonstrate 

continued competency to use RUPs, but 

does not specify the length of the 

certification period or standards for 

recertification. The more frequently 

applicators receive training, the more 

likely they are retain the substance of 

the training and apply it on the job. 

Studies show that information retained 

from training sessions declines 

significantly within a year (Refs. 14 and 

15). EPA must ensure that certified 

applicators demonstrate and maintain 

an understanding of how to use RUPs in 

a manner that will not cause 

unreasonable adverse effects so that 

EPA can continue to register RUPs. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing changes to 

the regulation that would establish a 

certification period and standards for 

applicator recertification. 

2. Risks associated with specific 

application methods. RUPs are applied 

using a variety of application methods. 

Some methods of application may pose 

a higher risk to the applicator, 

bystander, and the environment if not 

performed correctly. Spray applications, 

particularly spraying pesticides from an 

aircraft, may result in off-target drift of 

the pesticide. For example, a recent 

study estimates that 37% to 68% of 

acute pesticide-related illnesses in 

agricultural workers are caused by spray 

drift, including both ground-based and 

aerial spray applications (Ref. 16). EPA 

also recognized risks associated with 

performing soil fumigation in the 2008 

REDs for soil fumigants (Ref. 17). As a 

result of these risks, EPA required 

additional training for soil fumigant 

applicators through labeling 

amendments on top of the existing 

requirement for the applicator to be 

certified. The decision also 

acknowledged that a specific 

certification category requiring 

demonstration of competency by 

passing a written exam related to 

applying fumigants to soil would be an 

acceptable alternative risk mitigation 

measure. EPA must ensure that 

applicators are competent to perform 

specific types of applications that may 

pose higher risks if not performed 

correctly. Therefore, EPA is proposing 

changes to the regulation to require 

applicators to demonstrate competency 

to apply RUPs using specific application 

methods. 

3. Adverse human health and 

ecological incidents. Much has changed 

over the last 40 years related to use of 

RUPs—pesticide product formulation 

and labeling, application methods, types 

of personal protective equipment, and 

environmental concerns, such as the 

need to protect pollinators. The 

regulation needs to be updated to 

address these and other changes 

affecting applicators of RUPs. In 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51364 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

addition to the hundreds of potentially 

avoidable acute health incidents related 

to RUP exposure reported each year 

(Ref. 5), several major incidents have 

occurred that demonstrate that a single 

or limited misapplication of an RUP can 

have widespread and serious effects. 

In one of the most significant cases 

from the mid-1990s, there was 

widespread misuse of the RUP methyl 

parathion, an insecticide used primarily 

on cotton and other outdoor agricultural 

crops, to control pests indoors. The 

improper use of this product by a 

limited 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 cleanup cost of millions of dollars (Refs. 18 

and 19). The incident resulted in one of 

the most significant and widespread 

pesticide exposure cases in EPA’s 

history. In another incident, an 

applicator using the RUP aluminum 

caused the death of 2 young girls and 

made the rest of the family ill (see, e.g., 

http://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/ut/

news/2011/bugman%20plea.pdf and 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/

criminal_prosecution/

index.cfm?action=3&prosecution_

summary_id=2249). Finally, several 

severe health incidents have resulted 

from the public getting access to RUPs 

that have been put into different 

containers, e.g., transferred to a soda 

bottle or a sandwich bag, that do not 

have the necessary labeling (Ref. 3). 

In addition to human health incidents 

from RUP exposure, there are instances 

where use of RUPs has had negative 

impacts on the environment. Although 

data on the damage associated 

ecological incidents are difficult to 

capture, EPA has identified a number of 

incidents of harm to fish and aquatic 

animals, birds, mammals, bees, and 

crops that could be prevented by the 

proposed changes to the certification 

rule (Ref. 3). See the economic 

assessment for this rule for more 

information on human health and 

ecological incidents stemming from 

RUP use (Ref. 3). 

In light of the incidents discussed 

above, EPA has determined to update 

the certification rule to ensure that 

RUPs can continue to be used without 

posing unreasonable adverse effects to 

human health or the environment. 

EPA’s decision to register products as 

restricted use rests in part on an 

assumption that applicators will follow 

all labeling instructions. When labeling 

instructions are followed, RUPs can be 

used safely. EPA expects the proposed 

rule to reduce human health and 

environmental incidents related to RUP 

use by strengthening the standards of 

competency for certified applicators, 

improving training for noncertified 

applicators, and establishing a 

maximum certification period and 

standards for recertification training. 

These changes would ensure that 

applicators and those under their 

supervision more carefully follow 

pesticide label instructions, take proper 

care to prevent harm, and generally 

have a higher level of competency. 

4. Inadequate protection for 

noncertified applicators of RUPs. 

Noncertified applicators using RUPs 

receive little instruction on how to 

protect themselves, their families, other 

persons and the environment from 

pesticide exposure. Although little 

demographic data exists on this group, 

in industries including but not limited 

to agriculture and ornamental plant 

production, the profile of the population 

appears to be similar to that of 

agricultural pesticide handlers under 

the WPS. Both groups are permitted to 

mix, load, and apply pesticides with 

proper guidance from their employer or 

supervisor. Agricultural handlers under 

the WPS only use pesticides in the 

production of agricultural commodities; 

noncertified applicators may use 

pesticides in any setting not prohibited 

by the labeling. In order to mix, load or 

apply RUPs, however, all noncertified 

persons, including agricultural 

handlers, must be working under the 

direct supervision of a certified 

applicator and are protected under the 

certification rule. These noncertified 

applicators must be competent to use 

RUPs in a manner that will not cause 

unreasonable adverse effects to 

themselves, the public, or the 

environment. The existing certification 

rule does not have specific standards on 

which noncertified applicators must 

receive instruction in order to prepare 

them to use RUPs. EPA identified six 

incidents from 2006 to 2010 where 

noncertified applicators experienced 

high severity health impacts from 

working with RUPs (Ref. 3). These 

adverse health effects were largely due 

to the noncertified applicators’ lack of 

understanding about the risks posed by 

the RUPs they were applying, proper 

application procedures and techniques, 

and labeling instructions. 

Under the WPS, agricultural handlers 

must receive training that covers, among 

other topics, hazards associated with 

pesticide use; format and meaning of 

pesticide labeling; and proper pesticide 

use, transportation, storage, and 

disposal. 40 CFR 170.230(c)(4). 

Agricultural handlers also must be 

provided a copy of the labeling and any 

other information necessary to make the 

application without causing 

unreasonable adverse effects. EPA is 

proposing additional content under the 

WPS for agricultural handler training 

that covers proper use and removal of 

PPE and specific information on fitting 

and wearing respirators to ensure 

agricultural handlers are protected 

adequately and understand how to 

follow all relevant labeling provisions 

(Ref. 4). 

Like agricultural handlers, some 

noncertified applicators may face 

challenges, such as not speaking or 

reading English. They may bear risks 

from occupational pesticide exposure 

because they work with and around 

pesticides on a daily basis, and language 

and literacy barriers may make effective 

training and hazard communication 

challenging. Under the principles of 

environmental justice, EPA recognizes 

the need to reduce the disproportionate 

burden or risk carried by this 

population. 

Noncertified applicators must receive 

adequate instruction on understanding 

and following pesticide labeling to 

ensure that RUPs are used in a manner 

that will not cause unreasonable adverse 

effects to human health or the 

environment. Additionally, noncertified 

applicators must have sufficient 

information in order to protect 

themselves, others, and the environment 

before, during, and after pesticide 

applications. Because of the similar 

risks faced by agricultural handlers 

under the WPS and noncertified 

applicators under the certification rule, 

EPA proposes to strengthen the 

standards for noncertified applicators to 

include relevant provisions from the 

proposed agricultural handler training 

under the WPS and to ensure that the 

training is provided in a manner that the 

noncertified applicators understand, 

including through audiovisual materials 

or a translator if necessary. 

5. Uneven regulatory landscape. EPA 

assumes a minimum standard level of 

competency of RUP applicators as part 

of the pesticide registration and ongoing 

review processes, and registers RUPs 

based on the minimum standard of 

competency. States, however, may 

adopt additional requirements as long as 

they meet the minimum standards 

established by EPA. Two areas of the 

rule related to assessing applicator 

competency lack specificity sufficient to 

ensure the minimum level of 

competency: Standards for exams and 

private applicator competency 

standards. The lack of specificity in the 

rule has resulted in States adopting 

differing standards, some of which do 

not match EPA’s expectation regarding 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51365 

the minimum level of competency of a 

certified applicator. 

In 2007, EPA issued guidance on its 

interpretation of exams in the rule. The 

guidance notes that EPA interprets any 

exam administered to gauge applicator 

competency as being a proctored, 

closed-book, written exam. EPA has 

become aware, however, that not all 

State certification programs reflect this 

interpretation; several States have 

certification processes that allow openbook, written exams for determining 

applicator competency. EPA is 

concerned that open-book exams allow 

a lower standard for the process of 

determining and assuring competency 

than intended when EPA established 

the requirement for exams in the 

regulation. EPA proposes to codify the 

2007 guidance and to clarify its 

expectations regarding administration of 

certification exams and training 

programs to ensure that the process for 

determining competence meets a 

standard national baseline. 

The certification rule lists five points 

on which a person much demonstrate 

competency to become a private 

applicator. While these points cover the 

main topics that EPA expects an 

applicator to master before being 

certified to use RUPs, they do not cover 

in detail the necessary competencies for 

a person to use RUPs without causing 

unreasonable adverse effects. EPA must 

ensure that private applicators use RUPs 

competently. Commercial applicators 

must demonstrate competency in core 

pesticide use, such as reading and 

understanding the labeling, calculating 

application rates, wearing and caring for 

PPE, how to handle spills and other 

emergencies, and avoiding 

environmental contamination from 

pesticide use, as well as in specific 

categories of application. Private and 

commercial applicators have access to 

the same RUPs and EPA expects that 

they have the same level of competency. 

Almost 90% of States have adopted 

specific standards of competency for 

private applicators that are comparable 

to the core standards for commercial 

applicators. Those States that have not 

adopted such standards for private 

applicators may be certifying 

applicators who do not meet the level of 

competency that EPA believes is 

necessary to use RUPs. To address this 

problem, EPA proposes to make the 

standards of competency for private 

applicators more specific—the proposed 

standards include many concepts from 

the commercial core standards as well 

as competencies necessary to use RUPs 

in agricultural production. 

6. Outdated and obsolete rule 

provisions. The certification rule has 

one section regarding Tribal programs 

that is outdated and one section on 

government agency certification 

programs that is not necessary. The 

current rule provides three options for 

applicator certification programs in 

Indian country. Consultation with 

Tribes raised an issue with one of the 

current options because it calls for 

Tribes that chooses to utilize a State 

certification program and rely on State 

certifications to obtain concurrence 

from the relevant States and to enter 

into a documented State-Tribal 

cooperative agreement. This option has 

led to questions about jurisdiction and 

the appropriate exercise of enforcement 

authority for such programs in Indian 

country. EPA proposes to revise this 

option to allow Tribes to administer 

programs based on certifications issued 

by a State, a separate Tribe, or a Federal 

agency by entering into an agreement 

with the appropriate EPA Regional 

office. This would allow Tribes to enter 

into agreements with EPA to recognize 

the certification of applicators who hold 

a certificate issued under an EPAapproved certification plan without the 

need for State-Tribal cooperative 

agreements. The agreement between the 

Tribe and the EPA Regional office 

would address appropriate 

implementation and enforcement issues. 

The current rule includes a provision 

for a GAP, a certification program that 

would cover all Federal government 

employees using RUPs. No such plan 

was developed or implemented by EPA 

or any other Federal agency. 

Subsequently, EPA issued a policy that 

allows each Federal agency to submit its 

own plan to certify RUP applicators. 

Four Federal agencies have EPAapproved certification plans. To 

streamline the rule and codify the 

existing policy, EPA proposes to delete 

the current section on GAP and replace 

it with requirements from the existing 

policy on Federal agency certification 

plans. 

B. Regulatory Objectives 

Through this proposal EPA seeks to 

have those responsible for making 

pesticide use decisions and applying 

RUPs and those who benefit from the 

availability of these products to 

internalize the effects of their decisions. 

By strengthening certification standards, 

adding categories for application 

methods that present high risk of 

exposure, establishing recertification 

standards, and requiring specific 

training for noncertified applicators, 

EPA proposes to put the responsibility 

to ensure that RUPs are used in a 

manner to avoid unreasonable adverse 

effects on the parties who are most able 

to control the situation. This would 

minimize the externalities, undesirable 

or unintended consequences of 

decisions that result in negative 

consequences for other parties, in this 

case bystanders, the public, and the 

environment. 

EPA estimates the total annualized 

cost of the rule at $47.2 million (Ref. 3). 

States and other jurisdictions that 

administer certification programs would 

bear annualized costs of about $359,000, 

but States would incur most of these 

costs immediately after the rule is 

finalized to modify their programs to 

correspond with the proposed changes 

to the Federal regulation. The annual 

cost to private applicators would be 

about $19.5 million, or about $40 per 

year per private applicator. The 

estimated annual cost to commercial 

applicators would be $27.4 million, or 

about $66 per commercial applicator per 

year. Many of the firms in the affected 

sectors are small businesses, 

particularly in the agricultural sector. 

EPA concludes that there would not be 

a significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The impact to 

the average small farm is anticipated to 

be less than 1% of annual sales while 

the impacts to small commercial pest 

control services are expected to be 

around 0.1% of annual gross revenue. 

Given the modest increases in perapplicator costs, EPA also concludes 

that the proposed rule would not have 

a substantial effect on employment. 

The rule changes proposed by EPA 

would improve the pesticide applicator 

certification and training program 

substantially. Trained and competent 

applicators are more likely to apply 

pesticide products without causing 

unreasonable adverse effects and to use 

RUPs properly to achieve the intended 

results than applicators who are not 

adequately trained or properly certified. 

In addition to core pesticide safety and 

practical use concepts, certification and 

training assures that certified 

applicators possess critical information 

on a wide range of environmental issues 

such as endangered species, water 

quality, worker protection, and 

protecting non-target organisms, such as 

pollinators. Pesticide safety education 

helps applicators improve their abilities 

to avoid pesticide misuse, spills and 

harm to non-target organisms. 

The benefits of the proposed rule 

accrue to certified and noncertified 

applicators, the public, and the 

environment. EPA estimates the 

quantified value of the 638 to 762 acute 

illnesses from RUP exposure per year 

that could be prevented by the rule to 

be between $20.1 million and $20.5 

million per year (Ref. 3). However, EPA 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51366 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

recognizes that the estimate is biased 

downward by an unknown degree. First, 

pesticide incidents, like many illnesses 

and accidents, are underreported 

because sufferers may not seek medical 

care, cases may not be correctly 

diagnosed, and correctly diagnosed 

cases may not be filed to the central 

reporting database. Also, many 

symptoms of pesticide poisoning, such 

as fatigue, nausea, rash, dizziness, and 

diarrhea, may be confused with other 

illnesses and may not be reported as 

related to pesticide exposure. Studies 

estimate that underreporting of 

pesticide exposure ranges from 20% to 

75% (Refs. 9, 10 and 11). If only 25% 

of pesticide poisonings are reported, the 

quantified estimated benefits of the rule 

would be about $80.5 million annually 

(Ref. 3). 

EPA’s approach to estimating the 

quantitative benefits of the proposal 

only measures avoided medical costs 

and lost wages, not the willingness to 

pay to avoid possible symptoms due to 

pesticide exposure, which could be 

substantially higher. Many of the 

negative health impacts associated with 

agricultural pesticide application are 

borne by agricultural workers and 

handlers, a population that more acutely 

feels the impact of lost work time on 

their incomes and family health. An 

increase in the overall level of 

competency for certified applicators and 

noncertified applicators working under 

their direct supervision would also be 

beneficial to people who work, play, or 

live in areas treated with RUPs, such as 

agricultural workers, neighbors of 

agricultural fields, and consumers 

whose homes are treated. Undertrained 

and under qualified pesticide 

applicators may not be aware 

immediately of the potential impacts to 

their own health or the health of those 

who live or work around areas where 

RUPs are applied, and therefore may not 

independently adopt measures to 

increase the safety of themselves or 

others, necessitating intervention by the 

government to ensure these populations 

are adequately protected. 

It is reasonable to expect that the 

qualitative benefits of the rule are more 

substantial. Although EPA is not able to 

measure the full benefits that accrue 

from reducing chronic exposure to 

pesticides, well-documented 

associations between pesticide exposure 

and certain cancer and non-cancer 

chronic health effects exist in peerreviewed literature. See the economic 

assessment for this proposal for a 

discussion of the peer-reviewed 

literature (Ref. 3). The proposals for 

strengthened competency standards for 

private applicators, expanded training 

for noncertified applicators, additional 

application method-specific 

certification categories, a minimum age 

for all persons using RUPs, and 

appropriate certification options in 

Indian country would lead to an overall 

reduction in the number of human 

health incidents related to chronic 

pesticide exposure and environmental 

contamination from improper or 

misapplication of pesticides. Overall, 

the weight of evidence suggests that the 

proposed requirements would result in 

long-term health benefits to certified 

and noncertified applicators, as well as 

to bystanders and the public. 

It is reasonable to expect that the 

proposed rule would benefit the 

environment and the food supply. The 

proposed changes enhance private 

applicator competency standards to 

include information on protecting the 

environment during and after 

application, such as protecting 

pollinators and avoiding contamination 

of water supplies. The proposal to 

ensure that all applicators continue to 

demonstrate their competency to use 

RUPs without unreasonable adverse 

effect should better protect the public 

from RUP exposure when occupying 

treated buildings or outdoor spaces, 

consuming treated food products, and 

when near areas where RUPs have been 

applied. The economic assessment for 

this proposal includes a qualitative 

discussion of 68 incidents from 2009 

through 2013 where applicator errors 

while applying RUPs damaged crops or 

killed fish, bird, bees, or other animals 

(Ref. 3). The environment should also be 

better protected from misapplication, 

which can result in cleaner water and 

less impact on non-target plants and 

animals. 

In addition, the proposed changes to 

the certification regulation specifically 

mitigate risks to children. The proposal 

would implement a minimum age of 18 

for certified applicators and noncertified 

applicators working under their direct 

supervision. Since children’s bodies are 

still developing, they may be more 

susceptible to risks associated with RUP 

application and therefore would benefit 

from strengthened protections. In 

addition, research has shown that 

children may not have developed fully 

the capacity to make decisions and to 

weigh risks (Refs. 20, 21 and 22). Proper 

application of RUPs is essential to 

protect the safety of people who work, 

visit, or live in or near areas treated with 

RUPs, people who eat food that has 

been treated with RUPs, people and 

animals who depend on an 

uncontaminated water supply, as well 

as the safety of the applicator him or 

herself. Therefore, it is reasonable to 

expect that restricting certification to 

persons over 18 years old would better 

protect both the applicators and those 

who may be affected negatively by 

improper or misapplication. 

Children also suffer the effects of RUP 

exposure from residential applications 

and accidental ingestion. Accidental 

ingestion occurs when children get 

access to an RUP that has been 

improperly stored, e.g., transferred to an 

unmarked container or left accessible to 

the public (Ref. 12). The proposed 

changes improve training for 

noncertified applicators, strengthen 

competency standards for private 

applicators, and require all applicators 

to demonstrate continued competency 

to use RUPs. These changes would 

remind applicators about core 

principles of safe pesticide use and 

storage, reducing the likelihood that 

children would experience these types 

of RUP exposures. Thus, the proposed 

changes may reduce children’s exposure 

to RUPs and contamination caused by 

improper application of pesticides. 

In the almost 4 decades since 

implementing the certification 

regulation, EPA has learned from the 

Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee, 

Certification and Training Assessment 

Group (CTAG), National Assessment of 

the Pesticide Worker Safety Program, 

meetings with State regulators, and 

other stakeholder interaction, that the 

national applicator certification program 

needs improvements, some of which 

can only be accomplished through 

rulemaking. This proposal reflects 

EPA’s commitment to pay particular 

attention to the health of children and 

environmental justice concerns. 

C. Considerations for Improving the 

Certification of Applicators Rule 

1. Regulatory history. The Agency 

proposed the existing certification rule 

in 1974. EPA finalized sections covering 

applicator competency standards and 

noncertified applicator requirements (40 

CFR 171.1 through 171.6) in 1974 (Ref. 

23), followed by sections outlining State 

plan submission and review and 

certification in Indian country (40 CFR 

171.7 through 171.10) in 1975 (Ref. 24), 

and the requirements for EPAadministered plans (40 CFR 171.11) in 

1978 (Ref. 25). Since 1978, EPA has 

made minor amendments to the rule, 

such as requiring dealer recordkeeping 

and reporting under EPA-implemented 

plans and establishing standards for 

EPA-administered plans (Refs. 26 and 

27). 

In 1990, EPA proposed amendments 

to the certification regulation that 

included provisions for establishing 

private applicator categories, adding 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51367 

categories for commercial applicators, 

revising applicator competency 

standards, establishing criteria and 

levels of supervision for the use of a 

RUP by a noncertified applicator, 

criteria for approving State noncertified 

applicator training programs, 

establishing recertification requirements 

for private and commercial applicators, 

and eliminating the exemption for nonreader certification (Ref. 28). EPA took 

comments on the proposal but did not 

finalize it due to constraints on EPA’s 

resources. 

Because no major revision has been 

made to this Federal regulation in 

almost 40 years, State programs have 

taken the lead in revising and updating 

standards for certification and 

recertification. Many States updated 

their certification programs based on 

EPA’s 1990 proposal. Others have 

amended their programs to address 

changes in technology or other aspects 

of pesticide application. As a result, the 

State requirements for certification of 

applicators are highly varied and most 

States go beyond the existing Federal 

requirements for applicator certification. 

This situation has created an uneven 

regulatory landscape and problems in 

program consistency that complicate 

registration decisions, inhibit State-toState reciprocity (i.e., recognition of 

other State certifications as valid), and 

hinder EPA’s ability to develop national 

program materials that meet the needs 

of all States. 

2. Stakeholder Engagement. In 1985, 

a taskforce was formed by EPA and the 

State-FIFRA Issues Research and 

Evaluation Group (SFIREG) to review 

existing certification programs and 

policies to determine what, if any, 

actions should be taken to improve the 

certification program. The taskforce 

included representatives from EPA, 

USDA, State cooperative extension 

services, and State lead agencies for 

pesticide regulation. The taskforce 

issued the Report of the EPA/SFIREG 

Certification and Training Task Force in 

August 1985 (Ref. 29), which identified 

areas in need of improvement and made 

specific recommendations for 

improvement. The taskforce noted the 

growing complexity and technological 

advancements in pesticides and 

pesticide use practices, especially in the 

agricultural community. Further, the 

taskforce recognized proper pesticide 

use as a growing issue under broader 

environmental concerns, such as 

groundwater protection, endangered 

species protection, worker protection, 

chronic toxicity, pesticide disposal, and 

pesticide residues in the food supply 

(Ref. 29). The agricultural and 

commercial applicator communities 

were becoming aware of these issues 

and as a consequence sought increased 

and specialized training. Based on the 

identified issues and action in the 

applicator community, the taskforce 

suggested that EPA upgrade the 

competency requirements for private 

and commercial agricultural applicators. 

The taskforce’s recommendations 

included adding additional categories 

‘‘for certain use and application 

methods which require more stringent 

attention [such as] Compound 1080, 

certain fumigants, or aerial application’’ 

(Ref. 29). In addition, the taskforce 

recommended strengthening the 

training for noncertified applicators 

working under the direct supervision of 

a certified applicator and requiring 

commercial applicators to retain records 

of the training (Ref. 29). It suggested that 

EPA add dealer requirements for 

recordkeeping about sales of RUPs and 

make private applicator competency 

standards closer to the general 

commercial applicator competency 

standards. Lastly, the report discussed 

the need for a standard recertification 

period and ‘‘sufficient standardization 

of training and the process of 

certification renewal to facilitate 

interstate commerce’’ (Ref. 29). 

EPA proposed amendments to the 

certification regulation in 1990 (Ref. 28), 

based in part on the taskforce’s report 

(Ref. 29). However, the proposed rule 

was not finalized and the taskforce’s 

recommendations were not 

implemented at the Federal level. While 

many States adopted new regulations 

meeting or exceeding the proposed 

standards contained in the 1990 

proposal, other States chose to retain 

their standards until EPA revised the 

Federal certification regulation. Some 

States sought to avoid potential conflicts 

with Federal regulations that had not 

been finalized, while other States were 

bound by laws or regulations that 

prohibited the State’s standards from 

being more restrictive than Federal 

standards. 

In 1996, stakeholders from the Federal 

and State governments and cooperative 

extension programs formed CTAG to 

assess the current status of and provide 

direction for Federal and State pesticide 

applicator certification programs. 

CTAG’s mission is to develop and 

implement proposals to strengthen 

Federal, State and Tribal pesticide 

certification and training programs, with 

the goal of enhancing the knowledge 

and skills of pesticide users. Pesticide 

certification and training programs are 

run primarily by State government 

programs and cooperative extension 

service programs from State land grant 

universities, so these stakeholders 

provide valuable insight into the needs 

of the program. 

In 1999, CTAG issued a 

comprehensive report, Pesticide Safety 

in the 21st Century (Ref. 30), which 

recommended improvements for State 

and Federal pesticide applicator 

certification programs, including how to 

strengthen the certification regulation. 

The report suggests that EPA update the 

core training requirements for private 

and commercial applicators, establish a 

minimum age for applicator 

certification, set standards for a 

recertification or continuing education 

program, facilitate the ability of 

applicators certified in one State to 

work in another State without going 

through the whole certification process 

again, and strengthen protections for 

noncertified applicators working under 

the direct supervision of a certified 

applicator (Ref. 30). 

Around the same time as CTAG 

issued its report, EPA initiated the 

National Assessment of the Pesticide 

Worker Safety Program (the National 

Assessment), an evaluation of its 

pesticide worker safety program 

(pesticide applicator certification and 

agricultural worker protection) (Ref. 31). 

The National Assessment engaged a 

wide array of stakeholder groups in 

public forums to discuss among other 

things, the CTAG recommendations and 

other necessary improvements to EPA’s 

pesticide applicator certification 

program. In 2005, EPA issued the Report 

on the National Assessment of EPA’s 

Pesticide Worker Safety Program (Ref. 

32), which included many 

recommendations for rule revisions to 

improve the applicator certification 

program. The various individual 

opinions and suggestions made during 

the course of the assessment centered on 

a few broad improvement areas: The 

expansion and upgrade of applicator 

and worker competency and promotion 

of safer work practices, improved 

training of and communication with all 

pesticide workers, increased 

enforcement efforts and improved 

training of inspectors, training of health 

care providers and monitoring of 

pesticide incidents, and finally, program 

operation, efficiency and funding (Ref. 

32). Suggestions specific to certification 

of applicators included improving 

standards for noncertified applicators 

working under the direct supervision of 

certified applicators, establishing a 

minimum age for applicator 

certification, requiring all applicators to 

pass an exam to become certified, and 

facilitating reciprocity between States 

for certification of applicators (Ref. 32). 

While EPA addressed some of the 

recommendations through grants, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51368 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

program guidance, and other outreach, 

others could only be accomplished by 

rulemaking. 

During the initial stages of the framing 

of this proposal, EPA’s Federal advisory 

committee, the Pesticide Program 

Dialogue Committee (PPDC), formed a 

workgroup in 2006 to provide feedback 

to EPA on different areas for change to 

the certification regulation and the 

WPS. The workgroup had over 70 

members representing a wide range of 

stakeholders. EPA shared with the 

workgroup suggestions for regulatory 

change identified through the National 

Assessment and solicited comments. 

The workgroup convened for a series of 

meetings and conference calls to get 

more information on specific parts of 

the regulation and areas where EPA was 

considering change, and provided 

feedback to EPA. The workgroup 

focused on evaluating possible changes 

under consideration by EPA by 

providing feedback from each member’s 

or organization’s perspective. Comments 

from the PPDC workgroup members 

have been compiled into a single 

document and posted in the docket (Ref. 

33). 

EPA convened a Small Business 

Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel on 

potential revisions to the certification 

rule and the WPS in 2008. The SBAR 

Panel was convened under section 

609(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 609(b). As part of the 

SBAR Panel’s activities, EPA consulted 

with a group of Small Entity 

Representatives (SERs) from small 

businesses and organizations that could 

be affected by the potential revisions. 

EPA provided the SERs with 

information on potential revisions to 

both rules and requested feedback on 

the proposals under consideration. EPA 

asked the SERs to offer alternate 

solutions to the potential proposals 

presented to provide flexibility or to 

decrease economic impact for small 

entities while still accomplishing the 

goal of improved safety (Ref. 34). 

Specific to the certification rule, the 

SERs provided feedback on 

requirements for the minimum age of 

pesticide applicators and protections for 

noncertified applicators working under 

the direct supervision of a certified 

applicator. The SERs’ responses were 

compiled in an Appendix to the final 

Panel Report and posted in the docket 

(Ref. 34). EPA considered input from the 

SERs as part of the evaluation of 

available options for this rulemaking 

and SER feedback is discussed where 

relevant in this preamble. 

Consistent with EPA’s Indian Policy 

and Tribal Consultation Policy, EPA’s 

Office of Pesticide Programs conducted 

a consultation with Tribes. The 

consultation was carried out via a series 

of scheduled conference calls with 

Tribal representatives to inform them 

about potential regulatory changes, 

especially areas that could affect Tribes. 

EPA also informed the Tribal Pesticide 

Program Council (TPPC) about the 

potential changes to the regulation. 

In addition to formal stakeholder 

outreach, EPA held numerous 

individual stakeholder meetings as 

requested to discuss concerns and 

suggestions in detail. Stakeholders 

requesting meetings included the 

National Association of State 

Departments of Agriculture (NASDA), 

the American Association of Pesticide 

Safety Educators (AAPSE), the 

Association of American Pesticide 

Control Officials (AAPCO), the 

Association of Structural Pest Control 

Regulatory Officials (ASPCRO), Crop 

Life America, and others. 

3. Children’s health protection. 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) and modified by 

Executive Order 13296 (68 FR 19931, 

April 18, 2003) requires Federal 

agencies to identify and assess 

environmental health risks that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

Children who apply pesticides face risks 

of exposure. A 2003 study identified 

531 children under 18 years old with 

acute occupational pesticide-related 

illnesses over a 10-year period (Ref. 35). 

The same study raised concerns for 

chronic impacts: ‘‘because [the] acute 

illnesses affect young people at a time 

before they have reached full 

developmental maturation, there is also 

concern about unique and persistent 

chronic effects’’ (Ref. 35). Although the 

study is not limited to RUPs, its findings 

indicate the potential risk to children 

from working with and around 

pesticides. 

The Fair Labor Standard Act’s (FLSA) 

child labor provisions, which are 

administered by DOL, permit children 

to work at younger ages in agricultural 

employment than in non-agricultural 

employment. Children under 16 years 

old are prohibited from doing hazardous 

tasks in agriculture, including handling 

or applying acutely toxic pesticides. 29 

CFR 570.71(a)(9). DOL has established a 

general rule, applicable to most 

industries other than agriculture, that 

workers must be at least 18 years old to 

perform hazardous jobs. 29 CFR 

570.120. 

Research has shown differences in the 

decision making of adolescents and 

adults that leads to the conclusion that 

applicators that are children may take 

more risks than those who are adults. 

Behavioral scientists note that 

responsible decision making is more 

common in young adults than 

adolescents: ‘‘socially responsible 

decision making is significantly more 

common among young adults than 

among adolescents, but does not 

increase appreciably after age 19. 

Adolescents, on average, scored 

significantly worse than adults did, but 

individual differences in judgment 

within each adolescent age group were 

considerable. These findings call into 

question recent assertions, derived from 

studies of logical reasoning, that 

adolescents and adults are equally 

competent and that laws and social 

policies should treat them as such’’ (Ref. 

22). Decision-making skills and 

competence differ between adolescents 

and adults. While research has focused 

on decision making of juveniles in terms 

of legal culpability, the research 

suggests similar logic can be applied to 

decision making for pesticide 

application. 

In sum, children applying RUPs— 

products that require additional care 

when used to ensure they do not cause 

unreasonable adverse effects on people 

or the environment—may be at a 

potentially higher risk of pesticide 

exposure and illness. The elevated risk 

to the adolescent applicators, in 

addition to adolescents’ not fully 

developed decision-making abilities, 

warrant careful consideration of the best 

ways to protect them. It is reasonable to 

expect that the proposed changes would 

mitigate or eliminate many of the risks 

faced by adolescents covered by this 

rule. 

4. Retrospective regulatory review. On 

January 18, 2011, President Obama 

issued Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 

3821, January 21, 2011), to direct each 

Federal agency to develop a plan, 

consistent with law and its resources 

and regulatory priorities, under which 

the agency would periodically review 

its existing significant regulations to 

determine whether any such regulations 

should be modified, streamlined, 

expanded, or repealed so as to make the 

agency’s regulatory program more 

effective or less burdensome in 

achieving the regulatory objectives. The 

Executive Order also enumerates a 

number of principles and directives to 

guide agencies as they work to improve 

the Nation’s regulatory system. 

In developing its plan, EPA sought 

public input on the design of EPA’s plan 

for the periodic retrospective review of 

its regulations, and stakeholder 

suggestions for regulations that should 

be the first to undergo a retrospective 

review (76 FR 9988, February 23, 2011), 

and issued the final EPA plan, titled 

‘‘Improving Our Regulations: Final Plan 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51369 

for Periodic Retrospective Reviews of 

Existing Regulations,’’ in August 2011 

(http://www.epa.gov/regdarrt/

retrospective/documents/

eparetroreviewplan-aug2011.pdf). 

The existing certification rule was 

nominated for retrospective review as 

part of the public involvement process 

in 2011. In EPA’s final plan, EPA 

committed to review the existing 

certification rule to determine how to 

clarify requirements and modify 

potentially redundant or restrictive 

requirements, in keeping with Executive 

Order 13563. 

The results of EPA’s review, which 

included identified opportunities for 

improving the existing regulation, were 

incorporated into this rulemaking effort. 

Based on extensive interactions with 

stakeholders during review of the 

certification regulation, EPA has 

identified the potential for harmonized 

minimum requirements to enhance 

State-to-State reciprocity of applicator 

certifications, which could reduce the 

burden on the regulated community by 

promoting better coordination among 

the State, Federal, and Tribal 

partnerships; clarifying requirements; 

and modifying potentially redundant or 

restrictive regulation. EPA expects the 

proposed rule, if finalized, to achieve 

the benefits outlined throughout the 

preamble. For a summary of the 

benefits, see the table in Unit I.E. and 

the discussion of regulatory objectives 

in Unit III.B. 

IV. Summary of Rationale and 

Introduction to Specific Revisions to 

Part 171 

Units II. and III. describe the 

stakeholder engagement and reports 

highlighting the need to update the 

certification regulation. In addition to 

stakeholder recommendations, EPA 

believes the rule needs to be updated to 

address State variability and to support 

EPA registration decisions. Each of 

these reasons for updating the rule are 

discussed in this unit. 

As noted in Unit III., EPA has not 

updated the certification regulation 

substantially in almost 40 years. 

However, many States have adopted 

updated standards for certification and 

recertification. As a result, State 

requirements for certification of 

applicators are highly varied; most 

States go beyond the existing Federal 

requirements for applicator certification. 

This has created an uneven regulatory 

landscape between States and inhibits 

recognition of an applicator certification 

issued in one State by another State. 

If certification does not represent a 

uniform degree of competence, this 

diversity also compromises EPA’s 

ability to determine confidently that use 

of a pesticide product by certified 

applicators will not cause unreasonable 

adverse effects. In order to retain or 

expand the number and types of 

pesticides available to benefit 

agriculture, public health, and other 

pest control needs, EPA plans to raise 

the Federal standards for applicator 

competency. By adopting the proposed 

strengthened and additional 

competency standards, the rule would 

provide assurance that certified 

applicators and noncertified applicators 

under their direct supervision are 

competent to use RUPs in a manner that 

will not cause unreasonable adverse 

effects. In the absence of such 

assurance, EPA may have to seek label 

amendments imposing other use 

limitations that could be more 

burdensome to users. 

Units VI. to XX. describe the most 

significant of the proposed changes and 

alternative options considered by EPA. 

Each discussion is generally structured 

to provide, where appropriate: 

• A concise statement of the proposed 

change. 

• The current requirements of the 

certification regulation. 

• Stakeholder feedback and research 

supporting the proposed change. 

• A detailed description of the 

proposed change and the rationale for 

the change. 

• An estimated cost. 

• A description of primary 

alternatives considered by EPA and the 

reason for not proposing them. 

• Specific questions on which EPA 

seeks feedback. 

V. Public Comments 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When preparing and submitting 

comments, see the commenting tips at 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets/

comments.html. 

VI. Revise Private Applicator 

Certification Standards 

A. Enhance Private Applicator 

Competency Standards 

1. EPA’s proposal. Because private 

applicators have access to and can apply 

the same RUPs as commercial 

applicators and therefore need to have 

similar knowledge and skills to apply 

pesticides safely and effectively, EPA 

proposes to amend the private 

applicator competency standards to 

include more specific information on 

pesticide application and safe use. 

2. Existing regulation. The current 

rule has 5 topics under the competency 

standards for private applicators: 

• Recognize common pests to be 

controlled and damage caused by them. 

• Read and understand the label and 

labeling information. 

• Apply pesticides in accordance 

with label instructions and warnings. 

• Recognize local environmental 

situations that must be considered 

during application to avoid 

contamination. 

• Recognize poisoning symptoms and 

procedures to follow in case of a 

pesticide accident. 40 CFR 171.5(a)(1) 

through (5). 

These topics are listed without 

specific detail or clarification of the 

areas to be covered under each point. In 

contrast, the core standards of 

competency for commercial certification 

have nine major areas of focus with 

more specific sub-points listed under 

each. 40 CFR 171.4(b)(1). 

3. Stakeholder information. Starting 

in 1985, EPA received requests from 

stakeholders to increase the level of 

detail and subject matter outlined in the 

competency standards for private 

applicators. SFIREG’s taskforce report 

calls for EPA to make private applicator 

competency standards parallel to those 

of commercial applicators (Ref. 29). 

CTAG recommended that all applicators 

with access to RUPs meet a similar 

competency standard (Ref. 30). 

Members of the PPDC workgroup also 

noted that since commercial and private 

applicators have access to the same 

products, they should meet similar 

competency standards (Ref. 33). Almost 

90% of States noted that their private 

applicator certification standards are 

comparable to the core standards for 

commercial applicators (Ref. 5). 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

Based on the importance of 

understanding and following the 

pesticide’s labeling in managing risks to 

the applicator, the public, and the 

environment, EPA is proposing to 

enhance the competency standards for 

private applicators to more specifically 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51370 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

define the necessary knowledge and 

skills to be demonstrated by private 

applicators to become certified. More 

specific competency standards would 

better outline the knowledge and skills 

EPA expects private applicators to have 

in order to apply RUPs effectively and 

without unreasonable adverse effects. 

The enhanced private applicator 

competency standards would cover: 

Label and labeling comprehension; 

safety; environment; pests; pesticides; 

equipment; application methods; laws 

and regulations; responsibilities for 

supervisors of noncertified applicators; 

stewardship; and agricultural pest 

control. EPA is proposing a set of 

competency standards substantially 

parallel to the core standards for 

commercial applicators in the current 

rule at 40 CFR 171.4(a) and proposed as 

40 CFR 171.105(a), with the addition of 

some points from the agricultural plant 

category and information particularly 

relevant to private applicators, such as 

the WPS. The proposed competency 

standards specifically cover protecting 

pollinators under the ‘‘environment’’ 

heading. In addition to the differences 

in the proposed general competency 

standards for private and commercial 

applicators, EPA proposes to maintain 

the distinction between private and 

commercial applicator competency 

standards required by FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 

136i(e), by not requiring private 

applicators to obtain a specific category 

certification in addition to the proposed 

general certification. For commercial 

applicators to become certified, they 

must pass the core and at least one 

category exam. 

It is reasonable to expect that the 

more detailed competency standards 

would contribute to improving the 

overall competency of private 

applicators. 

The proposed regulatory text would 

be located at 40 CFR 171.105(a). 

5. Costs/benefits. EPA estimated the 

cost of the proposed enhancements to 

private applicator competency 

standards in conjunction with the 

requirement to strengthen private 

applicator certification requirements. 

The cost for these combined proposals 

is presented in Unit VI.B.5. 

6. Alternative options. EPA 

considered adopting the core standards 

for commercial applicators in the 

current rule at 40 CFR 171.4(a) for 

private applicator competency 

standards. Private and commercial 

applicators have the same access to 

RUPs and need knowledge of basic 

safety and application techniques 

related to the use of these products. 

However, FIFRA requires that EPA 

establish separate standards for 

commercial and private applicators, 

thereby prohibiting EPA from using the 

same core competency standards for 

commercial and private applicators. 7 

U.S.C. 136i(e). In addition, because 

private applicators are engaged only in 

the production of agricultural 

commodities, it is necessary for them to 

demonstrate specific competency 

related to this type of RUP use rather 

than the broader range of commercial 

applicator competencies. 

7. Request for comment. EPA seeks 

comment on the following: 

• Should EPA consider adding points 

to or deleting points from the proposed 

private applicator competency 

standards? If so, what points and why? 

• Are the competencies necessary to 

protect pollinators adequately covered 

in the proposed competency standards 

for private applicators? If not, please 

explain why and provide alternatives to 

ensure that private applicators are 

competent to use RUPs in a manner that 

protects pollinators. 

B. Strengthen Private Applicator 

Certification Requirements 

1. EPA’s proposal. In order to address 

the need for private applicators to be 

competent to use RUPs, EPA proposes 

to require that persons seeking 

certification as private applicators 

complete a training program approved 

by the certifying authority that covers 

the standards of competency for private 

applicators or pass a written exam 

administered by the certifying authority. 

2. Existing regulation. The 

certification regulation requires States to 

ensure that private applicators are 

competent and the certification process 

use a written or oral exam, or other 

method approved as part of the State 

certification plan. 40 CFR 171.5(b). The 

rule does not have a description of a 

certification system that is not a written 

or oral testing procedure. 

3. Stakeholder information. SFIREG, 

the PPDC workgroup, and CTAG have 

recommended that private applicators 

be required to take and pass a written 

exam to become certified to use RUPs 

(Refs. 29, 33 and 36). Based on data 

from State certification plans, 42 States 

require private applicators to pass a 

written exam to become certified, and 

another 3 States offer the option to 

certify by passing a written exam 

(Ref. 5). 

Stakeholders recognize the provision 

in FIFRA that prohibits EPA from 

requiring private applicators to take an 

exam to establish competency, 7 U.S.C. 

136i(a)(1), and have suggested that EPA 

set a minimum training requirement for 

those States that do not require private 

applicators to take an exam. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

To implement the enhanced 

competency standards for private 

applicators, EPA proposes to require 

that private applicators complete a 

training program approved by the 

certifying authority, or in the 

alternative, by passing a written exam. 

In either case, the certification process 

must cover the private applicator core 

standards described in Unit VI.A., and 

meet the procedural standards described 

in Unit IX. By allowing private 

applicators to be certified by either 

attending a training program or taking 

an exam, EPA’s action does not conflict 

with the FIFRA’s prohibition against 

EPA requiring private applicators of 

RUPs take an exam to establish 

competency. 7 U.S.C. 136i(a)(1). 

Forty-two States already require 

private applicators to pass a written 

exam for certification, so EPA is 

proposing standard procedures for such 

examinations. Those States without a 

written exam requirement generally 

require some form of training, though 

the length, quality, and content of the 

training vary considerably between 

States, so EPA is proposing specific 

content requirements. It is reasonable to 

expect that the risks associated with 

private applicators’ use of RUPs can be 

reduced through setting more specific 

minimum requirements for the content 

of and mechanisms to assess private 

applicator competency. This proposal 

acknowledges the need for more specific 

requirements for the alternate 

mechanism for private applicator 

certification and balances it with the 

recognition that certifying authorities 

are well-suited to develop training 

programs that cover the content EPA has 

deemed necessary to avoid 

unreasonable adverse effects from the 

use of RUPs by private applicators and 

meet the needs of the private applicators 

in their jurisdictions. 

The proposed regulatory text would 

be located at 40 CFR 171.105(e). 

5. Costs. EPA estimates this proposal 

would cost about $3.7 million annually 

for private applicators (Ref. 3). EPA also 

estimates that those States that do not 

currently require an exam or training 

that last approximately 12 hours for 

private applicator certification would 

incur costs of about $16,000 per year for 

the first two years after implementation 

to develop the programs, as well as 

$61,000 per year thereafter for ongoing 

program administration (Ref. 3). EPA 

plans to support the development of 

exams and manuals for private 

applicator certification, which should 

reduce the costs to States. 

6. Alternative options considered but 

not proposed. While maintaining the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51371 

same enhanced competency standards 

discussed in Unit VI.A., EPA considered 

alternative options of allowing private 

applicator certification by completing a 

training program of a specific length— 

either 4, 8, or 16 hours—that covers the 

content outlined in Unit VI.A. In 

developing the EPA-administered 

certification plan for Indian country, 

EPA developed a non-exam certification 

option for private applicators. Because 

of the difficulty of reaching candidates 

in various parts of the country and the 

need to make the training available 

throughout the year, the Federal Indian 

country training program is a prerecorded, narrated PowerPoint 

presented through the Internet that runs 

12 hours (Ref. 37). The training covers 

much of the content proposed in Unit 

VI.A., as well as specific requirements 

for pesticide applicators in Indian 

country. However, EPA decided not to 

propose a specific length for private 

applicator certification by training. EPA 

believes that specifying that private 

applicator non-exam certification must 

be accomplished through training and 

outlining the content that must be 

covered in the training would allow 

States and private applicator 

educators—who understand the content, 

the audience, and how to convey the 

content to the audience—to develop 

training programs that cover the content 

EPA deems necessary and meet the 

needs of their audiences. For example, 

narrated PowerPoint presentations and 

webinars may take a longer amount of 

time to cover the specified topics than 

an in-person training. Additionally, a 

mandatory training length could 

encourage some training providers to 

either rush through or draw out 

coverage of the content, thereby 

diminishing the effectiveness of the 

training. It is not clear that specifying 

the length of the training would better 

protect human health or the 

environment. 

7. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following: 

• Please provide any relevant 

information on the efficacy of private 

applicator certification training 

programs or comparisons between 

training and testing programs. 

• Please comment on the proposed 

structure of the non-exam option for 

private applicator certification. 

• Would a different training 

requirement adequately convey the 

necessary information to private 

applicators? If so, please describe the 

alternate requirement. 

• Is it necessary for EPA to specify a 

minimum length of time for the training 

program for private applicator 

certification? If so, please provide the 

minimum length of the training program 

and explain its basis. 

C. Eliminate Non-Reader Certification 

for Private Applicators 

1. EPA’s proposal. Due to the 

importance of an applicator’s ability to 

read, understand, and follow the 

labeling in order to apply pesticides in 

a manner that would not cause 

unreasonable adverse effects to people 

or the environment, EPA proposes to 

delete the provision of the rule that 

allows a non-reader to become a 

certified private applicator. 

2. Existing regulation. The existing 

rule contains a provision for limited 

certification of private applicators who 

cannot read by offering the option to 

obtain a product-specific certification. 

40 CFR 171.5(b)(1). This provision 

allows States to use a testing procedure 

approved by the Administrator to assess 

the competence of the non-reader 

candidate related to the use and 

handling of each individual pesticide 

for which certification is sought. This 

generally means that someone has 

explained the labeling to the non-reader 

and the non-reader answers questions 

on the same labeling asked by the State 

regulator. The person seeking 

certification is not required to 

demonstrate the ability to read and 

understand pesticide labeling. 

As discussed earlier, FIFRA prohibits 

EPA from requiring private applicators 

to pass an exam to establish 

competency. 7 U.S.C. 136i(a)(1). 

3. Stakeholder information 

considered by EPA. CTAG 

recommended that EPA establish a 

requirement for persons seeking 

certification to be able to read and 

understand English language pesticide 

labeling. Most PPDC workgroup 

members did not oppose elimination of 

the non-reader certification provision 

(Ref. 33). One State noted that there are 

small populations who either cannot 

read English-language labeling or who 

could not pass an exam, but who could 

use a single product without causing 

unreasonable adverse effects. It is EPA’s 

understanding that 22 states have rules 

in place that make accommodations for 

persons who have difficulty reading and 

who want to become certified as a 

private applicator. These states are 

Alaska, Arizona, California, Delaware, 

Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, 

Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, 

Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, 

New Jersey, New York, Vermont, 

Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Of 

these states, 6 have rules in place that 

make accommodations under the 

Americans with Disabilities Act for 

persons who have documented 

disabilities. States are not required to 

track private applicators certified under 

the limited certification provision 

separately from other private applicator 

certification methods. However, EPA 

requested anecdotal information from 

the states on the use of this limited 

certification provision and most states 

responding said that the provision was 

never or rarely used. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA proposes to eliminate the current 

provision that allows States to offer 

limited certification to persons who 

cannot read the pesticide labeling. A 

key element of applicator competency is 

the ability to read the labeling because 

understanding the labeling is critical to 

preventing unreasonable adverse effects 

from the use of RUPs. Labeling is 

increasingly relied upon to transmit 

product-specific information relative to 

subjects such as worker protection, 

groundwater, endangered species, and 

human exposure. In addition, labeling 

may change frequently. Approved uses, 

application rates, and application 

methods may be deleted or added by a 

registrant voluntarily or as part of an 

EPA risk mitigation strategy. The 

potential for misuse of RUPs presents an 

unreasonable risk unless the applicator 

is able to read and correctly interpret 

the labeling that accompanies each 

product he or she uses. While the 

current system is intended to ensure the 

applicator has knowledge of a specific 

product’s labeling, there is no way to 

ensure the applicator would be aware of 

subsequent changes. It is reasonable to 

expect that by eliminating the specific 

certification method for applicators who 

cannot read, RUPs are more likely to be 

applied as required by their labeling, 

and therefore will be less likely to cause 

unreasonable adverse effects to people 

or the environment. 

EPA recognizes that persons can be 

certified as private applicators by 

attending a training course. In this case, 

EPA expects that the certifying body 

would ensure that the applicator 

demonstrated all of the necessary 

competencies to apply RUPs, including 

the ability to read. 

The proposed change does not affect 

noncertified persons applying RUPs 

under the direct supervision of a 

certified applicator. It is conceivable 

that persons who cannot read labeling 

could use RUPs properly while working 

under the direct supervision of a 

certified applicator. EPA is proposing to 

strengthen the training and other 

requirements related to noncertified 

applicators to ensure that they 

understand the labeling requirements 

for each application, are supervised by 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51372 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

a qualified applicator familiar with the 

specific product labeling for each 

application, and have equipment 

available to contact the supervising 

applicator immediately in the event of 

an emergency or with any questions. 

These strengthened standards should 

provide sufficient training that a nonreader or a person who cannot read 

English could apply RUPs under the 

direct supervision of a certified 

applicator without causing 

unreasonable adverse effects to the 

applicator, the public, or the 

environment. 

5. Costs. EPA expects the cost of this 

proposal would be negligible, but has 

not quantified the cost (Ref. 3). Based on 

EPA’s understanding, the limited 

certification option is only offered in 22 

States, and in those states it is very 

rarely, if ever, used. EPA did not 

quantify the baseline cost to States for 

maintaining the existing provision or 

the potential reduction in 

administrative burden to States from 

eliminating it. EPA anticipates that the 

minimal costs would be borne by 

persons who could not qualify as 

private applicators absent a limited 

certification provision. These persons 

would have several options. First they 

could hire a person on the farm who can 

be certified as a private applicator to 

conduct RUP applications. Second, they 

could contract with a commercial 

applicator to conduct RUP applications. 

Third, they could substitute non-RUPs 

for the RUPs. EPA is sensitive to the fact 

that elimination of this provision may 

increase costs for a very small number 

of private applicators, but it is 

reasonable to expect that this adverse 

impact would be small in comparison to 

the potential reduction in risks to the 

applicator, the public, and the 

environment. EPA does not expect any 

impact on the employability of private 

applicators because by definition, a 

private applicator cannot receive 

compensation for applying RUPs on the 

property of another. 

If the proposal is finalized, EPA 

would allow existing non-reader 

certifications to remain valid until 

expiration or recertification is required 

under the implementation of the final 

rule. Because most non-reader 

certifications are issued for a specific 

application in a single growing season, 

EPA anticipates that non-reader 

certification would not continue for any 

significant period of time if this 

proposal is finalized. 

6. Alternative options considered but 

not proposed. EPA also considered 

retaining the limited certification option 

for private applicator certification and 

strengthening the requirements. For this 

alternative scenario, the limited 

certification would be valid for a single 

product and for a single season. The 

State would have to evaluate each 

request for a limited certification 

separately. This option would codify 

what EPA understands to be the current 

practice in States that allow non-reader 

certification. Under this option, a 

person could be certified to use a single 

product based on a specific product’s 

labeling, but might not be aware of 

subsequent changes to the labeling of 

the same product purchased later in the 

season. Given the importance of 

avoiding unreasonable adverse effects 

from the use of RUPs and the limited 

use of this certification option, EPA 

decided not to propose this option. 

7. Request for comment. EPA requests 

comment on the following questions: 

• Would the elimination of the nonreader provision cause hardship to 

specific groups of private applicators? If 

so, please describe the group and the 

hardship. 

• Should EPA allow private 

applicators currently certified under 

this provision to retain their 

certification if the non-reader provision 

is eliminated? Please explain why. If so, 

how would ‘‘grandfathering in’’ private 

applicators certified under this 

provision impact other proposed 

changes, such as requirements for 

maintaining certification and 

supervising noncertified applicators? 

• Do alternatives to the non-reader 

certification option exist that would 

offer an adequate level of protection 

while maintaining a narrow exception 

to certification requirements? If so, 

please describe. 

VII. Establish Application MethodSpecific Certification Categories for 

Private and Commercial Applicators 

1. Overview. In order to address the 

elevated risks associated with certain 

specific methods of application used by 

certified private and commercial 

applicators to apply RUPs, EPA 

proposes to add application methodspecific certification categories for 

private and commercial applicators that 

use RUPs to conduct soil fumigation, 

non-soil fumigation, and aerial 

applications. These application methodspecific categories would be 

independent of the pest control 

categories in the existing rule, for 

example, a person certified in the aerial 

method category would also need 

certification in one or more pest control 

categories, such as crop pest control, 

forest pest control, or public health pest 

control. 

2. Existing regulation. The existing 

rule has no categories for private 

applicators. For commercial applicators, 

the existing rule does not have any 

application method-specific categories, 

although it does have 11 pest control 

categories: Agricultural pest control— 

plant; agricultural pest control—animal; 

forest pest control; ornamental and turf 

pest control; seed treatment; aquatic 

pest control; right-of-way pest control; 

industrial, institutional, structural and 

health related pest control; public 

health pest control; regulatory pest 

control; and demonstration and research 

pest control. 40 CFR 171.3. 

3. Stakeholder information 

considered by EPA. Stakeholders, 

including SFIREG, CTAG, AAPCO, and 

members of the PPDC workgroup, 

recommended that EPA consider adding 

application method-specific 

certification categories for high-risk uses 

(Refs. 29 and 30). States have noted that 

certain application methods, 

specifically fumigation and aerial 

application, pose elevated risks of 

exposure or harm to the applicator, 

bystanders, or the environment. 

Some States have addressed these 

elevated risks related to these 

application methods by adding specific 

categories for both private and 

commercial applicators seeking to use 

certain application methods. States that 

have chosen to add categories have done 

so independently, resulting in different 

standards and levels of protection across 

the country. EPA reviewed the 

categories related to application 

methods adopted by the States and 

other stakeholders. According to data 

from 2013, 32 States (Alaska, California, 

Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, 

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 

South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, 

Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming) require 

commercial applicators to be certified 

for aerial application and 1 State 

(Wisconsin) requires the same for 

private applicators. For soil fumigation, 

16 States (California, Connecticut, 

Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, 

Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North 

Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, 

Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin) 

require commercial applicators to obtain 

a specific certification and 10 States 

(Hawaii, Idaho, Minnesota, Nevada, 

North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 

Washington, Wisconsin, Virginia) have 

a similar requirement for private 

applicators. Finally, for non-soil 

fumigation, 41 States (Alabama, 

Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, 

Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51373 

Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, 

Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, 

Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, 

New York, North Carolina, North 

Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South 

Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, 

Virginia, Washington State, West 

Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming) mandate 

that commercial applicators be certified 

in this specific category to conduct nonsoil fumigation applications and 8 

States (Arizona, Iowa, Minnesota, 

Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, Utah) have a similar 

requirement for private applicators. 

The 2008 REDs for soil fumigants 

acknowledged the elevated risks (Ref. 

17). As a result of these risks, EPA 

required additional training for soil 

fumigant applicators through labeling 

amendments. The decision also 

acknowledged that a specific 

certification category requiring 

demonstration of competency by 

passing a written exam related to 

applying fumigants to soil would be an 

acceptable alternative risk mitigation 

measure. Several States have opted to 

require applicators to be certified in a 

specific soil fumigation category. As 

chemicals are reviewed as part of the 

ongoing registration review program, 

risks associated with individual 

pesticides may be addressed through 

labeling requirements for additional 

training or competency. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

The Agency proposes to establish three 

application method-specific 

certification categories for private and 

commercial applicators: Soil 

fumigation, non-soil fumigation, and 

aerial. Based on the discussions with 

States and review of existing Stateadopted categories, EPA proposes these 

categories because EPA has concluded 

that these categories of use for RUPs 

may cause unreasonable adverse effects 

without additional regulation. These 

types of RUP application require 

specialized skills and present unique 

risks, such that it is reasonable and 

appropriate for private and commercial 

applicators to acquire or demonstrate 

the pertinent knowledge and skills 

before being certified to apply RUPs in 

any of these three categories. For 

commercial applicators, certification in 

any of the application method-specific 

categories would only be available to 

persons certified in a relevant pest 

control category as described in 

proposed 40 CFR 171.101(a). Private 

applicators would need to satisfy the 

general competency standards described 

in Unit VI in order to qualify for 

additional certification in an application 

method-specific category. 

Pesticide application and agriculture 

both are becoming increasingly 

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, including fumigants, pose an 

inherently higher risk of acute injury or 

death if the applicator does not 

understand and follow the labeling. 

These increased risks can be mitigated 

by requiring applicators to demonstrate 

a more specific set of competencies 

relative to certain application methods. 

Soil fumigation is a complicated 

process, and involves highly toxic 

pesticide products that can cause acute, 

severe injury to the applicator, handler, 

bystanders, or the environment if not 

used properly. Given the increased 

potential for harm to human health and 

the environment, EPA proposes to 

establish soil fumigation categories for 

private and commercial applicators. 

Under the re-registration decisions for 

the soil fumigants (Refs. 38, 39, 40 and 

41), additional soil fumigation-specific 

training is required for applicators 

certified to use RUPs registered for use 

as soil fumigants due to their increased 

potential for harm. Because there was 

no generally applicable requirement or 

standard of competence for soil 

fumigation, EPA required each 

registrant to develop and implement a 

soil fumigant training program. In 

discussing this approach with States, 

EPA recognized that an applicator 

certification category specific to soil 

fumigation with a single, uniform set of 

criteria would be less burdensome than 

requiring separate, registrant-sponsored 

trainings for each soil fumigation 

product. States have requested that EPA 

consider requiring all applicators using 

soil fumigants to be certified in a single, 

soil fumigation category in lieu of each 

product’s labeling requirement for 

registrant-sponsored training (Ref. 42). 

The labeling for soil fumigants provides 

the option for applicators to qualify to 

purchase and use these products either 

by attending the registrant training 

specified on the labeling for each 

specific chemical or by being certified 

in a soil fumigation category that covers 

all active ingredients and meets the 

competency standards approved by 

EPA. Recognizing the potential risks 

from soil fumigants and the importance 

of applicator competency, EPA worked 

with State regulators, cooperative 

extension personnel, soil fumigant 

applicators, and industry to develop a 

training manual and exam item bank 

(database of questions related to soil 

fumigation that can be used on a 

certification exam) that States can use 

for certification of applicators 

performing soil fumigation (Refs. 43 and 

44). 

Under the proposal, commercial 

applicator certification in the soil 

fumigation category would require the 

applicator to demonstrate competency 

in soil fumigation by passing a written 

exam and to hold concurrent 

certification in each of the pest control 

categories in which he or she intends to 

conduct this type of application, e.g., 

agricultural pest control—plant; 

ornamental and turf pest control; forest 

pest control; right-of-way pest control; 

regulatory pest control; or 

demonstration and research. Private 

applicator certification in soil 

fumigation would require the applicator 

to demonstrate competency by passing a 

written exam or completing a training 

program covering the proposed 

competency standards for soil 

fumigation (proposed at 40 CFR 

171.105(c)(1)) in addition to holding a 

valid general private applicator 

certification. 

Other (non-soil) types of fumigation 

require different techniques and training 

than soil fumigation, but have similar 

potential to harm the applicator, the 

environment, and the public. For 

example, although fumigation of a 

shipping container requires different 

application equipment, monitoring 

strategy, and mitigation of 

environmental concerns than soil 

fumigation, both types of fumigation can 

cause acute, severe injury to the 

applicator, handler, bystanders, or the 

environment if not conducted properly. 

Given the high potential for harm to 

human health and the environment, 

EPA proposes to add non-soil 

fumigation application method-specific 

certification categories for private and 

commercial applicators. Commercial 

applicator certification in the non-soil 

fumigation category would require the 

applicator to demonstrate competency 

in non-soil fumigation by passing a 

written exam and to hold concurrent 

certification in each of the pest control 

categories in which he or she intends to 

conduct this type of application, e.g., 

agricultural pest control—plant; forest 

pest control; ornamental and turf pest 

control; seed treatment; aquatic pest 

control; industrial, institutional, 

structural, and health-related pest 

control; public health pest control; 

regulatory pest control; or 

demonstration and research. Private 

applicator certification in non-soil 

fumigation would require the applicator 

to demonstrate competency by passing a 

written exam or completing a training 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51374 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

program covering the proposed 

competency standards for non-soil 

fumigation (proposed at 40 CFR 

171.105(c)(2)) in addition to holding a 

valid general private applicator 

certification. 

Applying pesticides with a plane or 

helicopter poses a unique set of risks 

and challenges to the applicator, 

bystanders, and the environment. There 

is heightened concern for spray drift, 

elevated potential for off-target 

applications and bystander exposure, 

and an increased need for application 

equipment to be calibrated accurately. 

Aerial applicators are required to 

comply not only with EPA regulations 

for the application of pesticides, but 

also Federal Aviation Administration 

requirements for pilots making 

applications using an aircraft at 14 CFR 

part 137. Recognizing the potential risks 

and the importance of applicator 

competency when performing aerial 

applications, EPA worked with State 

regulators, cooperative extension 

personnel, aerial applicators, and 

industry to develop a training manual 

and exam item bank that States can use 

for certification of aerial applicators 

(Ref. 45). The unique challenges posed 

by this application method warrant 

establishing aerial application categories 

for private and commercial applicators. 

Accordingly, in order for a commercial 

applicator to make aerial applications of 

RUPs, the commercial applicator would 

be required to demonstrate competency 

in aerial application by passing a 

written exam and to hold concurrent 

certification in each of the pest control 

categories in which he or she intends to 

conduct aerial application, e.g., 

agricultural pest control—plant; 

ornamental and turf pest control; forest 

pest control; aquatic pest control; rightof-way pest control; public health pest 

control; demonstration and research; or 

regulatory pest control. Private 

applicator certification in aerial 

application would require the applicator 

to demonstrate competency by passing a 

written exam or completing a training 

program covering the proposed 

competency standards for aerial 

application (proposed at 40 CFR 

171.105(c)(3)) in addition to holding a 

valid general private applicator 

certification. 

Requirements for general private 

applicator certification in each of the 

aforementioned application methodspecific categories would parallel the 

certification requirements proposed in 

Unit VI.B. Private applicators would be 

required to either pass a written exam 

or complete a training program for each 

application method-specific category 

that covers the proposed competency 

standards and is approved by the 

certifying authority. A person who does 

not have a general private applicator 

certification would not be eligible for 

certification in any of the application 

method-specific categories. These 

additional categories of certification 

would provide a measure of assurance 

that the private applicator has the 

specialized knowledge of application 

methods, equipment, and the 

characteristics of the pesticides 

pertinent to a specific category to use 

the pesticide without generally causing 

unreasonable adverse effects. 

The regulatory text for the proposed 

commercial applicator application 

method-specific categories would be 

located at 40 CFR 171.101(b). The 

regulatory text for the proposed private 

applicator application method-specific 

categories would be located at 40 CFR 

171.105(c). 

5. Costs. The cost estimates are broken 

out by each category for private and 

commercial applicators (Ref. 3). As 

discussed in Unit VI.B., EPA plans to 

support the development of exams and 

manuals for the proposed applicationmethod specific categories, which 

should reduce the overall burden to 

States associated with this proposal. 

EPA has already developed and made 

available to State certification agencies 

free of charge training manuals and 

exam item banks for the aerial and soil 

fumigation categories. States that elect 

to use the EPA-developed materials 

would incur minimal development 

costs; however, the costs below reflect 

the full estimated cost to States and do 

not include EPA assistance in 

developing exams and manuals. EPA 

expects the actual costs to States would 

be lower (Ref. 3). 

i. Private applicators. EPA estimates 

the cost of adding a private aerial 

category to be about $2,000 annually, 

which reflects the aggregate cost to all 

affected private aerial applicators (Ref. 

3). The low cost to applicators reflects 

the number of existing private 

applicators certified in aerial 

application and the low estimated 

number of new private applicators 

seeking aerial certification. The costs to 

States to develop and administer exams 

or training for certification would be 

about $108,000 annually for the first 2 

years of implementation (Ref. 3). Most 

of this cost would be borne within the 

first two years to develop the exams and 

recognizes that nationally developed 

materials will be available for States to 

adapt for their own programs. 

EPA estimates that adding a soil 

fumigation category for private 

applicators would not result in any 

additional cost to private applicators. 

The labeling for soil fumigation 

products already requires applicators to 

either participate in registrant training 

for each product or to be certified in a 

State soil fumigation category. 

EPA estimates that the cost of adding 

a non-soil fumigation category for 

private applicators to be about $78,000 

annually, which reflects the aggregate 

cost to all affected private applicators 

conducting non-soil fumigation (Ref. 3). 

The estimate represents the private 

applicators’ opportunity cost of time 

spent in training or preparing for and 

taking the certification exam. 

EPA estimates that the costs to States 

to develop and administer exams or 

training for certification in the soil and 

non-soil fumigation categories would be 

$197,000 annually for the first 2 years 

of implementation. 

ii. Commercial applicators. EPA 

estimates the cost of adding an aerial 

category for commercial applicators to 

be about $98,000 annually, which 

reflects the aggregate cost to all affected 

commercial aerial applicators (Ref. 3). 

The low cost to applicators reflects the 

number of States that already require 

commercial applicators to obtain a 

specific certification to perform aerial 

application and the relatively low 

number of applicators that seek 

certification in an aerial category each 

year. The cost to States to develop a 

certification exam for this category 

would be about $39,000 annually for the 

first 2 years after implementation (Ref. 

3). 

EPA estimates that adding a soil 

fumigation category for commercial 

applicators would not result in any 

additional cost to commercial 

applicators (Ref. 3). The labeling for soil 

fumigation products already requires 

applicators to either participate in 

registrant training for each product or to 

be certified in a State soil fumigation 

category. 

EPA estimates the cost of adding a 

non-soil fumigation category for 

commercial applicators to be about 

$131,000 annually, which reflects the 

cost to all affected commercial 

applicators conducting non-soil 

fumigation (Ref. 3). Many States already 

require commercial applicators to be 

certified in either general fumigation, 

soil fumigation, or another type of 

fumigation. However, the cost to add 

this category is higher than for other 

commercial applicator categories 

proposed because most States do not 

already have categories for both soil and 

non-soil fumigation. 

The costs to States to develop non-soil 

fumigation certification exams would be 

about $30,000 per year for the first 2 

years following implementation (Ref. 3). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51375 

6. Alternative options considered by 

EPA but not proposed. The Agency 

considered six alternatives to the 

proposed requirement. 

i. Specify a certain number of training 

hours for private applicator certification 

in these categories. EPA considered 

requiring private applicators to 

complete a specific number of hours of 

training (either 4 or 8 hours) or to pass 

an exam in order to become certified in 

an application method-specific category. 

As discussed above in Unit VI.B., it is 

not clear that a mandatory minimum 

length for private applicator 

certification training programs would 

not ensure specific competency. 

ii. Continue to rely on label-specific 

risk mitigation to address elevated risks 

associated with certain application 

methods. EPA considered relying on 

imposing risk mitigation measures 

through labeling, limiting the use of 

high risk products or higher risk 

application methods. This approach 

would be implemented on a case-bycase basis and not directly linked to 

pesticide applicator certification 

programs. The Agency learned that 

applicators, States, and cooperative 

extension service programs did not 

support this approach and faced 

significant burdens when this approach 

was used to regulate soil fumigants 

(Refs. 46, 47, 48 and 49). Based on the 

adverse reaction and impact to States, as 

well as the need to promote applicator 

competency and national consistency, 

EPA decided not to propose this option. 

It is reasonable to expect that adding 

categories at the Federal level to cover 

many types of pesticides applied by 

specific mechanisms would be more 

efficient than imposing similar but not 

identical requirements on each pesticide 

label. 

iii. Consolidate soil fumigation and 

non-soil fumigation into a single 

fumigation category. To reduce the 

burden on State certification authorities 

and applicators who perform both types 

of fumigation applications, EPA 

considered proposing a single general 

fumigation concurrent category instead 

of separate soil and non-soil fumigation 

concurrent categories. The knowledge 

and skills necessary to perform soil 

fumigation and non-soil fumigation 

differ substantially. In addition, there 

are significant differences in risks to the 

applicator and environmental concerns 

between the two methods for applying 

fumigants. The reregistration decisions 

on the soil fumigants highlighted the 

specific use conditions and risk 

mitigation measures necessary to apply 

soil fumigants without unreasonable 

adverse effects, not necessary 

restrictions for applications of all 

fumigants. Combining these related 

categories may reduce the burden on 

certifying agencies and on some 

applicators; however, applicators who 

perform only soil fumigation or only 

non-soil fumigation would receive less 

instruction specific to their particular 

application method and more 

instruction than they wish on a method 

for which they may have no use. In 

order to ensure that applicators have a 

level of competency in the applicable 

application method proportional to the 

potential risk, EPA decided not to 

propose a general fumigation category. 

iv. Add application method-specific 

standards as subcategories under the 

existing commercial applicator 

categories. EPA considered adding the 

categories discussed in this Unit as 

subcategories under the applicable 

existing commercial applicator pest 

control categories. For example, a 

person seeking to perform aerial 

application to agricultural fields and 

forests, and for mosquito control would 

have to take an aerial exam specific to 

each of these categories. This would 

require creating subcategories under 

almost every pest control category. An 

applicator would have to be certified 

not only in each relevant pest control 

category, but also in a subcategory 

under each in order to use a specific 

application method. Application 

method-specific certification 

requirements as proposed are expected 

to impose a lower burden on applicators 

seeking certification, e.g., one aerial 

method-specific certification exam 

rather than separate aerial subcategory 

exams under agricultural plant, forest, 

and aquatic pest control. The 

competency necessary to employ a 

specific application method, i.e., soil 

fumigation, non-soil fumigation, or 

aerial pest control, does not appear to 

vary substantially based on where the 

application occurs. For example, an 

applicator performing soil fumigation 

needs to know the same techniques and 

safety measures whether doing it in for 

a field crop or for ornamental pest 

control. Therefore, EPA decided not to 

propose the application method-specific 

certification as subcategories under the 

commercial applicator pest control 

categories. 

v. Add an application methodspecific category for chemigation. 

Chemigation, i.e., application of 

pesticides through irrigation systems, 

has a higher potential for environmental 

contamination if not conducted 

properly and poses additional risks to 

the applicator or those working under 

the applicator’s direct supervision due 

to the nature of the equipment. 

Chemigation can contaminate ground 

and drinking water that flow directly 

into a water supply, if uncalibrated 

equipment causes application over the 

rate specified on the labeling, or 

improperly maintained equipment leaks 

treated water from the chemigation 

system. Applicators need to be 

knowledgeable about the equipment 

specific to chemigation necessary to 

prevent contamination of groundwater, 

including but not limited to antibackflow devices, injection pumps, 

storage tanks, safety valves, antipollution devices, and calibration 

devices. In addition, applicators should 

be knowledgeable about the risks, 

benefits, and necessary precautions 

associated with chemigation in order to 

protect themselves before, during, and 

after the application. EPA considered 

adding an application method-specific 

category to perform chemigation; 

however, very few States have added a 

specific category for this application 

method and very few incidents 

involving this application method have 

been reported to EPA. Absent more 

persuasive evidence that chemigation is 

causing adverse effects that could be 

mitigated through a demonstration of 

competency by applicators who use this 

application method, EPA is not 

proposing this as an application 

method-specific category at this time. 

vi. Add a ‘‘limited use’’ category. EPA 

considered adding a category for 

commercial applicators who would be 

certified for limited uses of specific RUP 

pesticides or in niche application 

scenarios. For example, some States 

require applicators to be certified to 

perform sewer line root control, wood 

treatment, biocide use in hydraulic 

fracturing (commonly called 

‘‘fracking’’), or use of horse sterilization 

products. These types of applications 

require use of a single product or very 

limited set of products and specific 

application techniques. Frequently, the 

industry in which these applications are 

made (e.g., fracking) provides training to 

applicators on proper use of the 

product(s) and other specific 

information related to use in the specific 

situation. However, applicators often 

have to be certified by taking the core 

exam, a category exam (e.g., industrial, 

institutional, structural, and healthrelated pest control), and an additional 

exam for the limited use subcategory 

(e.g., sewer line root control), although 

they will only be performing specific 

applications and using a few products. 

This places a substantial burden on 

applicators to demonstrate competency 

related to types of applications they will 

not perform. It also places a burden on 

States to maintain an infrastructure to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51376 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

address the needs of niche applicator 

populations. 

Some States have developed and 

updated exams and training programs in 

these limited use categories that have 

fewer than 10 certified applicators. 

Other States handle limited use 

applicators differently. They require 

commercial applicators to pass the core 

exam, demonstrating competency in 

basic environmental safety; reading, 

understanding, and following pesticide 

labeling; calculating application rates; 

and other general application 

techniques. The State relies on the 

industry to provide the necessary 

training related to the limited use. The 

State clearly marks on the applicator’s 

certification credential that the 

applicator is only certified for the 

purchase and use of a limited subset of 

products, not all RUPs. States that 

follow the second approach described 

above note they are confident that 

applicators are prepared to conduct 

applications in a manner that will 

protect themselves, the public, and the 

environment. 

EPA considered adding a ‘‘limited 

use’’ category for commercial 

applicators that would allow States and 

applicators to reduce the burden 

associated with maintaining 

certification categories for few 

applicators performing specific 

applications. Commercial applicators 

must demonstrate competency in core 

and for the specific category in which 

they intend to use RUPs. To address the 

need for category-specific certification 

for applicators performing ‘‘limited use’’ 

applications of RUPs, EPA considered 

three options, other than a categoryspecific exam. First, the applicator 

could be required to comply with 

industry-provided training or 

certification requirements as specified 

on the product labeling. This is similar 

to the requirements for people who treat 

water using chlorine gas—the labeling 

requires the applicator to use the 

product in accordance with a manual 

from The Chlorine Institute that details 

proper use of the product and safety 

procedures. Second, the applicator 

could be required to hold applicable 

State or Federal professional credentials 

in addition to passing the core exam. 

For example, a plumber performing 

sewer line root control who uses a 

specific RUP as part of his services 

could be required to pass the core exam 

and to hold a State-issued plumbing 

license to demonstrate his competency 

to use the specific RUP safely in the 

limited circumstance. Third, the 

applicator could demonstrate 

competency as required by a specific 

product’s labeling. For example, the 

labeling for sodium fluoroacetate 

(Compound 1080 used in livestock 

protection collars) details specific 

competency standards that the 

applicator must meet to use the product; 

certifying authorities that allow use of 

this product must develop a specific 

certification category that covers the 

labeling-based requirements. 

A commercial applicator seeking 

certification in a limited use category 

would be required to demonstrate 

competency by passing the core exam 

and satisfying one of the categoryspecific methods described in this Unit. 

The applicator’s certification would be 

limited only to the specific uses related 

to his certification. EPA would require 

that the certifying authority ensure that 

any certification documentation, e.g., a 

license, clearly note the limited set of 

RUPs available for purchase and use by 

an applicator certified in a limited use 

category. 

EPA is actively seeking additional 

information from States, applicators, 

and industry on the value of a limited 

use category and will consider any 

public comments received in deciding 

whether to include this type of category 

in the final rule. 

7. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Would the proposed categories 

adequately establish competency for the 

specified application methods? 

• Should EPA consider adding or 

deleting any of the proposed private 

applicator application method-specific 

certification categories? If so, which 

category(ies) and why? 

• Please provide feedback on the 

proposed competency standards for 

private applicators in each of the 

application method-specific categories. 

Do the proposed standards contain 

sufficient detail? Are there any elements 

of these types of application that are not 

covered adequately? 

• Should EPA consider adding or 

deleting any of the proposed 

commercial applicator application 

method-specific certification categories? 

If so, which category(ies) and why? 

• Should EPA require that 

commercial applicators be certified in 

one or more pest control categories in 

order to be certified in one of the 

application method-specific 

certification categories? If so, please 

specify which other categories should 

be considered prerequisites for each 

application method-specific 

certification (in addition to those 

proposed) and explain why. 

• Should EPA add an application 

method-specific certification category 

for chemigation? If so, why? Please 

provide any data about chemigation that 

would support the addition of a 

chemigation certification category. 

• Should EPA consider adding any 

categories (not application methodspecific) for commercial applicators? If 

so, which category(ies) and why? 

• Please provide feedback on adding 

a ‘‘limited use’’ category for commercial 

applicators. Would the proposed 

options for category-specific 

demonstrations of competency for 

limited use certification minimize 

burden on applicators and State 

certification authorities while ensuring 

that RUPs are applied in a manner that 

would not cause unreasonable adverse 

effects on human health or the 

environment? Are there other options 

for offering a limited use certification 

for certain RUPs that EPA has not 

considered? If so, please describe. 

• Please provide any relevant 

information on how the regulation 

could best balance flexibility and 

uniformity of the certification categories 

used in different jurisdictions. 

• Are the competencies necessary to 

treat bee hives adequately covered in 

the agricultural pest control—animal 

category? If not, please explain why this 

category does not ensure that 

applicators are competent to use RUPs 

to treat bee hives and provide 

alternatives to ensure that applicators 

are competent to use RUPs in this 

manner. 

• What were the impacts of EPA’s 

decision to make soil fumigants 

restricted use on state certification 

programs and on the number of certified 

applicators? Would states expect a 

similar impact if the proposed 

application method-specific categories 

are included in the final rule? 

• For entities that have already 

developed certification requirements for 

persons using soil fumigants, please 

provide a description of the costs 

incurred. 

VIII. Establish Predator Control 

Categories for Commercial and Private 

Applicator Certification 

1. Overview. In order to address the 

specific risks and competency 

requirements associated with the use of 

predator control products and to 

formalize the existing labeling-based 

requirements for specific certification to 

use these products, EPA proposes to add 

categories for both private and 

commercial applicators to use two 

mammalian predator control methods: 

Sodium fluoroacetate (Compound 1080 

used in livestock protection collars) and 

sodium cyanide in an M–44 device. 

2. Existing regulation. The existing 

regulation does not have categories for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51377 

the use of sodium fluoroacetate in 

livestock protection collars or sodium 

cyanide in an M–44 device. Registration 

decisions for these products have 

established specific competency 

standards and require applicators to be 

competent in how to use the products 

properly (Refs. 50 and 51). 

3. Stakeholder information 

considered by EPA. Sodium 

fluoroacetate is a highly acutely toxic 

predacide used to control coyotes that 

prey on sheep and goats. Currently 

registered end-use products are injected 

into the rubber reservoirs of livestock 

protection collars (LPC). These collars 

are strapped to the throats of sheep or 

goats. Coyotes attempting to attack 

livestock wearing LPCs are likely to 

puncture the LPCs and be fatally 

poisoned by sodium fluoroacetate as a 

result. Sodium fluoroacetate is highly 

toxic to humans and to non-target 

mammals. No antidote exists for sodium 

fluoroacetate. 

Sodium cyanide dispensed through 

an M–44 device is another highly toxic 

predacide that poses extreme risks to 

humans and non-target mammals. M–44 

is an ejector device used to dispense 

sodium cyanide as a single dose poison 

to control predators of livestock, 

poultry, or Federally-designated 

threatened or endangered species, or 

those that are vectors of communicable 

diseases. EPA has registered this 

product for use in pastures, range land, 

and forests, only by trained and certified 

applicators under the direct supervision 

of a government agency. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA proposes to establish predator 

control categories for commercial 

applicators and private applicators, 

codifying the current standards of 

competency outlined in the specific 

registration decisions for each of these 

pesticides. Based on the extreme risks 

posed by the use of sodium 

fluoroacetate in livestock protection 

collars and sodium cyanide dispensed 

through M–44 devices, EPA only grants 

registrations to State, Tribal, and 

Federal agencies. EPA’s existing 

registrations of these products prohibit 

their use except by applicators who 

meet certain criteria. Each registration 

decision outlines specific competencies 

the applicator must demonstrate and the 

process that must be used to certify 

applicators of these products. EPA is 

adding specific categories to the rule to 

codify the competency standards 

established by the products’ labeling 

and to facilitate the adoption of a 

certification category in areas where 

these products are used. 

The predator control categories for 

commercial applicators will be located 

at 40 CFR 171.101(a)(10) and the 

categories for private applicators will be 

located at 40 CFR 171.105(b). 

5. Costs. EPA estimates that this 

proposal will not impose any additional 

costs because the labeling requirements 

of sodium fluoroacetate and sodium 

cyanide predator control products 

already establish competency standards 

and require specific certification to use 

these products (Ref. 3). It is reasonable 

to expect that the costs associated with 

this proposal are de minimus because it 

merely codifies in the regulation the 

requirement already imposed through 

the products’ labeling. 

6. Request for comment. EPA requests 

comment on the proposed addition of 

pest control categories for certification 

to use sodium fluoroacetate in livestock 

protection collars and sodium cyanide 

dispensed through an M–44 device. 

IX. Establish Requirements To Ensure 

Security and Effectiveness of Exam and 

Training Administration 

1. Overview. In order to address 

concerns that administration of 

pesticide applicator exams and trainings 

currently affords opportunity for 

cheating or fraud, and to maintain the 

integrity of exams, EPA proposes to add 

requirements for those seeking 

certification or recertification to present 

identification at the time of the exam or 

training session. EPA also proposes to 

codify the existing policy that all 

certification exams be closed book and 

proctored (Ref. 52). 

2. Existing regulation. The rule 

establishes that commercial applicators 

must demonstrate competence by 

passing written exams, and as 

appropriate, through performance 

testing. 40 CFR 171.4(a). Private 

applicators may demonstrate 

competency through a written or oral 

exam, or other method established by 

the State and approved by EPA. 

171.5(b). The rule does not have 

requirements for verification of the 

identity of persons seeking certification 

or recertification or for exams to be 

proctored. 

3. Stakeholder information 

considered by EPA. States have varying 

requirements for exams because there 

are no minimum standards for exam 

development and administration. Some 

States place a priority on developing 

content-relevant exams and 

administering them in a secure manner, 

while other States allow candidates to 

bring notes and manuals into the exam 

which may undermine the competency 

determination process. EPA is aware of 

at least one situation in which a State 

offered a practice test in the study 

materials and administered exactly the 

same exam for certification. In cases 

where exam security is not 

implemented, the integrity of the entire 

certification process can be 

compromised. 

CTAG recognized the gap in security 

in the applicator certification program 

and developed the Exam 

Administration and Security Procedures 

Manual (Ref. 53). This document 

recommends practical ways for States to 

ensure the integrity of their applicator 

certification exams, including 

establishing chain of custody 

requirements, treating exam booklets 

and answer sheets as controlled 

documents, proctoring exams, 

implementing security requirements 

such as checking all booklets for 

missing pages before releasing exam 

candidates, and not allowing candidates 

to bring in or remove scratch paper from 

the exam room. States invest significant 

resources in developing and 

administering exams for applicator 

certification. A breach in security, such 

as a person taking an exam booklet from 

the test site or copying questions and 

answers on scratch paper and sharing 

them with others, compromises the 

exam’s integrity and could require the 

State to invest substantial resources to 

develop another exam. Many States 

have consulted CTAG’s document to 

incorporate elements of exam security 

into their certification programs. 

States have recognized the need to 

ensure that the candidate pursuing 

certification by exam or training or 

attending a recertification session is the 

person seeking or currently holding a 

certification. CTAG recommended that 

EPA require positive identification of 

candidates for pesticide certification 

exams before the exam is issued and 

before any credentials are issued, noting 

that the lack of such a requirement 

‘‘calls into question the integrity of the 

entire certification system and provides 

opportunity for abuse’’ (Ref. 54). CTAG 

suggests that States that do not currently 

ask for any form of identification before 

administering exams review their 

policies, regulations, and laws and 

consider adopting a mechanism to 

verify the identification of all 

individuals taking their exams. CTAG 

also recommended that States verify the 

identity of certified applicators 

attending recertification training 

sessions (Ref. 55). 

Based on an EPA review of State 

program data, 36 States require persons 

seeking commercial certification to 

present identification prior to taking the 

exam and 27 States have a similar 

requirement for private applicators 

seeking certification through an exam or 

training. Similarly, 22 States require 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51378 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

commercial applicators to present 

identification at recertification training 

sessions or exams, and 29 States require 

the same for private applicators (Ref. 3). 

Many States seem to recognize the 

importance of maintaining the integrity 

of the pesticide applicator certification 

and recertification programs, evidenced 

by the number of States that have 

adopted a requirement to verify the 

identity of candidates. 

States have raised the need for a 

standard definition of closed-book 

exams to ensure that certifying 

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. CTAG 

recommended that EPA require States 

using the EPA-developed exams to agree 

to administer them as closed-book 

exams, meaning the candidate cannot 

bring in any materials, e.g., study 

manuals, notebooks, or scrap paper. 

Any materials necessary, apart from 

non-memory calculators and writing 

utensils, e.g., scratch paper or reference 

pesticide labeling, would be provided 

by the proctor and collected at the end 

of the exam. CTAG believes this would 

help preserve the integrity of the exam 

process and give confidence that the 

security of EPA-developed exams is not 

compromised by varying administration 

standards across States. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

The Agency proposes to require that 

applicator certification exams for initial 

certification and recertification be 

closed book, proctored, and that the 

identity of each test taker be verified. 

The identity of the applicant must also 

be verified where the State or other 

agency certifies or recertifies applicators 

based on training rather than an exam. 

EPA considers these requirements 

essential elements of the certification 

process because exams and training 

programs are the means used to assure 

that those who are seeking to become 

certified have adequate training and 

experience to use RUPs without causing 

unreasonable adverse effects. It is also 

reasonable to expect that these security 

requirements would give States 

confidence that exams are administered 

consistently across the country in such 

a way to ensure their integrity. 

The Agency proposes to require that 

exams be ‘‘closed book,’’ that is, the test 

taker would not be allowed to use any 

materials, for example notes or study 

guides, other than the materials 

provided by the test administrator 

during the exam. EPA is proposing this 

requirement for two reasons. First, a 

closed-book exam provides a more 

reliable gauge of the individual test 

taker’s competency because the outcome 

depends more directly on the test taker’s 

personal knowledge and understanding 

than does an exam where the test-taker 

may refer to his or her own notes or 

other study aids. Second, limitations on 

outside materials reduce the likelihood 

of test takers copying questions and 

removing them from the exam room to 

share with subsequent test takers. 

Implementing closed-book exams is one 

step towards improving exam security 

and the competency of certified 

applicators. 

EPA proposes to require that proctors: 

• Verify the identity and age of 

persons taking the exam by checking 

identification as required under the 

proposed rule and have examinees sign 

an exam roster. 

• Monitor examinees throughout the 

exam period. 

• Instruct examinees in exam 

procedures before beginning the exam. 

• Keep exams secure before, during, 

and after the exam period. 

• Allow only examinees to access the 

exam and allow such access only in the 

presence of the proctor. 

• Ensure that examinees have no 

verbal or non-verbal communication 

with anyone other than the proctor 

during the exam period. 

• Ensure that no copies of the exam 

or any associated reference materials are 

made and/or retained by examinees. 

• Ensure that examinees do not have 

access to reference materials other than 

those that are approved by the certifying 

authority and provided by the proctor. 

• Review reference materials 

provided to examinees when the exam 

is complete, to ensure that no portion of 

the reference material has been removed 

or destroyed. 

• Report to the certifying authority 

any exam administration 

inconsistencies or irregularities, 

including but not limited to cheating, 

use of unauthorized materials, and 

attempts to copy or retain the exam. 

• Comply with any other instructions 

required by the certifying authority 

related to exam administration. 

EPA proposes to prohibit a proctor 

from seeking certification at any exam 

session that he or she is proctoring. 

Where applicator exams require use of 

resource materials (for example, 

requiring the candidate to identify pests 

based on depictions of plant damage, 

interpret specific labels, or demonstrate 

other skills or abilities beyond the core 

requirements), the proctor would 

provide the necessary materials (e.g., 

sample labeling, reference books) and 

collect them after the exam is 

completed. 

Finally, EPA proposes a requirement 

for States to ensure that test or training 

administrators verify the identity of 

persons seeking initial applicator 

certification and recertification. Many 

organizations and institutions require a 

person taking a test for possible 

employment to present valid, 

government-issued photo identification. 

It is important that pesticide applicator 

candidates are required to present valid 

photo identification when they sit for 

the exam, receive their credentials, and 

purchase RUPs. This requirement would 

help to ensure that the person who takes 

the exam is the same person who 

receives the certification, which could 

help prevent a candidate from sending 

a more qualified or prepared person to 

take the exam under his name, and to 

verify that the candidate meets the 

minimum age requirement. See Units 

XII. and XIII. Preventing abuse of the 

exam process is necessary to ensure the 

integrity of the exams and that certified 

applicator credentials are issued only to 

those who are qualified and certified as 

competent. Without such assurance, 

classification for restricted use offers an 

uncertain level of protection. 

If finalized, the requirements for 

initial certification administration 

security would be located at 40 CFR 

171.103(a) for commercial applicators 

and at 40 CFR 171.105(e) for private 

applicators. The requirement for 

recertification administration security 

would be located at 40 CFR 171.107(b). 

5. Costs. Not all States or applicators 

would be expected to incur costs to 

implement the aforementioned 

proposals. For those that do, EPA 

expects the incremental costs to come 

into compliance would be minimal (Ref. 

3). Many States already check 

identification at initial certification 

events and already have proctors for 

some sessions. The aspects of a secure 

exam—written, closed-book, proctored, 

and requiring positive identification of 

the candidate—would provide the 

benefit of maintaining the credibility of 

the certification program, as well as to 

filter out unqualified candidates. 

6. Alternative options considered by 

EPA but not proposed. EPA considered 

imposing only a requirement to verify 

the identity of the initial certification 

and recertification candidates and not 

codifying the existing policy that 

requires exams to be proctored and 

closed book. A requirement to verify a 

certification or recertification 

candidate’s identity implemented 

independently of other exam security 

requirements could lead to a potential 

improvement because by verifying that 

the candidates are the same person 

seeking the certification, false 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51379 

attendance at training and exam 

sessions should decrease. It is also more 

likely that credentials would be issued 

to the same candidate that demonstrated 

competency. However, it is reasonable 

to expect that the additional burden of 

implementing closed-book, proctored 

exams would have substantial 

additional benefits by ensuring the 

security of the exams, reducing burden 

on certifying authorities to update 

exams after security breaches, and 

limiting instances where candidates 

taking an exam can cheat. It is 

reasonable to expect that the potential 

benefits of requiring proctored, closedbook exams are sufficient to justify the 

burden. 

7. Request for comment. EPA requests 

comments on the following: 

• Should EPA consider allowing an 

exception to the requirement for 

candidates to present a governmentissued photo identification? If so, under 

what circumstances? Please provide 

examples of how an exception could be 

implemented. 

• Should EPA consider any other 

requirements to improve the security 

and integrity of applicator certification 

and recertification exams? If so, please 

describe. 

X. Strengthen Standards for 

Noncertified Applicators Working 

Under the Direct Supervision of 

Certified Applicators 

A. Enhance Competence of Noncertified 

Applicators Working Under the Direct 

Supervision of a Certified Applicator 

1. Overview. To improve the 

protection of noncertified applicators 

and to reduce the chance for RUP 

applications to cause unreasonable 

adverse effects, EPA proposes to require 

that noncertified applicators working 

under the direct supervision of a 

certified applicator receive annual 

training that covers pesticide labeling, 

safety precautions, application 

equipment and techniques, 

environmental concerns, health effects 

of pesticide exposure, decontamination, 

emergency response, and protection of 

the applicator and the applicator’s 

family. The Agency also proposes 

exemptions to this training requirement 

for persons qualified as a trained 

handler under the WPS or who have 

passed the core exam covering general 

standards of competency for commercial 

applicators, and to require periodic 

retraining or retesting. 

2. Existing regulation. FIFRA section 

2(e)(4) provides that a noncertified 

applicator using an RUP must be 

competent and working under the 

direction of a certified applicator. The 

certified applicator must be available 

when needed but does not need to be 

present physically at the application.7 

U.S.C. 136(e)(4). The regulation 

establishes: General requirements for 

the certified applicator to demonstrate a 

practical knowledge of Federal and 

State supervisory requirements; that 

when the certified applicator will not be 

present during application, he or she 

must provide instruction to the 

noncertified applicator, including 

instructions for proper pesticide 

applications and how to contact the 

certified applicator if necessary; and 

that certain labeling-specific restrictions 

require the certified applicator to be 

physically present for the application. 

40 CFR 171.2(a)(28) and 171.6. 

3. Stakeholder information 

considered by EPA. The need to upgrade 

the requirements for the supervision of 

a noncertified applicator by the certified 

applicator was a major recommendation 

of the SFIREG 1985 Taskforce report 

(Ref. 29). The Taskforce concluded that 

the existing requirements at 40 CFR 

171.6 are general in nature and have 

resulted in some instances where 

supervision of the noncertified 

applicator is conducted from locations 

far removed from the application site. 

The issue has also been raised to EPA 

by the PPDC Worker Safety Workgroup 

and by States at the Pesticide Regulatory 

Education Program (PREP), which 

provides an avenue for information 

sharing between States and EPA about 

pesticide regulatory issues and 

programs (Ref. 33). While some States 

have imposed more stringent 

supervision requirements or eliminated 

the option for application of RUPs by 

noncertified applicators under the direct 

supervision of a certified applicator, 

other States’ standards are similar to the 

existing requirement at 40 CFR 171.6. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA proposes to enhance protections for 

noncertified applicators, i.e., those who 

use RUPs under the direct supervision 

of a certified applicator, and to ensure 

that RUPs are used in a manner that 

does not pose unreasonable adverse 

effects to the applicator, bystanders, or 

the environment by: Expanding the 

training content, offering alternatives to 

the training requirement, and requiring 

periodic retraining. 

i. Expanding training content. 

Noncertified applicators have a similar 

work profile to agricultural handlers 

under the WPS (40 CFR part 170); both 

are permitted to mix, load, and apply 

pesticides with proper guidance from 

their employer or supervisor. In order to 

mix, load or apply RUPs, however, all 

noncertified persons, including 

agricultural handlers, must be working 

under the direct supervision of a 

certified applicator. Agricultural 

handlers must receive training that 

covers self-protection; hazards 

associated with pesticide use; format 

and meaning of pesticide labeling; 

protection from take home exposure to 

family members; proper pesticide use, 

transportation, storage, and disposal; 

and protections required under the 

WPS. 40 CFR 170.230(c)(4). In addition, 

agricultural handlers must be provided 

a copy of the labeling and any other 

information necessary to make the 

application without causing 

unreasonable adverse effects. The 

existing part 171 regulation does not 

require that noncertified applicators 

receive similar training before applying 

RUPs under the direct supervision of a 

certified applicator. 

To foster a level of competency 

appropriate to the responsibilities of 

noncertified applicators who apply 

RUPs under the direct supervision of a 

certified applicator and comparable to 

the competency currently required of 

agricultural pesticide handlers, EPA 

proposes to add the following training 

requirements for noncertified 

applicators: 

a. Training on information, 

techniques, and equipment that 

noncertified applicators need to protect 

themselves, other people, and the 

environment before, during, and after 

making a pesticide application, 

including all of the following: 

• Format and meaning of information 

contained on pesticide labels and in 

labeling, including safety information, 

such as precautionary statements about 

human health hazards, and hazards of 

pesticides resulting from toxicity and 

exposure, including acute and chronic 

effects, delayed effects, and 

sensitization. 

• Routes by which pesticides can 

enter the body. 

• Signs and symptoms of common 

types of pesticide poisoning. 

• Emergency first aid for pesticide 

injuries or poisonings. 

• How to obtain emergency medical 

care. 

• Routine and emergency 

decontamination procedures. 

• Need for, and appropriate use of, 

personal protective equipment. 

• Prevention, recognition, and first 

aid treatment of heat-related illness 

associated with the use of personal 

protective equipment. 

• Safety requirements for handling, 

transporting, storing, and disposing of 

pesticides, including general procedures 

for spill cleanup. 

• Environmental concerns such as 

drift, runoff, and wildlife hazards. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51380 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

b. Training on all of the following 

elements, which noncertified 

applicators need to protect their families 

from pesticides: 

• Warnings against taking pesticides 

or pesticide containers home. 

• Washing and changing work clothes 

before physical contact with family. 

• Washing work clothes separately 

from the family’s clothes before wearing 

them again. 

• Heightened precautions required to 

protect children and pregnant women. 

c. Training on how to report 

suspected pesticide illness to the 

appropriate State agency. The proposed 

training requirements would promote 

the competence of noncertified 

applicators who apply RUPs under the 

direct supervision of a certified 

applicator by improving their 

understanding of pesticide labeling, 

application methods, self-protection, 

risk mitigation, and general pesticide 

safety principles. It is reasonable to 

expect that an understanding of this 

information, together with the specific 

instructions for each application from a 

certified applicator, would provide 

noncertified applicators with an 

adequate level of competency to use 

RUPs without causing unreasonable 

adverse effects, consistent with the 

FIFRA requirement that noncertified 

applicators be competent. 

ii. Offering alternatives to the training 

requirement. In addition to the training 

proposed in Unit X.A.4.i., EPA proposes 

to offer two alternative mechanisms for 

establishing the competency of 

noncertified applicators who apply 

RUPs under the direct supervision of a 

certified applicator: Demonstrating that 

the noncertified applicator has met the 

handler training requirements of the 

WPS (40 CFR 170.230 of the current 

WPS or 40 CFR 170.201(c) of the 

proposed revisions to the WPS) or 

passing the exam on core standards of 

competency for certified commercial 

applicators (currently 40 CFR 171.4(b)). 

As mentioned in this unit, 

noncertified applicators working on 

agricultural establishments and 

agricultural pesticide handlers have 

similar job responsibilities. The 

proposed training for noncertified 

applicators mirrors the proposed 

training for agricultural pesticide 

handlers, except it does not include 

specific requirements of the WPS. 

Including a provision in the rule to 

allow noncertified applicators to meet 

the training requirement by following 

the training outlined in this rule or that 

outlined in the WPS could reduce the 

burden on noncertified applicators, 

certified applicators, agricultural 

pesticide handlers, and agricultural 

employers by allowing them to provide 

substantially similar training to the 

same audience once, rather than twice, 

to comply with both regulations. EPA 

estimates that almost two-thirds of the 

noncertified applicators under the direct 

supervision of private applicators will 

receive WPS training but very few 

noncertified applicators under the direct 

supervision of commercial applicators 

would be covered by WPS training 

provisions. 

The second alternative mechanism, 

requiring noncertified applicators to 

pass a written exam covering the core 

standards of competency for commercial 

applicators, would also establish an 

adequate level of competency for 

noncertified applicators. The 

commercial applicator core competency 

standards outlined at 40 CFR 171.4(b) of 

the existing regulation cover label and 

labeling comprehension, proper 

application, potential environmental 

risks, characteristics of pesticides, 

application equipment and techniques, 

and laws and regulations. The content 

of these core competency standards 

encompasses the proposed noncertified 

applicator training content. In some 

situations, it may be easier or more 

convenient to allow a noncertified 

applicator to qualify by taking the core 

exam than to complete the noncertified 

applicator training. For example, a 

person who has taken and passed the 

core exam and failed the category exam, 

which generally has a lower pass rate, 

would not be certified as a commercial 

applicator but would have demonstrated 

sufficient competency to apply RUPs 

under the direct supervision of a 

certified applicator. Allowing such a 

person to qualify as a noncertified 

applicator based on passing the core 

exam rather than requiring that he or 

she undergo another training program 

would reduce the potential burden on 

noncertified applicators and their 

employers without sacrificing 

protection of the noncertified 

applicators, the public, or the 

environment. 

iii. Requiring periodic retraining. EPA 

proposes to implement a requirement to 

refresh the qualifications of noncertified 

applicators. Noncertified applicators 

who qualified through a training 

program, either as proposed under 

171.201(d) or as a handler under the 

WPS, would be required to undergo 

retraining annually. Noncertified 

applicators who recertify by passing the 

commercial applicator core exam would 

be required to requalify every 3 years. 

The proposed training requirement for 

noncertified applicators who would 

apply RUPs under the direct 

supervision of a certified applicator is 

comparable to the training required for 

agricultural pesticide handlers. EPA has 

proposed a requirement under the WPS 

for handlers to receive pesticide safety 

training annually. EPA will ensure that 

the final requirements for noncertified 

applicator training under the 

certification rule are consistent with the 

final requirements for WPS handler 

training where applicable. It is 

reasonable to expect that noncertified 

applicators must maintain an ongoing 

level of competency similar to that 

required of certified applicators. 

However, neither of the options to 

qualify by attending a training program 

requires passing a written exam or 

attending a training course covering the 

proposed enhanced competency 

standards for private applicators. 

Therefore, the proposed noncertified 

applicator training programs would not 

provide the same assurance of 

competency as the certification process 

for commercial and private applicators. 

For these reasons, it is reasonable to 

expect that noncertified applicators who 

qualify through training should receive 

training every year rather than every 3 

years as proposed for the recertification 

of certified private and commercial 

applicators. 

States require certified applicators to 

demonstrate continued competency 

through recertification programs; 

noncertified applicators who establish 

competency must also demonstrate that 

they maintain a level of competency to 

apply pesticides without unreasonable 

adverse effects. An annual training 

requirement would be consistent with 

the proposed training interval for 

agricultural handlers (Ref. 4), thereby 

decreasing the burden on agricultural 

employers to track two training 

timeframes. Additionally, studies have 

shown that training participants begin 

to forget the content of the training 

almost immediately, that often 90% or 

less of the training is remembered at 1 

year after training, and that knowledge 

from training on skills and decision 

making deteriorates more quickly than 

information from training on repetitive 

physical tasks (Ref. 14). Further, studies 

have demonstrated the effectiveness of 

periodic retraining on retention of the 

knowledge necessary to implement selfprotective measures (Ref. 15). 

Noncertified applicators who qualify 

through passing the core exam for 

commercial applicators would be 

required to requalify every 3 years. 

Passing the core exam provides an 

assurance of competency similar to that 

required of certified applicators. 

Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that 

noncertified applicators who pass the 

core exam would maintain their 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51381 

competency on the topics covered for a 

similar length of time as commercial 

applicators. EPA is proposing a 

requirement for all certified applicators 

to renew their credentials every 3 years. 

The regulatory text related to these 

proposals would be located at 40 CFR 

171.201(c) and (d). 

5. Costs. Because noncertified 

applicators working under the direct 

supervision of commercial applicators 

and private applicators have different 

wage rates, the costs are presented 

separately for noncertified applicators 

working under the direct supervision of 

a commercial applicator and for 

noncertified applicators working under 

the direct supervision of a private 

applicator (Ref. 3). 

i. Noncertified applicators working 

under the direct supervision of a 

commercial applicator. EPA estimates 

the cost of the proposed requirement to 

require noncertified applicators to either 

complete the proposed training, be 

handlers under the WPS, or pass the 

core exam would be about $6.6 million 

per year for noncertified applicators 

working under the direct supervision of 

a commercial applicator (Ref. 3). 

ii. Noncertified applicators working 

under the direct supervision of a private 

applicator. EPA estimates the cost of the 

proposed requirement to require 

noncertified applicators to either 

complete the proposed training, be 

handlers under the WPS, or pass the 

core exam would be about $639,000 per 

year for noncertified applicators 

working under the direct supervision of 

a private applicator (Ref. 3). 

6. Alternative options considered by 

EPA but not proposed. EPA considered 

four alternatives to this proposal. 

i. Allow States to determine 

noncertified applicator training content. 

EPA considered allowing each State to 

determine what training or 

qualifications are appropriate for 

noncertified applicators, rather than 

adhering to the standard established in 

this proposal. For example, some States 

have specific requirements for 

noncertified applicators to be qualified, 

such as through an apprenticeship 

program, or completing a Statedeveloped training program or 

minimum number of hours of privatelyprovided training. Although the State 

programs with various requirements 

may adequately ensure the competency 

of noncertified applicators, allowing 

States to adopt varying standards would 

result in classification for restricted use 

providing differing levels of protection 

from State to State. In order to ensure 

that RUPs are used by competent 

persons in a way that would not cause 

unreasonable adverse effects, it is 

necessary for noncertified applicators to 

receive instruction that covers a specific 

set of basic competency information. 

The consistent minimum standard 

would not be met if States adopted their 

own programs that did not meet or 

exceed the standards proposed by EPA. 

EPA recognizes that State programs 

may adequately prepare a noncertified 

applicator to use pesticides effectively 

and without unreasonable adverse effect 

on human health or the environment. 

However, under the proposed option, 

States can modify existing programs to 

ensure they cover the content and 

requirements of the proposed standard 

and do not need a specific exception. If 

the State training program provides 

instruction on the training requirements 

listed above, the supervising certified 

applicator would still be required to 

verify that the noncertified applicators 

working under his or her direct 

supervision have received the training. 

The proposed option balances flexibility 

for States to adopt more stringent 

standards with the need to ensure that 

noncertified applicators meet a 

consistent standard of competency. 

ii. Require all noncertified applicators 

to pass the core exam. EPA considered 

requiring all noncertified applicators to 

pass the core exam for commercial 

applicator certification. The current 

requirements concerning the core exam 

for commercial applicators covers all 

the topics that would help ensure 

general knowledge of pesticide 

application by noncertified applicators. 

The Agency decided against 

proposing a requirement that 

noncertified applicators demonstrate 

competence only by taking the core 

exam for commercial applicators 

because in some instances, that 

requirement may impose additional 

burden on the certified applicators and 

the noncertified applicators. Some 

noncertified applicators may have a 

more difficult time preparing for and 

passing a written exam than meeting 

training requirements. Although 

noncertified applicators may be able to 

demonstrate their competency to make 

applications without unreasonable 

adverse effects with proper supervision, 

some noncertified applicators may have 

literacy and language issues that would 

stand in the way of passing a written 

exam. By limiting a noncertified 

applicator’s options for demonstrating 

competence to passing a written exam, 

the number of noncertified applicators 

available could decrease because fewer 

people would qualify. A decrease in the 

number of noncertified applicators 

available would increase costs because 

certified applicators would be required 

to perform the applications themselves. 

In addition, States would have to 

administer approximately five times the 

current number of exams, increasing 

their administrative burden. 

EPA decided not to propose this 

option because it would impose a 

significant burden on noncertified 

applicators, the supervising certified 

applicators, and the States, and the 

benefits associated with the alternate 

options do not appear to justify the 

burden. 

iii. Establish different standards for 

noncertified applicators working under 

the direct supervision of commercial 

and private applicators. EPA considered 

establishing separate standards for 

noncertified applicators under the direct 

supervision of commercial and private 

applicators. Under this alternative, 

noncertified applicators working under 

the direct supervision of a private 

applicator would be required to 

complete the proposed training or the 

training for handlers under the 

proposed revisions to the WPS (Ref. 4). 

EPA considers this to be the minimum 

level of training that could reasonably 

be expected to prevent unreasonable 

adverse effects associated with the use 

of RUPs. EPA considered requiring a 

higher level of training for noncertified 

applicators working under the direct 

supervision of a commercial applicator; 

specifically, EPA considered requiring 

them to pass the core exam for certified 

applicators as described in the alternate 

option discussed in this unit. 

EPA decided not to propose this 

alternative for two reasons. First, EPA 

does not believe there is a significant 

difference in the risks faced by, or posed 

by, a noncertified applicator under the 

direct supervision of a private 

applicator and a noncertified applicator 

under the direct supervision of a 

commercial applicator. As the risks 

appear to be the same, the same level of 

training seems appropriate. Second, 

having a single standard would allow 

noncertified applicators to work for both 

commercial and private applicators 

without having to meet different 

standards. 

iv. Implement longer retraining 

interval. Lastly, EPA considered 

requiring all noncertified applicators to 

be retrained using the same timeframes 

as certified applicator recertification 

(currently proposed as every 3 years, see 

Unit XIV.). However, commercial 

applicators are required to demonstrate 

their competency through a written 

exam; the more rigorous standard 

establishes a higher level of confidence 

in commercial applicators’ knowledge 

and ability to protect themselves, the 

public, and the environment. Training is 

a less reliable indicator of competency 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51382 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

than passing an exam and knowledge 

from training deteriorates rapidly 

(Refs.14 and 15). EPA recognizes a 

distinction between the noncertified 

applicators that qualify through training 

and those that qualify through an exam. 

That distinction and EPA’s confidence 

in the exam process prompted EPA to 

reject the option to establish the same 

requalification timeframe for all 

noncertified applicators parallel to the 

recertification period for certified 

applicators. 

7. Request for comment. EPA requests 

specific feedback on the following: 

• Should EPA allow States to adopt 

noncertified applicator training 

programs different than what EPA 

proposes? If so, please explain why, and 

how portability of the varied programs 

might be addressed. 

• Should EPA require States to adopt 

the proposed noncertified applicator 

training program and allow States to 

add other qualifications or 

requirements? 

• Should EPA require noncertified 

applicators to receive training 

specifically on avoiding harm to 

pollinators? If so, please explain what 

additional information should be 

included in the training and why. 

• Are there other points that EPA 

should include in the noncertified 

applicator training outlined in the 

proposal? If so, what points should be 

added and why? 

• Should EPA consider a single 

requalification interval for all 

noncertified applicators, regardless of 

their method of qualification, i.e., 

should EPA consider requiring 

noncertified applicators who qualify by 

passing the core exam to requalify 

annually, or for those who qualify by 

training to requalify every 3 years? 

Please explain why. 

• Please provide any available data 

on or sources of information for the 

number of noncertified applicators who 

apply RUPs under the direct 

supervision of commercial and private 

applicators. 

B. Establish Qualifications for Training 

Providers 

1. Overview. In order to ensure that 

noncertified applicators receive training 

that communicates the nature of their 

work and the potential risks of pesticide 

exposure in a manner they understand, 

EPA proposes to require that 

noncertified applicator training be 

provided by a currently certified 

applicator, a State-designated trainer of 

certified applicators, or a person who 

has completed a train-the-trainer course 

under the WPS. 

2. Existing regulation. The rule has no 

requirement for training and therefore, 

no restrictions on who may provide 

training to noncertified applicators. 

3. Stakeholder information 

considered by EPA. Stakeholders, 

including the PPDC, State associations, 

and CTAG, have noted the similar work 

profiles between WPS handlers and 

noncertified applicators working on 

agricultural establishments. They 

recommended that noncertified 

applicator trainers have similar 

qualifications to WPS handler trainers 

because of the importance of conveying 

information related to safe pesticide use, 

understanding labeling requirements, 

and how to contact the employer in the 

event of an emergency. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA proposes to allow noncertified 

applicators to receive training from an 

applicator with a valid certification 

issued under 40 CFR part 171, a Statedesignated trainer of certified 

applicators, or a person who has 

completed a pesticide safety train-thetrainer program under the WPS, 40 CFR 

part 170. Given the elevated risks 

associated with applying RUPs, it is 

critical to have a high level of 

confidence in the competence of those 

who will make applications. 

Commercial applicators have to pass a 

written exam to demonstrate their 

competency. The qualifications of the 

trainer become more important where 

the competency of noncertified 

applicators is established through 

training rather than through passing a 

written exam. It is important to have the 

information presented by trainers who 

are knowledgeable about pesticide 

safety requirements. 

Certified applicators supervising 

noncertified applicators have 

knowledge of the information necessary 

to ensure that applications are made 

effectively and without unreasonable 

adverse effects and commercial 

applicators have passed an exam 

demonstrating their competency. The 

core standards of competency for both 

private and commercial applicators 

would cover supervising noncertified 

applicators using RUPs, including how 

to convey information about proper 

application techniques, understanding 

the labeling, and contacting the 

supervisor if necessary. In addition, the 

competency standards would cover 

communicating with noncertified 

applicators in a manner they 

understand. State designated trainers, 

mainly cooperative extension service 

pesticide safety educators and county 

agents, have expertise in educating 

adult populations about how to conduct 

pesticide applications and the risks 

associated with pesticide exposure. 

Lastly, trainers who have undergone a 

train-the-trainer program have learned 

techniques to effectively transfer 

information on application techniques, 

risks of exposure, and other necessary 

information required to protect 

agricultural handlers before, during, and 

after application. EPA anticipates that 

most people likely to be training 

noncertified applicators would already 

be within one of the aforementioned 

categories of qualified trainers. 

The regulatory text related to this 

proposal would be located at 40 CFR 

171.201(d)(2). 

5. Costs. EPA expects this proposal to 

have negligible cost. Certified 

applicators are qualified as trainers by 

virtue of their certification and would 

not incur any additional costs to be 

qualified under this proposal (Ref. 3). 

EPA assumes most training would be 

provided by certified applicators to 

noncertified applicators working under 

their direct supervision. Therefore, EPA 

does not believe many people who are 

not already certified applicators would 

seek to be qualified trainers under this 

proposal. Allowing State-designated 

trainers of applicators and those who 

have completed a WPS pesticide safety 

train-the-trainer program would provide 

flexibility to the certified applicators 

and offer a variety of options to ensure 

noncertified applicators are trained. 

C. Establish Qualifications for Certified 

Applicators Supervising Noncertified 

Applicators 

1. Overview. In order to ensure that 

noncertified applicators do not apply 

RUPs in a manner that would cause 

unreasonable adverse effects, EPA 

proposes to establish specific 

requirements for the supervising 

applicator. 

2. Existing regulation. The current 

regulation requires supervising certified 

applicators to demonstrate a practical 

knowledge of Federal and State 

supervisory requirements related to the 

application of RUPs by noncertified 

applicators. 40 CFR 171.6(a). In 

addition, the current rule requires the 

availability of the certified applicator 

and the hazard of the situation to be 

directly related. 40 CFR 171.6(a). For 

certain products, the labeling requires 

the applicator to be on-site for the 

application or prohibits application by 

noncertified applicators even under the 

direct supervision of a certified 

applicator. Wherever noncertified 

applicators are applying RUPs under the 

direct supervision of a certified 

applicator, the existing regulation 

requires the certified applicator provide 

verifiable instruction to the noncertified 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51383 

applicator, which includes detailed 

guidance for applying the pesticide 

properly, and provisions for contacting 

the certified applicator in the event that 

he or she is needed. 40 CFR 171.6. 

3. Stakeholder information 

considered by EPA. States indicated 

overall support for establishing 

qualifications for certified applicators 

supervising noncertified applicators; 

however they noted that some 

limitations would be impractical or 

difficult to enforce (Ref. 33). For 

example, States noted that they would 

not be able to verify whether the 

supervising applicator was within a 

certain distance or time of the 

noncertified applicator conducting the 

application, and it would be impossible 

to note how many noncertified 

applicators were working under the 

direct supervision of a certified 

applicator at one time (Ref. 33). The 

SBAR panel recommended that EPA 

require ‘‘communication capability 

between certified applicators and those 

under their supervision during RUP 

applications’’ (Ref. 34). 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA proposes to require that certified 

applicators who supervise noncertified 

applicators to be certified in the 

category of the supervised application 

in order to protect the noncertified 

applicator and the environment from 

risks associated with insufficient 

supervision or qualification. EPA 

proposes to require that certified 

applicators ensure that noncertified 

applicators under their direct 

supervision have satisfied one of the 

qualification methods discussed in Unit 

X.B. For specific applications, EPA 

proposes to require the certified 

applicator to provide a copy of all 

applicable labeling to each noncertified 

applicator for each supervised 

application; ensure that means are 

available for immediate communication 

between the certified applicator and the 

noncertified applicators working under 

their direct supervision; 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. 

It is critical that the supervising 

applicator be competent in the specific 

types of application that he or she is 

supervising, know the requirements 

related to application of RUPs by 

noncertified applicators, and ensure that 

noncertified applicators are competent. 

It is reasonable to expect that many 

supervising applicators currently 

provide instruction to the noncertified 

applicators under their supervision and 

are certified in the appropriate category. 

The proposed change would codify 

more precise requirements to ensure 

that supervising certified applicators are 

prepared adequately to supervise 

specific types of applications and to 

provide the appropriate protections to 

noncertified applicators. 

EPA proposes to add a requirement 

for the certified applicator to provide a 

copy of the labeling to noncertified 

applicators applying RUPs under his or 

her supervision. Providing the product 

labeling to noncertified applicators is 

important for several reasons. First, 

product labeling communicates critical 

information to the pesticide user on 

how to use and apply the product. The 

labeling contains use directions, health 

and safety information, and instructions 

for proper storage and disposal. By law, 

users must follow the use instructions 

on the labeling for registered products. 

Second, in the event that the 

noncertified applicator cannot contact 

the supervising applicator, the labeling 

contains critical information that the 

noncertified applicator or a literate 

person nearby could consult in order to 

understand special use restrictions, 

make a proper application, or respond 

in the event of a spill or accident, 

including providing proper medical 

treatment. Third, the WPS requires 

employers to provide handlers access to 

the product labeling during handling 

activities in order to provide protections 

parallel to those provided under the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act 

(OSHA). OSHA requires that persons 

with hazardous chemicals in their work 

area receive information in the form of 

labels, training, and access to safety data 

sheets (SDSs). Label and SDSs must 

always be available; training must take 

place at the time of the employee’s 

initial assignment and when new 

hazardous chemicals are introduced 

into the work area. Fourth, noncertified 

applicators have similar job 

responsibilities to agricultural pesticide 

handlers under the WPS and have an 

equal need for labeling information. For 

these reasons, it is important to make 

the labeling available to all noncertified 

applicators working with RUPs, even if 

some may not be able to read or 

understand the labeling. 

Communication between the 

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. The current rule 

requires provisions for contacting the 

certified applicator, but it is very 

general and provides no assurance of 

timely contact. The intent of the existing 

provision was to enable communication 

between the supervising applicator and 

the noncertified applicator throughout 

the application process. 

Telecommunications options have 

improved dramatically over the last 35 

years, and the proposed requirement to 

ensure means are available for 

immediate communication would take 

advantage of those changes to more fully 

accomplish the intent of the original 

provision. Requiring means to be 

available for immediate communication 

would allow flexibility for the 

supervising applicator; if the certified 

and noncertified applicator are working 

at the same location, means for 

immediate communication could be 

speaking to one another directly. In the 

event the noncertified applicator is 

using RUPs under the direct supervision 

of a certified applicator when the 

certified applicator is not present, 

means of immediate communication 

could include cellular phones or twoway radios, among other mechanisms. 

The regulatory text related to this 

proposal would be located at 40 CFR 

171.201(b). 

5. Costs. EPA assumes that the current 

requirement to provide detailed 

guidance for applying the pesticide 

properly and the proposed requirement 

to provide application-specific 

instructions are substantially similar 

and will not result in a significant 

increase in the cost of compliance (Ref. 

3). 

EPA estimates the cost for ensuring 

means for immediate communication 

are available would be negligible 

because according to CTIA—The 

Wireless Association, as of December 

2012, wireless penetration in the United 

States was 102% (the number of 

wireless subscriptions divided by the 

U.S. population) (Ref. 56). 

6. Alternative options considered by 

EPA but not proposed. EPA considered 

different application-specific 

requirements for supervising 

applicators, including a requirement for 

the supervising applicator to keep 

noncertified applicators within their 

line of sight or to be on site during 

applications, a limit on the number of 

noncertified applicators that could be 

supervised at one time, or a limit on the 

distance between the certified 

applicator and the noncertified 

applicators. 

EPA may limit who may apply RUPs 

and the type of supervision required on 

a product-by-product basis. Some RUP 

labeling requires certified applicators to 

keep noncertified applicators within 

their line of sight during applications. 

EPA considered requiring line of sight 

supervision wherever noncertified 

applicators are applying RUPs under the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51384 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

direct supervision of a certified 

applicator. For example, labeling for 

fumigant products requires the 

supervising applicator to be on site 

because of the significant danger to the 

applicator if not used properly. 

However, a universal requirement that 

certified applicators keep noncertified 

applicators in their line of sight or to be 

on site during application would be 

inconsistent with 7 U.S.C. 136(e)(4), 

which allows use of RUPs even if the 

certified applicator providing direct 

supervision is not on site at the time of 

application. 

EPA considered establishing a limit 

on the number of noncertified 

applicators that a certified applicator 

could supervise for each application of 

RUPs, e.g., 10 noncertified applicators 

could use RUPs under the direct 

supervision of a certified applicator at 

any specific time. Limiting the number 

of noncertified applicators using RUPs 

under the direct supervision of a 

certified applicator could better ensure 

that the applications are conducted in a 

manner that would not cause 

unreasonable adverse effects to the 

applicator, the public, or the 

environment. EPA does not have 

information on the maximum number of 

noncertified applicators that a certified 

applicator could supervise without 

causing unreasonable adverse effects. 

There may be limits on the capability of 

a certified applicator to supervise 

noncertified applicators using RUPs, but 

the limits seem circumstantial. For 

example, a certified applicator 

supervising the application of RUPs 

through backpack sprayers on a single 

agricultural establishment may be able 

to supervise many noncertified 

applicators without causing 

unreasonable adverse effects. However, 

a certified applicator supervising 

noncertified applicators fumigating a 

warehouse with RUPs may not be able 

to supervise other applications of RUPs 

at the same time in a safe manner. 

EPA chose not to propose a limit on 

the number of noncertified applicators 

that can use RUPs under the direct 

supervision of a certified applicator. 

EPA regulates specific risks related to 

the use of RUPs on a product by product 

basis, including limiting or restricting 

the use of RUPs by noncertified 

applicators. The certified applicator is 

liable for all applications conducted 

under his or her supervision. To become 

certified, applicators must demonstrate 

competency in conducting and 

supervising applications in a manner 

that will not result in adverse effects to 

human health or the environment. It is 

reasonable to expect that the certified 

applicator will generally recognize the 

limits of his or her capacity to 

appropriately supervise multiple 

noncertified applicators. It is reasonable 

to expect that the combination of 

certified applicators’ competency in 

making and supervising applications of 

RUPs, product-specific limitations on 

the use of RUPs by noncertified 

applicators, combined with the 

proposed requirement that the 

supervising applicator ensure that a 

mechanism for communication between 

certified applicators and noncertified 

applicators using RUPs under their 

direct supervision, would adequately 

protect the noncertified applicator, the 

public, and the environment. 

Recognizing that EPA has insufficient 

data to support a limit on the number 

of noncertified applicators that can be 

supervised by a certified applicator or 

data to establish the number if a limit 

is required, EPA is soliciting additional 

information related to this option. 

EPA also considered proposing a 

maximum physical distance or travel 

time between the certified applicator 

and noncertified applicator using RUPs 

under his or her direct supervision. For 

instance, the certified applicator would 

have to be within X yards or Y minutes 

of the noncertified applicator. This 

option would make it more likely that 

the certified applicator could physically 

reach the noncertified applicator within 

a reasonable timeframe in the event 

assistance was needed. Time-based and 

distance-based limitations would have 

different impacts in urban and rural 

areas—in a city, the certified applicator 

might take an hour to get to an 

application site within 5 miles, whereas 

in a rural area, the applicator could 

cover the same distance in a few 

minutes. EPA does require the 

supervising certified applicator to be on 

site when certain RUPs are used by 

noncertified applicators. These 

restrictions are imposed on a product by 

product basis. EPA does not have 

sufficient information on a specific time 

or distance between certified applicators 

and noncertified applicators using RUPs 

under their direct supervision that 

would make meaningful reductions in 

the overall risk of adverse effects from 

RUP use by noncertified applicators. 

Rather than set an arbitrary time or 

distance, EPA chose to propose a 

requirement for the certified applicator 

to ensure a mechanism for the 

supervisor and noncertified applicator 

using RUPs under his or her direct 

supervision to be in immediate 

communication. It is reasonable to 

expect that ensuring that noncertified 

applicators are able to immediately 

contact their supervisors in the event of 

a spill, emergency, or question about the 

application would reduce the potential 

for unreasonable adverse effects from 

RUP application by noncertified 

applicators. 

7. Request for comment. EPA requests 

specific comment on the following: 

• Would supervising certified 

applicators and noncertified applicators 

rely on cell phones rather than two-way 

radios as a means to ensure immediate 

communication? 

• Please provide any additional 

information that would assist EPA in 

more accurately estimating the cost 

associated with this proposal. 

• Should EPA consider other 

qualifications for supervising 

applicators? If so, what qualifications 

and why? 

• Should EPA require certified 

applicators to be within a certain 

distance or time of the noncertified 

applicators using RUPs under their 

direct supervision? Please explain why. 

If so, what distance or time should EPA 

require? 

• Should EPA limit the number of 

noncertified applicators that a certified 

applicator can supervise? Please explain 

why. If so, how should EPA select the 

maximum number? 

XI. Expand Commercial Applicator 

Recordkeeping To Include Noncertified 

Applicator Training 

1. Overview. In order to facilitate 

inspectors’ ability to verify that 

noncertified applicators have been 

trained in accordance with the rule, 

EPA proposes to require commercial 

applicators to maintain records of 

noncertified applicator training for two 

years. 

2. Existing regulation. The current 

rule does not require any person to keep 

records of the information or training 

provided to noncertified applicators. 

3. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA proposes to require commercial 

applicators to maintain records of 

noncertified applicators’ training. The 

proposed recordkeeping requirement 

includes: The trained noncertified 

applicator’s printed name, and 

signature; the date of the training; the 

name of the person who provided the 

training; and the supervising 

commercial applicator’s name. It is 

reasonable to expect that 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51385 

a key component of an effective 

enforcement program. EPA is not 

proposing to require commercial 

applicators to document the 

qualifications of noncertified 

applicators who satisfy the requirement 

of 40 CFR 171.201(c) as agricultural 

handlers or by having passed the core 

exam. The WPS already requires 

agricultural employers to maintain 

records of pesticide safety training 

provided to handlers. It is reasonable to 

expect that certifying authorities would 

be able to verify whether a noncertified 

applicator has passed the core exam. 

FIFRA prohibits EPA from issuing 

regulations that require private 

applicators to maintain records. 

Therefore, EPA is not proposing to make 

the recordkeeping requirements 

outlined in this Unit apply to private 

applicators. Nevertheless, private 

applicators still would be subject to the 

proposed requirements for ensuring that 

noncertified applicators under their 

direct supervision have met the 

proposed training requirements. In the 

absence of training records maintained 

by private applicators, EPA would gauge 

compliance with the training 

requirement during routine compliance 

inspections. The inspector could 

question noncertified applicators 

regarding the content of the training and 

the labeling of any products being 

applied. If the noncertified applicators’ 

answers are not consistent with the 

content of the required training and the 

labeling of any products being applied, 

it may support a presumption that the 

private applicator has failed to 

adequately comply with the 

noncertified applicator training 

requirement. Where private applicators 

keep records, either on their own 

initiative or in response to State, Tribal, 

or local requirements, that are sufficient 

to verify compliance with the 

requirements for training and 

supervising noncertified applicators, 

EPA expects that it would ordinarily 

rely on such records to assess 

compliance, rather than evaluating 

individual noncertified applicators. 

The regulatory text related to this 

proposal would be located at 40 CFR 

171.201(e). 

4. Costs. EPA estimates the cost of the 

proposal to require commercial 

applicators to maintain records of the 

training provided to noncertified 

applicators working under their direct 

supervision for 2 years would be 

$324,000 annually (Ref. 3). 

5. Alternative options considered by 

EPA but not proposed. EPA considered 

requiring the training record to include 

the noncertified applicator’s date of 

birth. The Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) requires every employer 

to have a completed I–9 form for every 

employee. The I–9 form already requires 

employers to obtain and keep records on 

a number of pieces of information about 

the employee to verify employability, 

including the employee’s date of birth. 

The employer must retain the I–9 form 

for inspection by DHS or other federal 

agencies. Rather than impose a 

duplicative requirement for 

recordkeeping on employers, EPA chose 

not to propose a requirement for the 

training record to include the 

noncertified applicators date of birth. 

6. Request for comment. EPA requests 

specific comment on the following: 

• Should EPA consider requiring the 

commercial applicator to provide a copy 

of the training record to the noncertified 

applicator? What would be the value of 

this record to the noncertified applicator 

and subsequent employers? Should EPA 

require the record to be provided to all 

noncertified applicators as a matter of 

course or only to those noncertified 

applicators who request such 

documentation from the certified 

applicator? 

• Should EPA consider requiring 

commercial applicators to maintain 

records of noncertified applicator 

training for a different length of time? If 

so, for how long should training records 

be maintained and why? 

• Should EPA consider requiring 

commercial applicators to document the 

noncertified applicator’s qualification 

regardless of the method used to 

qualify? Should EPA require 

commercial applicators to document the 

WPS training or core exam? If so, why? 

XII. Establish a Minimum Age for 

Certified Applicators 

1. Overview. In order to reduce the 

risks of exposure to applicators, 

bystanders, the public, and the 

environment, EPA proposes to establish 

a minimum age of 18 for any person to 

become certified as a private or 

commercial applicator. 

2. Existing regulation. The rule has no 

age restrictions for certified applicators. 

3. Stakeholder information 

considered by EPA. Stakeholders 

including Farmworker Justice, Migrant 

Clinicians Network, EPA’s Children’s 

Health Protection Advisory Committee, 

members of the PPDC workgroup, and 

State regulatory agencies recommended 

establishing a minimum age for 

pesticide applicators. 

In 2002, CTAG surveyed State lead 

agencies for pesticide applicator 

certification. Responses were provided 

from 49 States, with 30 States 

implementing a minimum age for 

commercial applicators and 27 States 

establishing a minimum age for private 

applicators. The commercial applicator 

minimum ages were 16 (6 States) and 18 

(24 States); the private applicator 

minimum ages ranged from 15 to 18 (15 

years, 1 State; 16 years, 10 States; 17 

years, 1 State; 18 years, 15 States) (Ref. 

57). CTAG also evaluated State support 

of a minimum age requirement for 

applicator certification. Ninety-eight 

percent of the respondents supported 

such a requirement. Twenty-six States 

supported a minimum age of 18, 12 

States supported a minimum age of 16, 

and the remainder did not respond with 

a specific age or provided different 

required minimum ages, depending on 

type of certification (Ref. 57). 

As of 2013, 35 States had 

implemented a minimum age of 18 for 

commercial applicators and 8 States had 

implemented a minimum age of 16 for 

commercial applicators. For private 

applicators, 16 States established a 

minimum age of 18, 1 State established 

a minimum age of 17, and 17 States 

established a minimum age of 16 (Ref. 

3). 

The SBAR panel recommended that 

EPA consider a minimum age of 18 for 

commercial and private applicator 

certification, with an exception allowing 

private applicators working on a farm 

owned by an immediate family member 

(as defined in the WPS at 40 CFR part 

170) to be certified at 16 years old (Ref. 

34). The SERs (including pesticide 

applicators, farmers, and other business 

owners) consulted by the panel had 

varying recommendations regarding 

minimum age. 

For commercial applicators, SERs 

mainly suggested a minimum age of 18, 

noting that the minimum age for a pilot 

license is 18 so it would not impact 

aerial applicators and that ‘‘one cannot 

understand the concept of safe and 

accurate application until age 18.’’ 

Other SERs suggested that the minimum 

age should be 16 for children of farmers, 

that the minimum age should not 

exceed 14, and that there should be no 

minimum age—only a requirement to 

pass a written test (Ref. 34). 

For private applicators, 

recommendations ranged from no 

minimum age to a minimum age of 18. 

Two SERs suggested that there should 

be no minimum age, with one 

suggesting that children be certified as 

private applicators when they pass a 

test. Three representatives suggested a 

minimum age of 16. One SER suggested 

a minimum age of 18 (Ref. 34). Two 

SERs noted that establishing a minimum 

age would require farm owners to hire 

certified applicators, increasing the cost 

of RUP applications (Ref. 34). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51386 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

DOL has established a general rule, 

applicable to non-agricultural 

employment, that workers must be at 

least 18 years old to perform hazardous 

jobs. 29 CFR 570.120. For example, 

those under the age of 18 may not 

perform most tasks in manufacturing or 

mining industries; communications or 

public utilities; construction or repair; 

in transporting people or property; and 

in warehousing and storage. The FLSA 

establishes a minimum age of 16 for 

youth in agriculture engaged in 

occupations deemed hazardous by the 

Secretary of Labor. 29 U.S.C. 213(c)(2). 

This includes persons handling toxicity 

category I and II pesticides in 

agriculture. 29 CFR 570.71(a)(9). By 

regulation, DOL prohibits youth under 

the age of 16 engaged in nonagricultural 

employment from any work involving 

pesticides unless employed by a parent 

or someone standing in place of the 

parent. 29 CFR 570.32. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA proposes to establish a minimum 

age of 18 for persons to become certified 

as commercial and private applicators. 

Aside from any increased risks that 

adolescents may suffer from pesticide 

exposures, adolescents generally lack 

the experience and judgment to avoid or 

prevent unnecessary exposure. A study 

conducted by the National Institutes of 

Health (NIH) also demonstrates that 

because their brains are still developing, 

adolescents may have trouble balancing 

risk-reward decision-making and goaloriented decision-making (Ref. 21). 

Although adolescents may understand 

the possible consequences of their 

actions, they are more likely to make 

decisions based upon their initial 

emotional responses, which will often 

lead them to make suboptimal choices 

(Ref. 20). Additionally, adolescents are 

less likely to be aware of their rights and 

how to recognize hazards in the 

workplace (Ref. 20). 

Pesticide applicators must exercise 

good judgment and responsible behavior 

to best protect themselves and others as 

they work with these potentially toxic 

materials. Research has shown 

differences in the decision making of 

adolescents and adults that reasonably 

supports the conclusion that applicators 

who are children may take more risks 

than those who are adults. Behavioral 

scientists note that responsible decision 

making is more common in young 

adults than adolescents: ‘‘socially 

responsible decision making is 

significantly more common among 

young adults than among adolescents, 

but does not increase appreciably after 

age 19. Adolescents, on average, scored 

significantly worse than adults did, but 

individual differences in judgment 

within each adolescent age group were 

considerable. These findings call into 

question recent assertions, derived from 

studies of logical reasoning, that 

adolescents and adults are equally 

competent and that laws and social 

policies should treat them as such’’ (Ref. 

22). Decision-making skills and 

competence differ between adolescents 

and adults. A NIOSH compilation of 

studies demonstrates ‘‘[y]outh are at 

increased risk of injury from lack of 

experience. Inexperienced workers are 

unfamiliar with the requirements of 

work, are less likely to be trained to 

recognize hazards, and are commonly 

unaware of their legal rights on the job. 

Developmental factors—physical, 

cognitive, and psychological—may also 

place them at increased risk’’ (Ref. 21). 

While some research has focused on 

decision-making of adolescents in terms 

of legal culpability, the findings on 

decision-making skills and competence 

can be applied reasonably to pesticide 

application. 

Society has established 18 as the age 

of majority in many circumstances, and 

research has shown that by 18 years old, 

most people have developed a level of 

competence that makes responsible 

decision making more likely. For 

example, persons must wait until they 

are 18 to vote, join the military, use 

tobacco, and give medical consent. For 

the one major exception to 18 as the age 

of majority, issuance of driver’s licenses, 

States have recognized the increased 

risks associated with new, immature 

drivers. Forty-nine States have 

established a graduated driver’s license 

program, under which the young drivers 

do not get full rights and independence 

upon passing the necessary tests; rather 

they get limited privileges that expand 

over time to result in full rights and 

independence when they reach 17 or 18 

years old. Overall, this approach has 

resulted in fewer accidents by teenage 

drivers between 16 and 18 years old 

(Refs. 58 and 59). Society does not 

entrust individuals with the right to 

conduct some high risk activities until 

they have met a certain age because the 

risk of harm to the underage person and 

others is too great. Pesticide application 

presents comparable risks, with the 

potential for significant harm to the 

applicator, the public, and the 

environment. 

In addition to differences between 

adolescents and adults in terms of 

decision-making ability, children may 

be more susceptible to pesticides 

because their physiological systems are 

developing, and that development may 

be altered by pesticide exposure. Most 

pesticides classified as RUPs are so 

classified based on an increased 

potential for acute harm to human 

health. A level of exposure to RUPs 

considered safe for an adult may not be 

safe for a child. 

EPA expects that restricting 

certification to persons 18 years of age 

or older would prevent children from 

being exposed while performing and 

supervising application activities and 

protect other persons and the 

environment from misapplication due to 

children’s poor judgment or inadequate 

decision-making skills. EPA’s proposal 

would harmonize the age requirements 

for pesticide applicators with the 

minimum age requirements for workers 

performing hazardous jobs in other 

industries. 

The regulatory text for these 

provisions would be located at 40 CFR 

171.103(a)(1) for commercial applicators 

and at 40 CFR 171.105(d) for private 

applicators. 

5. Costs. EPA separates the cost of 

establishing a minimum age for 

commercial and private applicators in 

this unit. 

i. Commercial applicators. EPA 

estimates the cost of establishing a 

minimum age of 18 for commercial 

applicators would be $294,000 per year 

(Ref. 3). The costs would reflect the 

difference in the wage rates between 

commercial applicators who are 18 

years or older and those who are 

younger in States that do not currently 

have a minimum age of 18 (Ref. 3). As 

discussed in this unit, many States 

already have a requirement that certified 

applicators must be at least 18 years old. 

ii. Private applicators. EPA estimates 

the cost of establishing a minimum age 

of 18 for private applicators would be 

$174,000 per year (Ref. 3). The costs 

would reflect the difference in the wage 

rates between private applicators who 

are 18 years or older and those who are 

younger in States that do not currently 

have a minimum age of 18. 

6. Alternative options considered by 

EPA but not proposed. EPA considered 

two alternatives: Allowing flexibility in 

the minimum age of 18 for applicators 

on a family farm, and establishing a 

minimum age of 16 for commercial and 

private applicators. 

EPA took into account the 

recommendation of the SBAR panel that 

EPA consider a minimum age of 18 for 

commercial and private applicator 

certification, with an exception allowing 

private applicators working on a farm 

owned by an immediate family member 

(as defined in the WPS at 40 CFR part 

170) to be certified at 16 years old (Ref. 

34). This option would allow flexibility 

for earlier certification for private 

applicators working on farms owned by 

immediate family members; however, it 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51387 

provides a different level of protection 

for private and commercial applicators 

and to those who would be impacted by 

their applications of RUPs. EPA’s 

primary concern is the protection of 

human health and the environment 

from pesticide hazards; the SBAR panel 

alternative does not adequately protect 

a vulnerable segment of the population, 

youths 16 and 17 years old. It also puts 

at risk neighbors, bystanders, and the 

environment. RUPs pose greater 

potential for unreasonable adverse 

effects if they are misused than do other 

pesticides. Persons younger than 18 may 

possess less maturity and good 

judgement than adults, and they may be 

careless in making applications. It is 

reasonable to expect that there would be 

additional risk to the applicator, the 

public, and the environment from RUP 

applications by persons younger than 

18, and despite the benefit of flexibility 

offered by a reduced minimum age on 

family owned enterprises, EPA does not 

consider that flexibility justified in light 

of the associated risks. 

The second alternative considered by 

EPA was to set a minimum age of 16 for 

persons to become certified as 

commercial or private applicators. This 

option would require fewer States to 

incorporate the new requirement 

because most States have a minimum 

age of at least 16. Under this alternative, 

States could adopt or retain a 

requirement for a higher minimum age. 

In addition, a minimum age of 16 would 

match the requirements of the FLSA for 

handling or applying products in 

toxicity category I and II in agricultural 

employment and the minimum age for 

handlers under the proposed changes to 

the WPS (Ref. 4). However, this option 

would provide significantly less 

protection to the applicator, the public, 

and the environment. Moreover, this 

option could create a scenario in which 

a minor could be directing the actions 

of an adult by supervising the 

application of RUPs. States have noted 

that it can be difficult to take 

enforcement actions against minors. 

Under this scenario, States may have no 

recourse if the pesticide was misapplied 

by the noncertified applicator because 

responsibility ultimately rests with the 

certified applicator, in this case, a 

minor. Certified applicators use RUPs, 

pesticides with a higher potential for 

harming human health and the 

environment, and must possess an 

appropriate level of competence, 

maturity and decision-making skills to 

ensure these products are used safely. 

Therefore, EPA does not believe that the 

difference in cost between the proposed 

option and this alternative justifies the 

associated risk to youth applicators, the 

public, and the environment. 

7. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Are there alternatives that have not 

been considered that would improve 

protections for adolescent certified 

applicators using RUPs, either those 

under 16 or 18 years old, while allowing 

flexibility for pesticide use for 

agriculture? 

• What would be the impact on State 

programs of establishing a minimum age 

of either 16 or 18 for certified 

applicators? What would be the impact 

on pesticide application businesses? 

• Are there additional benefits or 

burdens associated with establishing a 

minimum age of 16 or 18 for certified 

applicators? If so, please provide data to 

support either position. 

• Would this proposal have an impact 

on training programs for adolescents? If 

so, please describe the impact. 

• Is there a need for an exemption 

from the minimum age requirement for 

persons working on a farm owned by 

their immediate family members? If so, 

how widespread is this need and what 

are its economic impacts? What criteria 

should EPA consider if it creates such 

an exemption, e.g., size of the farm, 

specific familial relationship, whether a 

family member/owner is also a certified 

applicator? Should EPA use the same 

criteria established for the exemption 

for owners and their immediate family 

members under the WPS (see 40 CFR 

170.104(a) and 170.204(a))? 

XIII. Establish a Minimum Age for 

Noncertified Applicators Working 

Under the Direct Supervision of 

Certified Applicators 

1. Overview. EPA proposes to require 

that noncertified applicators who use 

RUPs under the direct supervision of a 

certified applicator be at least 18 years 

old. EPA expects this change would 

result in reduced risks to children and 

improved competency in the use of 

RUPs, resulting in reduced exposure to 

noncertified applicators, bystanders, 

and the environment. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The 

current rule does not establish a 

minimum age for noncertified 

applicators. 

3. Stakeholder information 

considered by EPA. As of 2013, 16 

States had implemented a minimum age 

of 18 for noncertified applicators under 

the direct supervision of commercial 

applicators and 4 States had 

implemented a minimum age of 16 for 

noncertified applicators under the direct 

supervision of commercial applicators. 

For private applicators, 5 States 

established a minimum age of 18 and 2 

States established a minimum age of 16. 

Two States prohibit use of RUPs by 

noncertified applicators, eliminating the 

option for use of RUPs under the direct 

supervision of a certified applicator 

(Ref. 3). 

The SBAR panel recommended that 

EPA consider a minimum age of 18 for 

noncertified applicators working under 

the direct supervision of commercial 

applicators and a minimum age of 16 for 

noncertified applicators working under 

the direct supervision of private 

applicators (Ref. 34). The SERs 

consulted by the panel provided varied 

recommendations. One SER 

recommended that EPA adopt a 

minimum age of 16 for persons working 

in an apprentice program, but prohibit 

these noncertified applicators from 

working alone (i.e., supervising 

applicator not present at the site of 

application). Another SER suggested a 

minimum age of 18 because ‘‘one cannot 

understand the concept of safe and 

accurate application until age 18.’’ A 

third SER suggested that EPA not 

establish a minimum age because 

establishments applying RUPs need to 

use family members. Finally, one SER 

supported EPA’s adoption of either a 

requirement for training for noncertified 

applicators or a requirement for certified 

applicators to be present for 

applications made under their direct 

supervision (Ref. 34). EPA also 

considered the information discussed in 

Unit XII.3. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA proposes to establish a minimum 

age of 18 for noncertified applicators 

using RUPs under the direct supervision 

of certified applicators. The proposed 

age restriction would include a 

requirement for commercial applicators 

supervising the noncertified applicator 

to record the training and the birth date 

of any noncertified applicator using 

RUPs under their direct supervision. 

EPA considered the rationale 

discussed in Unit XII.4. in developing 

this proposal. As discussed in the 

previous section, research shows the 

differences in the decision-making of 

adolescents and adults leads to the 

conclusion that noncertified applicators 

who are adolescents may take more 

risks than those who are adults. The use 

of RUPs presents demonstrable risks of 

significant harm to the applicator, the 

public, and the environment, and these 

risks are significantly influenced by the 

user’s judgment and decision-making 

skills. Requiring noncertified 

applicators to be 18 years of age or older 

would prevent youth under 18 from 

being exposed while using RUPs under 

the supervision of a certified applicator 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51388 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

and would reduce risks to other persons 

and the environment from 

misapplication owing to users’ poor 

judgment or decision-making skills. 

This proposal would also align with 

society’s general trend toward 

increasing the ages at which persons are 

eligible to do certain things that present 

recognized risks, such as purchasing 

alcohol or becoming a licensed driver. 

Because noncertified applicators use 

RUPs, their activities entail a 

heightened level of risk that requires 

maturity and good decision-making 

skills if unreasonable adverse effects are 

to be avoided. Therefore, it is reasonable 

to expect that establishing a minimum 

age of 18 for noncertified applicators 

would improve protections from 

misapplication of RUPs to applicators, 

the public, and the environment. 

The regulatory text establishing a 

minimum age for noncertified 

applicators would be located at 40 CFR 

171.201(b)(5). 

5. Costs. EPA separated the cost for 

establishing a minimum age of 18 for 

noncertified applicators working under 

the direct supervision of commercial 

applicators and for those under the 

direct supervision of private applicators 

in this unit. 

i. Noncertified applicators working 

under the direct supervision of 

commercial applicators. EPA estimates 

the cost of requiring noncertified 

applicators working under the direct 

supervision of commercial applicators 

to be 18 would be $12.8 million per year 

(Ref. 3). The costs reflect the difference 

in the wage rates between these 

noncertified applicators who are 18 

years or older and those who are 

younger. 

ii. Noncertified applicators working 

under the direct supervision of private 

applicators. EPA estimates the cost of 

requiring noncertified applicators 

working under the direct supervision of 

private applicators to be 18 would be 

$1.1 million per year (Ref. 3). The costs 

reflect the difference in the wage rates 

between these noncertified applicators 

who are 18 years or older and those who 

are younger. 

For a complete discussion of the 

estimated costs of the proposals and 

alternatives, see the economic analysis 

for this proposal (Ref. 3). 

EPA cannot quantify the benefits 

associated with this proposal (Ref. 3). 

However, it is reasonable to expect that 

this proposal would improve the health 

of adolescent noncertified applicators, 

as well as other bystanders and the 

environment. As discussed in Units XII. 

and XIII., adolescents’ judgment is not 

fully developed. It is reasonable to 

expect that restricting adolescents’ 

ability to handle pesticides would lead 

to less exposure potential for the 

noncertified applicators themselves, and 

less potential for misapplication that 

could cause negative impacts on other 

persons nearby, and the environment. 

6. Alternative options considered but 

not proposed. EPA considered two 

alternatives: Proposing a minimum age 

of 16 for all noncertified applicators 

using RUPs under the direct supervision 

of commercial and private applicators, 

and proposing a minimum age of 18 for 

all noncertified applicators using RUPs 

under the direct supervision of a 

certified applicator with an exception 

for noncertified applicators working 

under the direct supervision of a private 

applicator on a farm owned by an 

immediate family member. 

Establishing a minimum age of 16 for 

noncertified applicators would roughly 

align with the DOL’s age restrictions 

related to pesticide handling. It would 

also correspond with the proposed 

minimum age of 16 for pesticide 

handlers under the WPS that EPA is 

considering. Finally, this alternative 

would give noncertified applicators the 

opportunity to gain knowledge and 

experience about the proper use of RUPs 

at a younger age while working under 

the direct supervision of a certified 

applicator. EPA recognizes similarities 

between noncertified applicators and 

handlers under the WPS. However, 

noncertified applicators use RUPs, 

products that pose a higher risk of harm 

to human health and the environment if 

not used properly. For this reason, it is 

critical that those who use RUPs, even 

with proper supervision, have 

developed the necessary maturity and 

decision-making skills to use the 

products in a manner that avoids 

unreasonable adverse effects to 

themselves, other persons, and the 

environment. EPA does not believe that 

harmonizing the minimum age for 

noncertified applicators with the 

proposed minimum age for handlers 

under the WPS and the Department of 

Labor’s requirements would offer 

benefits sufficient to justify the 

increased potential risk from improper 

use of an RUP by a noncertified 

applicator who is not at least 18 years 

old. 

The SBAR panel recommended that 

EPA consider a minimum age of 18 for 

commercial and private applicator 

certification, with an exception allowing 

private applicators working on a farm 

owned by an immediate family member 

(as defined at 40 CFR 170.2) to be 

certified at 16 years old (Ref. 34). EPA 

considered adopting a similar 

requirement for noncertified applicators 

or establishing a minimum age of 18 for 

those working under the direct 

supervision of commercial applicators 

and 16 years old for those working 

under the direct supervision of private 

applicators. These options would allow 

flexibility for earlier certification on 

family-owned farms or for private 

applicators; however, they would 

provide a different level of protection to 

noncertified applicators working under 

the direct supervision of private and 

commercial applicators. A noncertified 

applicator is likely to have less 

experience and knowledge than a 

certified applicator. A person younger 

than 18 may also have less maturity and 

good judgement. It is reasonable to 

expect that it is more likely that there 

would be additional risk to the 

applicator, the public, and the 

environment from RUP applications by 

noncertified persons younger than 18, 

and despite the benefit of flexibility 

offered by a reduced minimum age on 

family owned enterprises, EPA does not 

consider that flexibility justified in light 

of the associated risks. 

7. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Are there alternatives that have not 

been considered that would improve 

protections for adolescent noncertified 

applicators using RUPs under the direct 

supervision of a certified applicator, 

either those under 16 or 18 years old, 

while allowing flexibility for pesticide 

use for agriculture? 

• What would be the impact on State 

programs of establishing a minimum age 

of either 16 or 18 for noncertified 

applicators? What would be the impact 

on pesticide application businesses? 

• Are there additional benefits or 

burdens with establishing a minimum 

age of 16 or 18 for noncertified 

applicators? If so, please provide data to 

support either position. 

• Would this proposal have an impact 

on training programs for adolescents? If 

so, please describe the impact. 

• Would it be possible for EPA to 

include in the final rule exceptions to 

the proposed minimum age requirement 

for persons participating in adolescent 

vocational training programs and high 

school educational programs, where 

persons who do not meet the minimum 

age work under the direct supervision of 

certified applicators, while ensuring 

that adolescents, others, and the 

environment are protected adequately? 

If so, explain how EPA could ensure 

adequate protections. Please suggest a 

framework for such an exemption. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51389 

XIV. Establish a National Certification 

Period and Standards for 

Recertification 

A. National Recertification Period 

1. Overview. To ensure certified 

applicators maintain core competencies 

and keep pace with the changing 

technology of pesticide application, and 

to ensure that the public, environment 

and applicators are protected from 

misapplication and misuse, EPA 

proposes to establish a maximum 

certification period of 3 years. This 

would require all applicators to renew 

their certification, i.e., recertify, at least 

every 3 years. 

2. Existing regulation. The current 

rule requires States to ensure 

applicators maintain a continuing level 

of competency and ability to apply 

pesticides safely and properly as part of 

their State plans. 40 CFR 171.8(a)(2). 

The rule requires that under plans 

administered by EPA, commercial 

applicators must be recertified every 3 

years and private applicators must be 

recertified every four years. 40 CFR 

171.11. A policy applicable to Federal 

agency plans directs Federal agencies to 

include in their certification plans a 

requirement for applicators to recertify 

every 3 years (Ref. 60). There are no 

corresponding regulatory requirements 

or policies establishing a maximum 

certification period under State and 

Tribal certification plans. 

3. Stakeholder information 

considered by EPA. CTAG, SFIREG, 

State regulatory agencies and members 

of the PPDC workgroup all requested 

that EPA establish a standard maximum 

certification period. State and Tribal 

participants at the 2006 Worker Safety 

PREP generally supported the proposed 

3-year maximum certification period, 

though States with 5-year periods 

expressed concerns for the potential 

impacts to their programs (Ref. 33). 

States’ requirements for frequency of 

applicator certification range from 1 

year to 6 years. In a survey of State 

requirements, EPA determined that 31 

States already have a certification 

period of 3 years or fewer for 

commercial applicators. Twenty-five 

States already require recertification 

every 3 years or fewer for private 

applicators (Ref. 5). 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA proposes that all pesticide 

applicator certifications be valid for no 

more than 3 years. This proposal 

corresponds with the existing 

requirements for commercial applicators 

under EPA-administered plans and 

Federal agency plans. 

Ensuring the ongoing competency of 

applicators of RUPs is crucial in 

preventing unreasonable adverse effects 

when RUPs are used. Applicators must 

be 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 principles. To 

ensure ongoing competency, it is 

necessary to require renewal of an 

applicator’s certification within a 

specific period. The more frequently 

applicators receive training, the more 

likely they are retain the substance of 

the training and apply it on the job. 

Studies show that information retained 

from training sessions declines 

significantly within a year (Refs. 14 and 

15). However, preparing for and 

demonstrating competency by passing 

an exam requires a higher level of 

preparation and a more reliable 

demonstration of the competencies 

needed. Therefore, it is reasonable to 

believe that allowing certified 

applicators to renew their certifications 

over a slightly longer period would not 

adversely impact human health and the 

environment. EPA already requires 

applicators under an EPA-administered 

plan to recertify every 3 years and it is 

reasonable to extend this requirement to 

all applicators certified under any plan 

approved by EPA. 

It is reasonable to expect that 

requiring all applicators certified by 

States, Tribes and Federal agencies to be 

recertified at least every 3 years would 

set an acceptable minimum standard for 

continued competency in the applicator 

certification program. 

The regulatory text for this proposal 

would be located at 40 CFR 171.107(a). 

5. Costs. EPA estimated the cost of 

this proposal in conjunction with the 

proposal to establish requirements for 

recertification programs. See Unit 

XIV.B. The cost of this proposal is 

provided in combination with the cost 

of the proposal for recertification 

requirements in Unit XIV.B.5. 

6. Alternative options considered by 

EPA but not proposed. EPA considered 

proposing a maximum certification 

period of 5 years for private and 

commercial applicators. As discussed in 

this unit, learned knowledge diminishes 

over time (Refs. 14 and 15). EPA must 

ensure that applicators maintain 

ongoing competency to protect 

themselves, other persons, and the 

environment from unreasonable adverse 

effects from RUP exposure. It is 

reasonable to expect that applicators 

retain less knowledge over a 5 year 

recertification period than they would 

over a 3 year recertification period, 

thereby increasing the potential risk 

posed by applicators who do not 

maintain an ongoing level of 

competency. EPA estimates that the 

difference in cost between a 3 year and 

5 year recertification would be 

negligible. For these reasons, it is 

reasonable to expect that the potential 

small cost savings associated with a 5 

year recertification period instead of a 3 

year recertification period are not 

significant enough to warrant the 

increased risks associated with 

applicators who do not maintain an 

ongoing level of competency in the use 

of RUPs. 

7. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Should EPA consider a different 

maximum recertification period? If so, 

what period and why? 

B. Recertification Requirements 

1. Overview. To ensure certified 

applicators maintain core competencies 

and keep pace with the changing 

technology of pesticide application, and 

to ensure that the public, environment 

and applicators are protected from 

misapplication and misuse, EPA 

proposes to require State, Tribal, and 

Federal agencies to require applicators 

to complete a continuing education 

program that meets or exceeds specific 

standards or to pass exams related to 

their certification(s) in order to be 

recertified. 

2. Existing regulation. The current 

rule requires States to require 

applicators to demonstrate ongoing 

competency as part of their State plans. 

40 CFR 171.8(a)(2). The rule has no 

requirements for the recertification 

standards such as content or manner in 

which ongoing competency is 

evaluated. 

3. Stakeholder information 

considered by EPA. In a survey of State 

certification program personnel, CTAG 

found most States agreed that the 

credibility of training presenters, 

programs, and recertification exams 

should be subject to review and 

approval by the agency that assigns the 

recertification program credits or 

oversees exams. Participants at the 2006 

Worker Safety PREP noted that most 

States offer applicators the option to 

take an exam for recertification if 

recertification is not accomplished 

through accruing continuing education 

units by the required deadline. 

Additionally, States noted that some 

applicator categories have so few 

applicators or the substance of the 

categories changes so infrequently that 

developing and updating training 

materials may be cost-prohibitive for 

States or cooperative extension services; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51390 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

therefore, States requested the option to 

offer or require retesting for 

recertification (Ref. 33). 

State and Tribal participants at the 

2006 Worker Safety PREP generally 

supported having a requirement for the 

minimum number of credits that must 

be earned by an applicator in a 

continuing education program during 

the recertification period. Some States 

expressed concern that minimum 

requirements established at the Federal 

level could cause States with more 

stringent requirements to lower their 

requirements. For example, if EPA 

required an applicator to earn 6 credits 

per category every 3 years, those States 

with higher requirements (e.g., 12 

credits per category) might face 

resistance from their applicators. 

Conversely, they appreciated that a 

Federal standard would make issuing 

and monitoring reciprocal certificates to 

applicators less burdensome, because all 

States would meet a minimum standard 

for recertification programs. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

The Agency proposes to establish 

minimum standards for continuing 

education programs, including: The 

minimum number of continuing 

education units (CEUs) that must be 

earned by an applicator in order to be 

recertified in core and each category; the 

standard length of a CEU; and a 

requirement for applicators to earn at 

least half of the required CEUs in the 18 

months preceding expiration of the 

applicator’s certification. States, Tribes, 

and Federal agencies would be required 

to include a continuing education 

program that meets or exceeds these 

standards as part of their certification 

plan. EPA also proposes to allow States 

to require recertification only by exam. 

The exam and its administration would 

have to meet the standards outlined in 

Unit IX. 

EPA proposes to require that private 

applicator continuing education 

programs require instruction in the 

general competency standards as well as 

each relevant application methodspecific category. The more training 

applicators receive, the more likely they 

are retain the substance of the training 

and apply it on the job. Under EPA’s 

proposal, a private applicator would 

need to earn a minimum of 6 CEUs of 

instruction that covers the content 

proposed as 40 CFR 171.105(a) every 3 

years to maintain core certification. The 

CEUs must be part of a continuing 

education program approved by the 

appropriate State, Tribal, or Federal 

agency for recertification. To qualify for 

recertification in the proposed 

application-method specific categories 

of soil fumigation, non-soil fumigation, 

or aerial application, or in the predator 

control category, a private applicator 

would need to earn a minimum of an 

additional 3 CEUs specific to each 

relevant application method that covers 

the content proposed as 40 CFR 

171.105(b) and (c) every 3 years. A 

commercial applicator would need to 

earn a minimum of 6 CEUs related to his 

or her core certification every 3 years to 

maintain his or her core certification. 

For each category (pest control and 

application method-specific) in which 

the applicator is certified, he or she 

would need to obtain at least 6 CEUs 

specific to each category every 3 years. 

For example, a commercial applicator 

certified in agricultural pest control and 

aerial application would be required to 

obtain 6 CEUs of core material to satisfy 

recertification requirements for 

commercial core, as well as an 

additional 6 CEUs in agricultural pest 

control and 6 CEUs in aerial application 

in order to satisfy recertification 

requirements for maintaining his or her 

overall certification in the appropriate 

categories. 

EPA proposes to allow applicators to 

earn CEUs in a program administered by 

or approved by the certifying State, 

Tribal, or Federal agency. The certifying 

authority’s certification plan would 

need to detail how it would review and 

approve content for the continuing 

education program and how it would 

ensure that applicators satisfy the 

necessary requirements. The certifying 

authority could either conduct the 

continuing education program directly 

(some States refer to this type of 

program as a workshop), or could 

approve continuing education programs 

administered by cooperative extension 

services at State universities, other 

States, or private training providers. To 

approve the program, the State would 

have to ensure that the continuing 

education program meets the 

competency requirements established 

for commercial core certification, 

general private applicator certification, 

or the specific category or application 

method-specific category covered by the 

continuing education program. 

EPA also proposes to set 50 minutes 

of active training time as the standard 

for a CEU. There is a wide range of time 

across States and professions for what 

constitutes a CEU. A minimum standard 

of 50 minutes of education per CEU 

would be consistent with most State 

standards. Setting a minimum standard 

for acceptable CEUs across all States, 

Tribes, and Federal agencies will ensure 

a baseline level for recertification 

programs that employ training and may 

facilitate applicators earning credits for 

recertification in more than one State. 

With a more standardized baseline for a 

CEU, States may be more likely to 

approve or accept continuing education 

programs presented in other States. 

Interstate collaboration for 

recertification would reduce the burden 

on State lead agencies and educators to 

develop and present new materials for 

each category. In addition, applicators 

certified in the same category in more 

than one State could be able to earn 

CEUs in one State and apply them to 

recertification in their other State of 

certification, reducing the overall 

burden associated with recertification in 

multiple States. 

EPA also proposes to require that the 

applicator earn a minimum of one-half 

of the required CEUs during the 18 

month period preceding the expiration 

date of his or her certification. A more 

recently trained applicator is more 

likely than less frequently trained 

applicators to apply what he or she 

learned from the training on the job. 

This should ensure that the applicator 

maintains an ongoing level of 

competence throughout the period that 

the certification is valid. The proposal 

would support applicators staying 

abreast of current information and 

technology related to their category of 

pesticide application. 

EPA is also proposing to allow 

certifying authorities to require 

applicators to pass exams relevant to 

their categories of certification in order 

to be recertified. Exams are a reliable 

gauge of competency and can be used to 

ensure that applicators continue to 

demonstrate an appropriate level of 

competency. 

For a discussion of the requirement 

for verification of the recertification 

candidate’s identity, see Unit IX. 

The regulatory text for the proposed 

addition of recertification standards 

would be located at 40 CFR 171.107(b). 

5. Costs. The estimated costs for this 

proposal and the proposal in Unit 

XIV.A. are presented by impact to 

commercial applicators and private 

applicators. The costs to the States are 

incorporated in each section. 

i. Commercial applicators. EPA 

estimates that the proposed requirement 

for commercial applicators to recertify 

would cost a total of $6.5 million per 

year (Ref. 3). EPA estimated this cost 

based on an applicator being required to 

complete 6 hours of training in core 

competency standards and 6 hours of 

training for each category of 

certification. The recertification costs 

include applicators recertifying in the 

proposed application-method specific 

categories and the new predator control 

categories. EPA estimates that State 

costs to administer the proposed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51391 

recertification program for commercial 

applicators would be $39,000 because 

most States already have recertification 

programs in place and would only need 

to adjust it to match the proposed 

regulatory requirement (Ref. 3). 

ii. Private applicators. EPA estimates 

the cost of the proposed requirement for 

private applicators to recertify at $16.8 

million annually (Ref. 3). EPA estimated 

this cost based on an applicator being 

required to complete 6 hours of training 

in general private applicator 

competency standards and 3 hours of 

training for each application methodspecific category of certification. The 

recertification costs include applicators 

recertifying in the proposed applicationmethod specific categories and the new 

predator control categories. EPA 

estimates that State costs to administer 

the proposed recertification program for 

private applicators would be $11,000 

because most States already have a 

recertification program in place and 

would only need to adjust it to match 

the proposed regulatory requirement 

(Ref. 3). 

6. Alternative options considered by 

EPA but not proposed. EPA considered 

a range of continuing education 

requirements but does not have a 

specific alternative proposal. EPA 

reviewed recertification and continuing 

education requirements for several other 

types of professional occupations and 

found wide variability in continuing 

education requirements across States or 

organizations within a single profession 

(e.g., nursing), and found little 

information to explain the variation in 

requirements. Similarly, EPA reviewed 

the existing State continuing education 

requirements for pesticide applicator 

recertification and found that the 

requirements ranged from two up to 40 

continuing education units per cycle, 

and cycles ranged from 1 to 5 years, but 

there was little or no information 

available to support why a particular 

number of continuing education units 

was selected. 

7. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Is the proposed number of 

recertification CEUs too low or too high? 

If so, please provide specific 

information on the number of 

continuing education units that you 

believe should be required for 

professional recertification and the 

rationale behind the number. 

• Is EPA’s proposal to require that the 

applicator earn a minimum of one-half 

of the required CEUs during the 18 

month period preceding the expiration 

date of his or her certification clear? Is 

there a way EPA could make the 

requirement clearer or easier to 

understand? If so, please provide 

suggestions for how EPA could structure 

the requirement without altering the 

substance. 

• Should EPA reconsider the 

proposal to require that the applicator 

earn a minimum of one-half of the 

required CEUs during the 18 month 

period preceding the expiration date of 

his or her certification? If so, why? 

• Should EPA consider a different 

time period for applicator 

recertification? If so, please explain 

what period EPA should consider and 

why. 

• Should EPA require commercial 

and private applicators to have the same 

recertification requirements for category 

recertification? If so, why? 

• Should EPA do more to harmonize 

requirements for recertification to 

further facilitate reciprocity? Please 

describe what actions EPA should take 

and how they would further facilitate 

reciprocity. 

XV. Revise State Certification Plan 

Requirements 

1. Overview. In order to clarify 

requirements for content, submission 

and approval of State plans, raise the 

minimum standards for State pesticide 

applicator certification programs, and 

update the requirements for State plans, 

EPA proposes to revise the provisions of 

the rule related to submission, approval, 

and maintenance of State plans. Since 

the requirements for Tribal and Federal 

agency plans reference the standards for 

State plans, the proposed changes 

would also impact the requirements for 

Tribal and Federal agency plans. 

2. Existing regulation. The current 

provisions at 40 CFR 171.7 and 171.8 

establish the requirements for the 

submission, approval and maintenance 

of State plans. These sections of the rule 

set the content of State plans and 

outline the specific regulatory 

provisions, legal authorities, and 

components that States must have in 

order for EPA to approve a State plan. 

An EPA-approved State plan allows the 

State to certify and recertify RUP 

applicators. 

3. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA proposes to revise the provisions 

covering the submission, approval, and 

maintenance of State plans. The 

revisions will cover: Revision of State 

plans to conform with proposed 

changes; additional reporting and 

accountability information; States’ need 

to have both civil and criminal penalty 

authority to enforce their State plans; 

recordkeeping requirements for 

commercial applicators; recordkeeping 

requirements for RUP dealers; standards 

for certification credentials; 

requirements for States’ recognition of 

certifications issued by other States 

(known as reciprocal certification); and 

maintenance, modification, and 

withdrawals of State plans. 

i. State plan modification to 

implement proposed changes. EPA’s 

proposal would add appropriate 

provisions to ensure that State plans 

conform to new standards and 

requirements being proposed in other 

parts of the rule. This includes proposed 

standards for the certification of private 

and commercial applicators, 

recertification, and direct supervision of 

noncertified applicators. States would 

continue to be permitted to adopt, as 

they considered appropriate, the Federal 

categories appropriate for their States, 

add subcategories under the Federal 

categories, delete Federal categories not 

needed, and add State-specific 

categories not reflected by the Federal 

categories. 

EPA considered several alternatives. 

First, EPA considered requiring States to 

adopt all applicable Federal categories 

proposed as 40 CFR 171.101 and 

171.105. At the present time, few States 

have defined their certification 

categories to align exactly with the 

Federal categories—many have either 

split existing Federal categories into 

multiple categories or added a number 

of subcategories under categories similar 

to the Federal categories. Some 

stakeholders believe that requiring all 

certifying authorities to use the 

Federally-established categories could 

benefit applicator mobility, stating that 

if the standards for certification were 

consistent across States, States would be 

able to more easily evaluate requests for 

reciprocal certification. However, 

requiring States to adopt the Federal 

categories would burden States and 

applicators, and would not necessarily 

result in improved protection for 

applicators, the public, or the 

environment. Because the Federal 

categories may be broad, applicators 

may be required to learn material in 

areas not relevant to their actual 

applications, potentially reducing 

protections. Consequently, EPA expects 

that many States would still require 

applicators to certify in their Statespecific subcategories to ensure specific 

competency. If a significant number of 

States continue to require applicators to 

certify in State-specific subcategories, it 

would defeat the goal of facilitating 

reciprocal certification. In this scenario, 

requiring States to adopt the Federal 

categories would increase the burden to 

the States to revise their certification 

systems to accommodate the changes, 

and to applicators required to pass 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51392 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

another exam, without any clear benefit 

in either efficiency or protection. 

Because there is little, if any, gain in 

protection from this option, and because 

it would be a burden to States and 

applicators, it is not proposed. 

EPA also considered subdividing the 

national pest category 7 (industrial, 

institutional, structural and healthrelated pest control) into component 

parts. This category covers a range of 

specific application types—for example, 

applications in food handling areas to 

control insects and rodents, termite 

control in infested buildings, and 

treatments to nursing homes and 

schools. Safe and effective applications 

to these different sites require different 

skills and knowledge. Subdividing the 

category at the Federal level would 

allow the certification to focus on the 

competencies most relevant to 

applicators in the subdivided categories. 

However, 47 States have already created 

appropriate categories for their needs 

and their applicators learn information 

relevant to their specific applications 

and are being tested on that specific 

information. Because of the Statespecific divisions, there is little 

consistency in how the States have 

subdivided the category. Retaining the 

category in its current form and 

allowing States to adjust it as needed 

would avoid imposing an increased 

burden on States to adjust their 

categories to a newly developed Federal 

standard with little or no improvement 

in protection. 

For a discussion on EPA’s proposal 

for applicator reciprocity, please refer to 

Unit XV.3.vii. 

For standards for direct supervision of 

noncertified applicators, EPA proposes 

to require States to adopt the proposed 

standards at 40 CFR 171.201 for 

commercial and/or private applicators 

that supervise noncertified applicators. 

This would not require States to allow 

the use of RUPs by noncertified 

applicators under the direct supervision 

of certified applicators; States that 

choose to restrict use of RUPs to 

certified applicators would be exempted 

from the requirement to adopt the 

proposed standards as 40 CFR 171.201. 

These options would continue to allow 

the States the flexibility to decide 

whether or not to allow use of RUPs by 

noncertified applicators. EPA’s criteria 

for approving the registrations of RUPs 

are based, in part, on presumptions that 

any uncertified applicators have at least 

the level of training mandated in 40 CFR 

171.201. Therefore, EPA only proposes 

that States adopt EPA’s standards for 

noncertified applicators exactly, with 

the flexibility to adopt additional 

standards at the State’s discretion to 

address State-specific issues. 

The proposed regulatory text would 

be located at 40 CFR 171.303(a) and (b). 

ii. Program reporting and 

accountability. To reflect the proposed 

changes to applicator certification 

categories and to ensure EPA receives 

adequate information to monitor the 

State’s implementation of its 

certification plan, EPA proposes to 

require States to report the information 

below to EPA annually. EPA is also 

proposing to require Tribes and Federal 

agencies with their own certification 

plans to submit similar relevant 

information to EPA. 

• The numbers of new, recertified, 

and total applicators holding a valid 

general private certification at the end of 

the last 12-month reporting period. 

• For each application methodspecific category specified in 40 CFR 

171.105(c), the numbers of new, 

recertified, and total private applicators 

holding valid certifications for the last 

12-month reporting period. 

• The numbers of new, recertified, 

and total commercial applicators 

holding a valid core and at least one 

category certification at the end of the 

last 12-month reporting period. 

• For each commercial applicator 

certification category specified in 40 

CFR 171.101(a), the numbers of new, 

recertified, and total commercial 

applicators holding a valid certification 

in each of those categories at the end of 

the last 12-month reporting period. 

• For each application methodspecific category specified in 40 CFR 

171.101(b), the numbers of new, 

recertified, and total valid certifications 

for the last 12 month reporting period. 

• If a State has established 

subcategories within any of the 

commercial categories, the report must 

include the numbers of new, recertified, 

and total commercial applicators 

holding valid certifications in each of 

the subcategories. 

• A description of any modifications 

made to the approved certification plan 

during the last 12-month reporting 

period that have not been previously 

evaluated by EPA. 

• A description of any proposed 

changes to the certification plan that the 

State anticipates making during the next 

reporting period that may affect the 

certification plan. 

• The number and description of 

enforcement actions taken for any 

violations of Federal or State laws and 

regulations involving use of RUPs 

during the last 12-month reporting 

period. 

• A narrative summary describing the 

misuse incidents or enforcement 

activities related to use of RUPs during 

the last 12-month reporting period, 

including specific information on the 

pesticide(s) used, circumstances of the 

incident, nature of the violation, and 

information on the applicator’s 

certification. This section should 

include a discussion of potential 

changes in policy or procedure to 

prevent future incidents or violations. 

EPA considers these additional 

reporting elements necessary to improve 

performance measurement and 

accountability for the applicator 

certification program. Standardized data 

reporting requirements assist in uniform 

program measurement, an important 

element of the 1993 Government 

Performance and Results Act (GPRA), 

Public Law 103–62, August 3, 1993, 107 

Stat 285. The limited requirements for, 

and the wide variation in, the current 

State program reporting present 

impediments to national program 

monitoring and management. Fair and 

equitable assessment of State programs 

and the national program should be 

based on the review of standardized 

reports. Uniform data collection and 

submission would assist EPA in 

accurately measuring the success of the 

program and would facilitate the 

development and use of program 

measures to gauge program success. 

Areas requiring improvement and 

targeted outreach to address problems 

could be identified during data analysis. 

The proposed regulatory language for 

the program reporting would be located 

at 40 CFR 171.303(c). 

iii. Civil and criminal penalty 

authority. The current rule is not clear 

on whether States must have authority 

to impose both criminal and civil 

penalty provisions for commercial and 

private applicators. EPA has concerns 

that in the absence of either civil or 

criminal penalty provisions, a State 

would not have an adequate range of 

enforcement options and capabilities to 

respond appropriately to the wide range 

of pesticide misuse situations that could 

arise. EPA proposes to revise the 

regulation to expressly require that 

States have both civil and criminal 

penalty provisions. 

The proposed regulatory language for 

civil and criminal penalty authority 

would be located at 40 CFR 

171.303(b)(6)(iii). 

iv. Commercial applicator 

recordkeeping. EPA proposes to clarify 

what records commercial applicators 

must maintain. The current rule 

mandates that State plans include 

requirements for certified commercial 

applicators maintain for at least two 

years routine operational records 

containing information on kinds, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51393 

amounts, uses, dates, and places of 

application of RUPs. 40 CFR 

171.7(b)(1)(iii)(E). Under this proposal, 

commercial applicators would be 

required to keep and maintain all of the 

following records for the RUPs they 

apply: 

• The name and address of the person 

for whom the pesticide was applied. 

• The location of the pesticide 

application. 

• The size of the area treated. 

• The crop, commodity, stored 

product, or site to which the pesticide 

was applied. 

• The time and date of the pesticide 

application. 

• The brand or product name of the 

pesticide applied. 

• The EPA registration number of the 

pesticide applied. 

• The total amount of the pesticide 

applied. 

• The name and certification number 

of the certified applicator that made or 

supervised the application, and if 

applicable, the name of any noncertified 

applicator(s) that made the application 

under the direct supervision of the 

certified applicator. 

• Records related to the supervision of 

noncertified applicators working under 

the direct supervision of a certified 

applicator described in Unit XI. 

This proposed recordkeeping is 

substantially similar to the 

recordkeeping requirements established 

for private applicators under the Food, 

Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade 

Act of 1990, Public Law 101–624, 

November 28, 1990, 104 Stat 3359, 

which is administered by USDA. This 

proposal would ensure consistency 

between State recordkeeping 

requirements for commercial applicators 

and existing Federal recordkeeping 

requirements, which govern 

recordkeeping by commercial 

applicators certified under EPAadministered certification programs. 

The proposed regulatory language for 

commercial applicator recordkeeping 

would be located at 40 CFR 

171.303(b)(6)(vi). 

v. RUP dealer recordkeeping. EPA 

proposes to require States to have 

provisions requiring RUP retail dealers 

to keep and maintain at each individual 

dealership, for a period of at least two 

years, records of each transaction where 

a RUP is distributed or sold by that 

dealership to any person. Records of 

each such transaction must include all 

of the following information: 

• Name and address of the residence 

or principal place of business of each 

person to whom the RUP was 

distributed or sold, or if applicable, the 

name and address of the residence or 

principal place of business of each 

noncertified applicator to whom the 

RUP was distributed or sold for use by 

a certified applicator. 

• The applicator’s unique 

certification number on the certification 

document presented to the dealer 

evidencing the valid certification of the 

certified applicator authorized to 

purchase the RUP; the State, Tribe or 

Federal agency that issued the 

certification document; the expiration 

date of the certified applicator’s 

certification; and the categories in 

which the certified applicator is 

certified. 

• The product name and EPA 

registration number of the RUP(s) 

distributed or sold in the transaction, 

and the State special local need 

registration number on the label of the 

RUP if applicable. 

• The quantity of the pesticide(s) 

distributed or sold in the transaction. 

• The date of the transaction. 

All 50 States currently have RUP 

dealer recordkeeping requirements; EPA 

proposes this Federal standard to ensure 

consistency across the States and to 

ensure all necessary information is 

collected. This proposal would also 

ensure consistency between State 

recordkeeping requirements for RUP 

dealers and existing Federal 

recordkeeping requirements, which 

govern recordkeeping by RUP dealers 

that operate in areas covered by EPAadministered certification programs. 

The proposed regulatory language for 

the proposed RUP dealer recordkeeping 

requirement would be located at 40 CFR 

171.303(b)(6)(vii). 

vi. Certified applicator credentials. 

The certification regulation does not 

currently have requirements for what 

information States must include on 

applicator certification documents. EPA 

proposes to require States to issue 

appropriate credentials or documents 

verifying certification of applicators, 

containing all of the following 

information: 

• The full name of the certified 

applicator. 

• The certification, license, or 

credential number of the certified 

applicator. 

• The type of certification (private or 

commercial). 

• The category(ies), including any 

application method-specific 

category(ies) and subcategories of 

certification, in which the applicator is 

certified, as applicable. 

• The expiration date of the 

certification. 

• A statement that the certification is 

based on a certification issued by 

another State, Tribe or Federal agency, 

if applicable, and the identity of that 

State, Tribe or Federal agency. 

It is reasonable to expect that 

requiring consistent information on 

applicator certification across all 

certifying agencies would assist States 

in evaluating certification documents 

presented by applicators certified in 

another State, would assist dealers in 

reviewing certification information, and 

would assist enforcement agents in 

evaluating the applicator’s certification 

document during an inspection. 

The proposed regulatory text for 

applicator certification credentials 

would be located at 40 CFR 

171.303(a)(6). 

vii. Reciprocal applicator 

certification. The current provisions do 

not require States to provide specific 

information about State requirements 

and procedures for reciprocity. States 

have requested that EPA take action to 

establish standards to allow reciprocal 

certification between States and to 

standardize the process. Based on the 

request by States and to facilitate the 

certification of applicators working in 

more than one State, EPA proposes to 

require State certification plans to 

specify whether (and if so, under what 

circumstances) the State would certify 

applicators based, in whole or in part, 

on the applicator having been certified 

by another State, Tribe, or Federal 

agency. Under the proposed rule, such 

certifications would be subject to all of 

the following conditions: 

• A State may only rely on current, 

valid certifications issued under an 

approved State, Tribal or Federal agency 

certification plan, and may only rely on 

a certification issued by a State, Tribe or 

Federal agency that issued its 

certification based on an independent 

determination of competency without 

reliance on any other existing 

certification or authority. For each 

category of certification that will be 

accepted, the standards of competency 

in the State, Tribe or Federal agency that 

originally certified the applicator must 

be comparable to the standards of the 

accepting State. 

• Any certification that is based, in 

whole or in part, on the applicator 

having been certified by another State, 

Tribe or Federal agency must terminate 

immediately if the applicator’s original 

certification terminates for any reason. 

• Any State which chooses to certify 

applicators based, in whole or in part, 

on the applicator having been certified 

by another State, Tribe, or Federal 

agency, must implement a mechanism 

to ensure the State will immediately 

terminate an applicator’s certification if 

the applicator’s original certification 

terminates for any reason. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51394 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

• The State issuing a certification 

based, in whole or in part, on the 

applicator having been certified by 

another State, Tribe or Federal agency 

must issue an appropriate credential or 

document in accordance with the 

requirements of this section. 

The proposed regulatory text related 

to States issuing certifications based on 

applicator certification credentials 

obtained in other jurisdictions would be 

located at 40 CFR 171.303(a)(7). 

viii. State plan maintenance, 

modification, and withdrawal. EPA 

proposes to replace the existing 

provisions related to maintenance, 

modification, and withdrawals of State 

certification plans. The proposed 

revisions would clarify the types of plan 

changes that constitute substantial 

modifications and therefore require 

additional review and approval by EPA. 

The proposed revisions would codify 

existing interim program policy and 

guidance issued by EPA in 2006 (Ref. 

52). 

The regulatory text for modification 

and withdrawal of State plans will be 

located at 40 CFR 171.309. 

4. Costs. EPA estimates the proposed 

revisions to the State certification plan 

requirements will include 3 costs: 

Revising State requirements to meet 

EPA’s proposed standards, updating 

State plans for submission to and 

approval by EPA, and adding a 

requirement for dealers to maintain 

records of RUP sales (Ref. 3). The 

current rule requires States to require 

commercial applicators to keep records; 

the proposal merely clarifies the content 

of the records and therefore is not 

expected to result in costs to the 

applicator or States. 

EPA estimates that States would incur 

a one-time cost of about $119,000 

annually for the first two years to revise 

and finalize pesticide applicator laws 

and regulations that meet or exceed 

EPA’s proposed requirement (Ref. 3). 

Once States have revised their laws and 

regulations, they will need to draft and 

submit a revised plan for applicator 

certification to EPA for approval. Since 

EPA already requires States to update 

plans as appropriate and to report 

necessary information to EPA annually, 

EPA estimates the cost of this process 

would be about $4,000 annually for the 

first two years after implementation 

across all States (Ref. 3). 

Finally, it is reasonable to expect that 

the requirement for RUP dealers to 

maintain records of RUP sales will not 

impose any burden on the regulated 

community. All States already require 

RUP applicators to maintain such 

records. However, a few States may 

have to do additional revisions to their 

laws and regulations to ensure the State 

recordkeeping requirement mirrors the 

proposed Federal requirement. There is 

no estimated cost associated with this 

proposal because all States already 

require RUP dealers to maintain records 

of sales (Ref. 3). 

5. Alternative options considered by 

EPA but not proposed. EPA considered 

requiring States to make available 

publically a list of all applicators 

certified by the State. Under this 

alternative, such a list could be made 

available electronically, e.g., via the 

internet. Such a list could be used by 

the public to verify whether the pest 

control operator hired to perform the 

application was certified. States already 

maintain information on the persons 

who hold valid certifications. States 

maintain the information in varying 

formats—some keep paper files, while 

others maintain an electronic database 

that is updated in real time as 

certifications are earned and expired. 

Some States have chosen to publish the 

information on the internet. Some States 

may have restrictions on publishing 

information online, but would make it 

available upon request. Because the 

States do not have a uniform manner to 

track and make available electronically 

the names of all certified applicators, 

and the public may already have access 

to this information in varying forms in 

each State, it is not necessary impose a 

requirement at the Federal level. 

6. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• EPA is not proposing to require 

States to adopt all applicable Federal 

categories to address reciprocity 

between jurisdictions, because it would 

burden States and applicators, and 

protections may not be improved. Are 

there approaches to facilitate reciprocity 

that would minimize burdens and 

disruption at the lead agency level and 

improve protections? Please describe 

these approaches and how they may be 

implemented. 

• Should EPA require all States, 

Tribes, and Federal agencies to adopt 

the same certification standards and to 

mandate reciprocity between 

jurisdictions? Please describe benefits 

and drawbacks to such a requirement. 

• Are there benefits, that EPA has not 

considered, to requiring States to adopt 

Federal certification categories? If so, 

please explain the benefits and how 

they would impact competency 

standards for national certification 

categories. 

• Would the proposed reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements impose 

unnecessary burden on States, farmers, 

small businesses, or other entities? If so, 

who would bear unnecessary burden 

and why? 

• Should EPA consider requiring 

records to be retained for a different 

period? If so, what how long should 

records be retained and why? 

• Are there other types of information 

that EPA should consider collecting 

from States, RUP dealers, or commercial 

applicators? 

• Is there any other information 

related to reciprocal certification that 

EPA should consider incorporating into 

the regulation? If so, please indicate 

which information should be added or 

deleted and why. 

• Should EPA consider adding to or 

deleting from the required elements of 

the applicator certification document? If 

so, please indicate which information 

should be added or deleted and why. 

• Should EPA consider requiring 

States to make available publically a list 

of all applicators holding a valid 

certification? If so, should the list be 

available electronically? Should the list 

be updated in real time, or would 

periodic updates be acceptable? If 

periodic updates are chosen, what 

period would be reasonable? 

• Should EPA consider requiring 

certifying authorities to require their 

commercial applicators to report 

incidents that would meet the reporting 

criteria of 40 CFR 159.184 if known to 

the pesticide registrant? 

XVI. Establish Provision for Review 

and Approval of Federal Agency Plans 

1. Overview. In order to codify Agency 

policy on Federal agency certification 

plans, EPA proposes to delete from the 

current regulation the section on GAP 

(40 CFR 171.9) and to codify EPA’s 1977 

policy on review and approval of 

Federal agency plans. 

2. Existing regulation. The 

certification rule covers GAP 

certifications, outlining a process for 

certifying employees of Federal agencies 

to use RUPs in the course of their duties 

under a government-wide GAP. 40 CFR 

171.9. The 1974 proposal (Ref. 61) 

included a special process for certifying 

employees of Federal agencies, but the 

process was not included in the final 

rule. EPA subsequently outlined a 

proposed process for certifying 

employees of Federal agencies under a 

government-wide GAP (Ref. 62). The 

GAP certification process was included 

in the final revised rule (Ref. 24), but a 

GAP was never developed or 

implemented by EPA or the Federal 

government. In 1977, EPA announced a 

policy that provided an alternative 

approach for Federal employee 

certification (Ref. 60). Under the 1977 

policy, EPA allows Federal agencies to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51395 

submit their own plans for the 

certification of RUP applicators; EPA 

approves the Federal plans provided 

they meet or exceed EPA’s standards. In 

the 1977 policy, EPA noted that the 

standards for Federal agency plans were 

to be essentially equal to or more 

stringent than requirements for State 

plans. Four Federal agencies currently 

have EPA-approved Federal agency 

plans. The Department of Defense 

(DOD) and USDA have certification 

plans that were revised and approved in 

2009. The Departments of Energy (DOE) 

and the Interior (DOI) have plans that 

were approved prior to 1990. 

3. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA proposes to delete the current text 

at 40 CFR 171.9. EPA proposes to codify 

the 1977 policy covering Federal agency 

plans (Ref. 60), and to clarify the 

standards that Federal agencies must 

meet. The proposed revisions include 

the following requirements: Federal 

agencies must comply with all 

applicable standards for certification, 

recordkeeping, and other similar 

requirements for State/Tribal plans; 

Federal agencies must ensure 

compliance with applicable State 

pesticide use laws and regulations, 

including those pertaining to special 

certification requirements and use 

reporting, when applying pesticides on 

State lands; Federal agencies must 

comply with all applicable Executive 

Orders; and Federal agencies must 

conform to standards established for 

States related to maintenance of plans 

and annual reporting. 

The proposed regulatory language 

concerning Federal agency plans will be 

located at 40 CFR 171.305. 

4. Costs. EPA estimates negligible 

burden associated with this requirement 

(Ref. 3). Although Federal agencies with 

existing plans would be required to 

revise and resubmit their certification 

plans to be in compliance with the 

revised proposed rule resulting in some 

administrative burden for these Federal 

agencies, EPA believes that the 

administrative burden associated with 

plan revisions would not be significant 

for two reasons. First, the four Federal 

agencies currently administering 

certification plans appear to be the only 

Federal agencies interested in certifying 

applicators and so this proposal will not 

have a substantial impact on most 

Federal agencies. Second, Federal 

agencies with existing certification 

plans have revised their plans to 

address changing needs within their 

certification programs, so revisions 

required by this proposal would not 

significantly increase the burden above 

that which they already incur. 

5. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Is there any reason for EPA to retain 

the GAP provisions in the current rule? 

If so, why? 

XVII. Clarify Options for Establishing a 

Certification Program in Indian 

Country 

1. Overview. In order to provide more 

workable applicator certification 

options in Indian country, EPA 

proposes to revise the mechanisms 

available to Tribes for certifying 

pesticide applicators. 

2. Existing regulation. The current 

rule provides three options for 

applicator certification programs in 

Indian country: Tribes may utilize State 

certification to certify applicators 

(requires concurrence by the State(s) 

and an appropriate State-Tribal 

cooperative agreement); Tribes may 

develop and implement a Tribal 

certification plan (requires Tribes to 

develop and submit an appropriate 

Tribal certification plan to EPA for 

approval); or EPA may administer a 

Federal certification plan for applicators 

in Indian country, such as EPA’s 

national plan for Indian country (Ref. 1). 

Currently, only a few Tribes have 

been approved by EPA to administer 

certification plans. In those areas of 

Indian country without an EPAapproved State or Tribal certification 

plan in effect, EPA administers a 

certification plan to ensure that RUPs 

are used only by certified applicators or 

noncertified applicators working under 

their direct supervision. 

3. Stakeholder information 

considered by EPA. Consistent with 

EPA’s Indian Policy and Tribal 

Consultation Policy, EPA engaged in a 

formal consultation process with Tribes 

summarized in Unit XXII. (Ref. 63). 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA proposes to revise the mechanisms 

for establishing applicator certification 

programs in Indian country. EPA would 

revise the option where a Tribe relies on 

State certification and the option for 

EPA-administered certification plans in 

Indian country. EPA would also amend 

the requirements for Tribalimplemented certification plans to 

require Tribal plans to incorporate the 

proposed revisions to applicator 

certification standards. 

First, the proposal would revise the 

current option for Tribes to rely on State 

certification by eliminating the 

requirement for Tribes to enter into 

cooperative agreements with States. 

This option would be replaced by an 

option to enter into agreements with 

EPA Regional offices to establish 

certification programs in Indian 

country. The proposed revisions would 

allow Tribes to enter into agreements 

with EPA to recognize the certification 

of applicators who hold a certificate 

issued under one or more specific EPAapproved State, Tribal or Federal agency 

certification plans, without the need for 

State-Tribal cooperative agreements and 

with little burden on States or Tribes. 

EPA would retain relevant enforcement 

responsibilities in areas of Indian 

country covered by a certification plan 

implemented in this manner. 

Second, EPA proposes to clarify that 

EPA can include multiple Tribes and/or 

multiple geographic areas of Indian 

country under one single EPAadministered plan. This option 

facilitates the implementation of a 

nation-wide certification plan that 

would cover applicators using RUPs in 

different, non-contiguous parts of Indian 

country. This proposal is merely a 

clarification of the existing rule, and 

EPA has already established a national 

plan for certification of applicators in 

Indian country. EPA implemented its 

national plan for Indian country in 2014 

(Ref. 1). The EPA-administered plan 

serves those areas of Indian country 

throughout the United States where no 

other EPA-approved certification 

mechanism exists. 

Third, the proposal would update the 

requirements for Tribal plans by 

requiring those Tribes that choose to 

manage their own certification plan to 

adopt the new standards being proposed 

for State and Federal agency 

certification plans in regard to initial 

certification and recertification of 

private and commercial applicators and 

the training and supervision of 

noncertified applicators who apply 

RUPs under the direct supervision of a 

certified applicator. The proposal would 

also eliminate current requirements for 

States to include in their State 

certification plans references to any 

agreements with Tribes for recognizing 

the States’ certificates. 

The proposed revisions would ensure 

that Tribes are generally subject to the 

same certification program standards 

applicable to States, Federal agencies, 

and EPA-administered programs. 

However, certain separate requirements 

would be included in the Indian 

country provision relating to the 

exercise of criminal enforcement 

authority. EPA recognizes that certain 

limitations exist regarding Tribes’ 

ability to exercise criminal enforcement 

authority. In such circumstances, it is 

appropriate to retain primary criminal 

enforcement authority with the Federal 

government and EPA has proposed 

requirements for Tribes and EPA to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51396 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

enter into relevant agreements regarding 

the exchange of potential investigative 

leads. These requirements are similar to 

EPA’s approach to criminal enforcement 

authority in the context of other EPA 

rules addressing Tribal programs under 

Federal environmental laws. See, e.g., 

40 CFR 49.8. The proposed revisions 

would enhance the ability of Tribal 

programs to develop and implement 

certification plans and programs for 

those Tribes that choose to manage their 

own certification plans, and would 

provide practicable alternatives for 

those Tribes that do not. The proposed 

revisions may require some Tribes with 

a current, EPA-approved certification 

plan to make changes to Tribal laws, 

regulations, or code. EPA intends to 

consider the potential impacts of Tribal 

legislative changes and Tribal plan 

revision when establishing effective 

dates for the final rule. 

The regulatory language for the 

proposed options for applicator 

certification in Indian country would be 

located at 40 CFR 171.307. 

5. Costs. The costs associated with 

these changes should be negligible 

because they primarily result in 

clarification of requirements and policy, 

not in the imposition of substantial new 

requirements or obligations on the part 

of Tribes (Ref. 3). EPA does not believe 

the proposed revisions would place any 

unreasonable burden on Tribes because 

they do not require Tribes to implement 

certification programs. These proposed 

revisions would require existing Tribal 

certification plans to be revised and 

resubmitted to EPA for review and 

approval. EPA estimates the costs to 

these Tribes would be similar to the 

costs to States for updating and 

submitting to EPA for approval a revised 

certification plan. Because there are 

currently only four Tribes with an EPAapproved certification plan the 

proposed changes to certification 

mechanisms in Indian country should 

not result in a significant impact on 

Tribal entities or programs as a whole. 

6. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Are there other mechanisms EPA 

should consider for certification of RUP 

applicators in Indian country? If so, 

please describe the additional 

mechanism(s), how they would be 

implemented, and the benefit to Tribes, 

applicators, human health, and the 

environment. 

XVIII. Revise Provisions for EPAAdministered Plans 

1. Overview. To update requirements 

for EPA-administered plans to conform 

with the proposed changes to the 

regulation, EPA proposes to amend the 

section of the rule dealing with EPAadministered plans. 

2. Existing regulation. The current 

rule establishes requirements for EPAadministered certification in States or 

areas of Indian country without EPAapproved certification plans in place, 

including specific standards for 

certification and recertification of 

pesticide applicators. 40 CFR 171.11. 

3. Details of the proposal/rationale. 

EPA proposes to revise the current 

section outlining the requirements for 

an EPA-administered Federal 

certification plan to incorporate the 

proposed changes to State certification 

plans related to RUP applicator 

certification, recertification, and 

noncertified applicator qualifications, as 

well as plan reporting and maintenance 

requirements. The rules governing EPAadministered certification programs 

should be constructed in a way that 

minimizes administrative burden on 

EPA and the regulated community and 

reduces costs to taxpayers, while still 

providing EPA with the tools necessary 

to protect human health and the 

environment. The proposed revisions 

would make requirements for the 

certification and recertification of RUP 

applicators and supervision of 

noncertified applicators parallel to the 

requirements proposed for States, 

Tribes, and other Federal agencies. 

The proposed regulatory language 

covering EPA-administered plans would 

be located at 40 CFR 171.311. 

4. Costs. EPA estimates the costs 

associated with this proposal would be 

negligible (Ref. 3). EPA currently 

administers two certification plans—one 

for the Navajo Tribe (Ref. 2) and one for 

certification in Indian country (Ref. 1). 

It is reasonable to expect that the costs 

of updating these plans to conform to 

the proposed changes would be 

relatively low. 

5. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Should EPA consider other 

revisions to the provisions for EPAadministered plans? If so, please 

describe the additional revision(s), how 

they would be implemented, and the 

benefit(s) to applicators, human health, 

and the environment. 

XIX. Revise Definitions and Restructure 

40 CFR Part 171 

A. Improved Definitions 

EPA proposes to revise the definitions 

in the certification regulation to add 

several new definitions and to eliminate 

several unnecessary definitions. EPA 

expects that improved definitions 

would reduce the likelihood of 

misinterpretation and thereby improve 

compliance and enforceability. 

These proposed revisions to the 

definitions adopt more widely used and 

commonly accepted ‘‘plain English’’ 

language, and add clarity and 

consistency to the rule. The proposed 

revisions to the definitions also help 

address issues raised by State regulatory 

partners and other program 

stakeholders. EPA does not believe the 

proposed revisions to the definitions 

will add new regulatory requirements 

on the regulated community or 

substantially increase regulatory 

burden. 

The revised and new definitions 

would be located at 40 CFR 171.3. 

1. Revised definitions. The Agency 

proposes to revise the following existing 

definitions: ‘‘compatibility’’, 

‘‘dealership’’, ‘‘non-target organism’’, 

‘‘ornamental’’, ‘‘principal place of 

business’’, and ‘‘toxicity’’. 

2. New definitions. The Agency also 

proposes to add the following new 

definitions: ‘‘application’’, ‘‘application 

method’’, ‘‘fumigant’’, ‘‘fumigation’’, 

‘‘Indian country’’, ‘‘Indian Tribe’’, 

‘‘noncertified applicator’’, ‘‘personal 

protective equipment’’, ‘‘use’’, and ‘‘usespecific instructions’’. 

3. Definitions to be deleted. The 

Agency proposes to delete the following 

existing definitions from 40 CFR part 

171 because they are no longer 

necessary as a result of other proposed 

revisions to the existing rule or are 

already defined in FIFRA: ‘‘Act’’, 

‘‘Agency’’, ‘‘forest’’, ‘‘uncertified 

person’’, and ‘‘hazard’’. 

4. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Are there other terms that EPA 

should consider adding, clarifying, 

redefining, or eliminating from the rule? 

If so, please provide detail about the 

term(s) and rationale for change. 

B. Restructuring of 40 CFR Part 171 

In order to improve clarity and 

implement the principles of using plain 

language in regulations, EPA proposes 

to reorganize the structure of 40 CFR 

part 171. EPA expects the revised 40 

CFR part 171 will be easier to read and 

understand, improving compliance by 

applicators and other program 

stakeholders. 

1. Existing 40 CFR part 171. At this 

time 40 CFR part 171 is a single part 

with no subparts. The first sections (40 

CFR 171.1 through 171.6) describe the 

standards for commercial and private 

applicators, requirements for persons 

working under the direct supervision of 

a certified applicator, definitions, and a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51397 

statement of purpose. The second half of 

the rule (40 CFR 171.7 through 171.11) 

describes the procedures for States, 

Tribes, Federal agencies, and EPA to 

administer a certification program. The 

rule has a section titled ‘‘Government 

Agency Plan’’ describing a plan 

covering the entire Federal government 

that was not implemented. EPA has 

received feedback that this section is 

difficult to understand and seems 

irrelevant. 

2. This proposal. The proposal would 

reorganize the rule into four subparts: 

‘‘General Provisions’’, ‘‘Certification 

Requirements for Applicators of 

Restricted Use Pesticides’’, 

‘‘Supervision of Noncertified 

Applicators’’, and ‘‘Certification Plans’’. 

The General Provisions section would 

include the sections on scope, 

definitions, and effective date. The 

Certification Requirements for 

Applicators of Restricted Use Pesticides 

section would include all standards for 

the certification and recertification of 

commercial and private applicators. The 

Supervision of Noncertified Applicators 

section would include all relevant 

standards for the certified applicator 

and the noncertified applicator using 

RUPs under his or her direct 

supervision. The Certification Plans 

section would include requirements for 

States, Tribes, and Federal agencies to 

submit and modify their certification 

plans, as well as a description of an 

EPA-administered applicator 

certification plan. 

EPA expects that the restructured rule 

will facilitate understanding of the rule 

by applicators and authorized agencies 

because it deletes obsolete provisions 

and uses clearer language. 

3. Alternative options considered by 

EPA but not proposed. EPA considered 

two additional changes to the 

organization of the regulation. First, 

EPA considered moving the paragraph 

titled ‘‘Determination of Competency’’ 

proposed as 40 CFR 171.103(a) to the 

beginning of subpart B as an 

independent, introductory section. 

Second, EPA considered moving the 

paragraph titled ‘‘Examination 

Standards’’ proposed as 40 CFR 

171.103(b) to subpart D related to 

certification plans. Keeping the 

standards related to determining 

competency and administering 

competency exams in the same section 

as the specific competency standards 

that applicators must meet is a more 

reasonable organization of the 

regulation because these two sections 

are related to how commercial 

applicator competency is determined. 

Therefore, EPA does not propose the 

two changes discussed in this unit. 

4. Request for comment. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

• Is the restructuring clearer? Is it 

easier to read and understand? 

• Are there other ways that EPA 

could simplify or clarify 40 CFR part 

171? If so, please describe. 

• Should EPA consider alternate 

organizations of the regulation? If so, 

please provide a proposal and rationale 

for reorganization. 

XX. Implementation 

EPA proposes to make the final rule 

effective 60 days after the promulgated 

rule is published in the Federal 

Register. Compliance with certain 

provisions of the rule would be delayed. 

Existing certification plans could 

remain in effect for up to four years after 

the effective date of the final rule. 

Beginning four years after the effective 

date of the final rule, a State, Tribe, 

Federal agency, and EPA would only be 

permitted to certify applicators of RUPs 

in accordance with a certification plan 

that meets or exceeds all of the 

applicable requirements of the final 

regulation and that has been approved 

by EPA after the effective date of the 

rule. 

States, Tribes, and Federal agencies 

administering EPA-approved 

certification plans would be required to 

submit amended certification plans to 

EPA for approval within two years of 

the effective date of the final rule. EPA 

intends to review and respond to all 

certification plans submitted within 2 

years of the effective date. This would 

allow ample time for EPA, Tribes, 

Federal agencies, and State regulators 

time to make the necessary changes to 

certification plans, and for these and 

other stakeholders to implement the 

new certification procedures. EPA 

expects that applicators may need to be 

certified in new categories and 

noncertified applicators could need 

training to meet the new standard. 

States, Tribes, and Federal agencies 

administering EPA-approved 

certification plans would need to 

become familiar with the new regulation 

and conduct outreach to the regulated 

community. Certified applicators and 

trainers of noncertified applicators 

would have to become familiar with the 

noncertified applicator training content, 

ensure that they meet any eligibility 

requirements, and obtain training 

materials if necessary. As resources 

permit and if the final rule includes the 

relevant provisions from the proposal, 

EPA intends to develop training 

materials for noncertified applicators 

working under the direct supervision of 

a certified applicator and for 

certification in a non-soil fumigation 

category. Materials currently exist that 

can be modified to support general 

certification for private applicators, and 

EPA has developed and distributed to 

States training materials for aerial 

applicators and soil fumigation 

categories. 

To facilitate implementation, EPA 

plans to issue a guidance document at 

the time the final rule is published, to 

provide assistance to States, and to 

conduct outreach to potentially affected 

parties. 

EPA requests comment on the 

proposed implementation of the rule. 

Specifically, EPA requests feedback on 

the following: 

• Would States and Tribes be able to 

amend and submit revised certification 

plans for EPA approval within 2 years 

of the effective date of the final rule? 

• If the proposed implementation 

schedule does not seem reasonable, 

please provide specific comments on 

why the proposal is not reasonable and 

provide specific suggestions of an 

alternate schedule and why it would be 

reasonable. 

• Would States, Tribes, and Federal 

agencies need additional time after EPA 

approves the revised certification plan 

that meets or exceeds the requirements 

of the final rule in order to bring 

certified applicators into compliance 

with the new requirements? If so, how 

much time would be needed? What 

activities would be conducted? 

• Would the implementation 

schedule be reasonable if EPA provided 

exams and training materials for the 

proposed additional categories? 

• What support would States, Tribes, 

and Federal agencies require from EPA 

during the implementation of the 

provisions of the final rule? 

• If EPA evaluates the effectiveness 

and/or the impacts and benefits of the 

rule, what timeframe should be used to 

conduct the evaluation, e.g., should EPA 

begin a review after the rule is fully 

implemented or a specific time period 

after full implementation? For how long 

should EPA conduct the evaluation? 

Please provide additional information 

on methodology that could be used to 

conduct any evaluation. 

XXI. References 

The following is a listing of the 

documents that are specifically 

referenced in this rulemaking. The 

docket includes these documents and 

other information considered by EPA. 

For assistance in locating these other 

documents, please consult the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51398 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1. EPA. Final EPA Plan for the Federal 

Certification of Applicators of Restricted Use 

Pesticides Within Indian Country; Notice of 

Implementation. Notice. Federal Register (79 

FR 7185, February 6, 2014) (FRL–9904–18). 

2. EPA. Federal Plan for Certification of 

Restricted Use Pesticide Applicators in 

Navajo Indian Country; Notice of 

Implementation; and Announcement of 

Availability of Form to Request Pesticide 

Applicator Certification in Navajo Indian 

Country. Notice. Federal Register (72 FR 

32648, June 13, 2007) (FRL–8078–9). 

3. EPA. Economic Analysis of Proposed 

Revisions to the Applicator Certification 

Regulation. July 29, 2015. 

4. EPA. Pesticides; Agricultural Worker 

Protection Standard Revision. Proposed Rule. 

Federal Register (79 FR 15444, March 19, 

2014) (FRL–9395–8). 

5. EPA. Certification Plan and Reporting 

Database. http://cpard.wsu.edu/reports/ 

menu.aspx. 

6. EPA. 1987–2004 Annual Certified 

Applicator Data. http://www.epa.gov/ 

oppfead1/safety/applicators/data.htm. 

7. DOL. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Occupational Outlook Handbook. 2010–11 

Library Edition. Bulletin 2800. Washington, 

DC. 

8. EPA. OPP Report on Incidence 

Information: The Baseline. 2007. 

9. Harchelroad, F., et al. Treated vs 

Reported Toxic Exposures: Discrepancies 

Between a Poison Control Center and a 

Member Hospital. Veterinary and Human 

Toxicology, April 1990, Vol. 32, pp. 156–159. 

10. Chafee-Bahamon, C., et al. Patterns in 

Hospitals’ Use of a Regional Poison 

Information Center. American Journal of 

Public Health. April 4, 1983. Vol. 73, pp. 

396–400. 

11. Veltri, et al. Interpretation and Uses of 

Data Collected in Poison Control Centres in 

the United States. Medical Toxicology and 

Adverse Drug Experience, November– 

December 1987. Vol. 6, pp. 389–97. 

12. NIOSH. Data from the Sentinel Event 

Notification System for Occupational Risk— 

Pesticides Program. 2014. http:// 

wwwn.cdc.gov/niosh-survapps/sensor/. 

13. NIH. Agricultural Health Study. http:// 

aghealth.nih.gov. 

14. Arthur, W., Bennett Jr., W., Stanush, P., 

and McNelly, T. Factors That Influence Skill 

Decay and Retention: A Quantitative Review 

and Analysis. Human Performance. 1998, 

Vol. 11, pp. 57–101. 

15. Calabro, K, Bright, K and Kouzekanani, 

K. Long-Term Effectiveness of Infection 

Control Training among Fourth Year Medical 

Students. Medical Education Online, Vol. 5, 

pp. 1–7. 

16. Lee, S–J., Mehler, L., Beckman, J., 

Diebolt-Brown, B., Prado, J., Lackovic, M., et 

al. Acute Pesticide Illnesses Associated with 

Off-Target Pesticide Drift from Agricultural 

Applications. Environmental Health 

Perspectives. 2011, Vol. 119, pp. 1162–1169. 

17. EPA. EPA. Chloropicrin, Dazomet, 

Metam Sodium/Potassium, and Methyl 

Bromide Reregistration Eligibility Decisions; 

Notice of Availability. Notice. Federal 

Register (73 FR 40871, July 16, 2008) (FRL– 

8372–3). 

18. EPA. Review of Methyl Parathion 

Incident Reports. February 5, 1998. 

19. EPA. Office of the Inspector General. 

Result of Assessment of Controls Over 

Emergency Removal Actions at Methyl 

Parathion Sites. Report No. E1SFB7–06– 

0020–7400069. September 23, 1997. 

20. Casey, B.J., Jones, R.M. and Hare, T.A. 

The Adolescent Brain. Annals of the New 

York Academy of Sciences. March 2008, pp. 

111–126. 

21. HHS, PHS, CDC, NIOSH. National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) Recommendations to the U.S. 

Department of Labor for Changes to 

Hazardous Orders. May 3, 2002. 

22. Cauffman, E., and Steinberg, L. (Im) 

maturity of Judgment in Adolescence: Why 

Adolescents May Be Less Culpable Than 

Adults. Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 

2000, Vol. 18, pp. 741–760. 

23. EPA. Certification of Pesticide 

Applicators. 40 CFR part 171. Federal 

Register (39 FR 36446, October 9, 1974) 

(FRL–269.1). 

24. EPA. Submission and Approval of State 

Plans for Certification of Commercial and 

Private Applicators of Restricted Use 

Pesticides. Federal Register (40 FR 11698, 

March 12, 1975) (FRL–340.6). 

25. EPA. Federal Certification of Pesticide 

Applicators in States or Indian Reservations 

Where There is No Approved State or Tribal 

Certification Plan in Effect. Final Rule. 

Federal Register (43 FR 24834, June 8, 1978) 

(FRL–881–7). 

26. EPA. Certification of Pesticide 

Applicators; Expansion of Recertification 

Time Period. Final Rule. Federal Register (48 

FR 29854, June 29, 1983) (FRL–2338–8). 

27. EPA. Certification of Pesticide 

Applicators; Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Requirements. Final Rule. Federal Register 

(48 FR 53972, November 29, 1983) (FRL– 

2402–7). 

28. EPA. Certification of Pesticide 

Applicator. Proposed Rule. Federal Register 

(55 FR 46890, November 7, 1990) (FRL– 

2402–7). 

29. SFIREG. Report of the EPA/SFIREG 

Certification and Training Task Force. 

August 1985. 

30. CTAG. Pesticide Safety for the 21st 

Century. 1999. 

31. EPA. Report on the National 

Assessment of the Pesticide Worker Safety 

Program. May 6, 2005. http://www.epa.gov/ 

oppfead1/safety/workshops.htm. 

32. EPA. Report on the National 

Assessment of EPA’s Pesticide Worker Safety 

Program. 2005. 

33. EPA. Pesticide Program Dialogue 

Committee Worker Safety Regulation Change 

Subgroup, Summary of PREP and PPDC 

Comments. Washington, DC. 2007. 

34. EPA, OMB, SBA. Small Business 

Advocacy Review Panel on EPA Planned 

Revisions to Two Related Rules: Worker 

Protection Standard for Agricultural 

Pesticides (RIN 2070–AJ22); and Certification 

of Pesticide Applicators (RIN 2070–AJ20). 

Final Report. November 3, 2008. 

35. Calvert, G M, et al. Acute Pesticiderelated Illnesses Among Working Youths, 

1988–1999. American Journal of Public 

Health. April 2003, Vol. 93, pp. 605–610. 

36. CTAG. Requiring Written Examinations 

for Approval of State Certification Programs. 

2003. 

37. EPA. Pesticide Applicator Certification 

in Indian Country. http://www2.epa.gov/ 

pesticide-applicator-certification-indiancountry/training-private-applicators-indiancountry. 

38. EPA. Chloropicrin Revised Risk 

Assessments; Notice of Availability and 

Solicitation of Risk Reduction Options. 

Notice. Federal Register (72 FR 24295, May 

2, 2007) (FRL–8125–9). 

39. EPA. Amended Reregistration 

Eligibility Decision for Dazomet. 2009. 

40. EPA. Amended Reregistration 

Eligibility Decision for the 

Methyldithiocarbamate Salts (Metamsodium, Metam-potassium) and Methyl 

Isothiocyanate (MITC). 2009. 

41. EPA. Amended Reregistration 

Eligibility Decision for Methyl Bromide. 

2009. 

42. AAPCO. Letter to EPA Re: Registration 

Eligibility Decision (RED) for Soil Fumigant 

Dockets. October 30, 2008. 

43. EPA. Pesticide Applicator Certification 

and Training for Soil Fumigation Category/ 

Subcategory. Last updated: November 2012. 

http://www2.epa.gov/soil-fumigants/soilfumigant-training-certified-applicators. 

44. NASDARF. Soil Fumigation Manual. 

2012. 

45. NASDARF. Aerial Applicator’s Manual. 

2009. 

46. AAPCO. Letter to EPA. January 26, 

2010. http://www.aapco.org/documents/

FumigantLtr_Owens012610.pdf. 

47. Dwinell, Steven on behalf of SFIREG. 

Letter to EPA. December 23, 2010. http:// 

www.aapco.org/documents/

SFIREGtoBradburyKeigwin122310.pdf. 

48. AAPSE. Reregistration Eligibility 

Decision (RED) for Soil Fumigant Dockets. 

Letter to EPA. October 29, 2008. http:// 

aapse.ext.vt.edu/aapse/sites/default/files/

AAPSE%20comments%20on%

20fumigants%20RED.pdf. 

49. AAPSE. Letter to EPA. July 28, 2009. 

http://aapse.ext.vt.edu/aapse/sites/default/

files/FINAL%20EPA_LabelMandated

Training2008.pdf. 

50. EPA. Reregistration Eligibility Decision: 

Sodium Fluoroacetate. EPA 738–R–95–025. 

September 1995. 

51. EPA. Reregistration Eligibility Decision: 

Sodium Cyanide. EPA 738–R–94–020. 

September 1994. 

52. EPA. Interim National Program 

Guidance for EPA Regional Offices on EPA’s 

Pesticide Applicator Certification Program 

(40 CFR part 171). July 2006. 

53. CTAG. Exam Administration and 

Security Procedures Manual. National 

Association of State Departments of 

Agriculture Research Foundation, 2006. 

54. CTAG. Positive Identification 

Requirement for Pesticide Applicator 

Certification Exams. 2006. 

55. CTAG. Pesticide Applicator 

Recertification: Verifying Attendance at 

Recertification Events. 2009. 

56. CTIA, The Wireless Association. 

Wireless Quick Facts. Last updated: 

November 2013. http://www.ctia.org/yourwireless-life/how-wireless-works/wirelessquick-facts. 

57. CTAG. Minimum Age Requirement for 

Certification to Use Restricted Use Pesticides 

(RUP). 2004. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51399 

58. Masten, S., Foss, R., Marshall, S. 

Graduated Driver Licensing Program 

Component Calibrations and Their 

Association with Fatal Crash Involvement. 

Accident Analysis and Prevention. August 

2013, Vol. 57, pp. 105–113. 

59. Williams, A. and Shults, R. Graduated 

Driver Licensing Research, 2007–Present: A 

Review and Commentary. Journal of Safety 

Research. April 2010, Vol. 41, 2, pp. 77–84. 

60. EPA. Federal Agency Certification of 

Federal Employees to Apply Restricted Use 

Pesticides; Intent to Recognize Under Section 

4 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act. Notice. Federal Register (42 

FR 41907, August 19, 1977) (FRL–779–7). 

61. EPA. Certification of Pesticide 

Applicators. Proposed Rule. Federal Register 

(39 FR 6730, February 22, 1974) (FR Doc. 74– 

4266). 

62. EPA. Pesticide Programs; Submission 

and Approval of State Plans for Certification 

of Commercial and Private Applicators. 

Proposed Rule. Federal Register (40 FR 2528; 

January 13, 1975) (FRL–320–4). 

63. EPA. Summary of Consultation with 

Tribes on the Certification of Pesticide 

Applicators Regulation. 2010. 

64. EPA. Information Collection Request 

(ICR) for the Certification of Pesticide 

Applicators (Proposed Rule). EPA ICR No. 

2499.01 and OMB Control No. 2070–[NEW]. 

2015. 

XXII. FIFRA Review Requirements 

Under FIFRA section 25(a), EPA has 

submitted a draft of the proposed rule 

to the Secretary of the Department of 

Agriculture, the FIFRA Scientific 

Advisory Panel (SAP), and the 

appropriate Congressional Committees. 

USDA provided comments on this 

proposed rule, copies of which, along 

with EPA’s responses, are located in the 

docket for this rulemaking. The SAP 

waived its review of this proposal on 

September 4, 2014. 

XXIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review; and, Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is a significant regulatory 

action because it may raise novel legal 

or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in Executive 

Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993). Accordingly, EPA submitted the 

action to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for review under 

Executive Order 12866 and Executive 

Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 

2011), and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket. 

EPA prepared an economic analysis of 

the potential costs and benefits 

associated with this action, which is 

available in the docket and summarized 

in Unit III.B. (Ref. 3). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in this proposed rule have been 

submitted for approval to OMB under 

the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

document that the EPA prepared has 

been assigned EPA ICR number 2499.01 

(OMB Control No. 2070–NEW). You can 

find a copy of the ICR in the docket for 

this proposed rule, and it is briefly 

summarized here (Ref. 64). 

The information collection activities 

related to the existing certification 

regulation are already approved by OMB 

in an ICR titled ‘‘Certification of 

Pesticide Applicators’’ (EPA ICR No. 

0155.10; OMB Control No. 2070–0029). 

Therefore, EPA ICR number 2499.01 

(OMB Control No. 2070–NEW) only 

addresses the proposed changes to the 

certification regulation. These include: 

• Updating the information States, 

Tribes, and Federal agencies report to 

EPA. 

• Updating the process and 

requirements for modifying a 

certification plan. 

• Adding a provision for States to 

require recordkeeping by RUP dealers. 

• Adding specific requirements for 

noncertified applicator qualification 

through training. 

• Adding a provision for commercial 

applicators to maintain records of 

noncertified applicator training. 

1. Respondents/affected entities. i. 

Certified applicators; private and 

commercial. The number of applicators 

is based on the Certification Plan and 

Reporting Database for the years 2008 to 

2013 (CPARD, 2014), there are 364,579 

commercial applicators and 455,278 

private applicators. 

ii. Noncertified applicators under the 

direct supervision of certified 

applicators. It is estimated that there are 

947,275 noncertified applicators who 

apply RUPs under the direct 

supervision of commercial certified 

applicators, and there are 81,678 

noncertified applicators under the direct 

supervision of private certified 

applicators. 

iii. RUP dealers. EPA estimates that 

there are approximately 10,000 retail 

dealers. According to the Agricultural 

Retailers Association, there are 

approximately 9,000 agricultural 

retailers in the United States. Not all are 

licensed to sell RUPs. EPA estimates 

that there are far fewer nonagricultural 

pesticide retailers licensed to sell RUPs, 

given that RUPs are generally not 

labeled for use in residential and other 

public areas, even by a certified 

applicator. 

iv. Authorized agencies. Authorized 

agencies are the entities that are 

federally authorized to administer 

applicator certification plans under 40 

CFR part 171. Authorized agencies 

includes States, territories, federally 

recognized Tribes and Federal agencies 

authorized to operate certification 

programs. In addition to the 50 States, 

there are 4 plans for the US territories 

(Puerto Rico, DC, US Virgin Islands, and 

Pacific Islands), 4 Tribal plans, and 5 

approved Federal agency certification 

plans. Federal agencies include DOD, 

DOE, USDA APHISPPQ, USDA Forest 

Service (the 2 USDA plans are separate 

plans), and DOI (the DOI plan covers 3 

agencies within DOI BLM, BIA and 

NPS, but no others). Wage rates vary 

according to the entity. 

2. Respondent’s obligation to respond. 

Mandatory (7 U.S.C. 136–136y, 

particularly sections 136a(d), 136i, and 

136w). 

3. Estimated number of respondents. 

1,749,265. 

4. Frequency of response. Rule 

familiarization will occur annually for 

the first 3 years. Revising and 

submitting certification plans will occur 

one time. Training of noncertified 

applicators will occur annually. 

Recordkeeping of training of 

noncertified applicators working under 

the direct supervision of commercial 

applicators will occur annually. 

Recordkeeping of RUP sales will occur 

each time an RUP is sold, which EPA 

estimates will be 39 times per year. 

5. Total estimated burden. 1,853,000 

hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 

CFR 1320.3(b). 

6. Total estimated cost. $57,363,250 

annualized capital or operation and 

maintenance costs. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and on 

applicable collect instruments. 

Submit your comments on EPA’s need 

for this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden to the EPA using the 

docket identified at the beginning of this 

rule. You may also send your ICRrelated comments to OMB’s Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs via 

email to oira_submissions@

omb.eop.gov, Attention: Desk Officer for 

the EPA. Since OMB is required to make 

a decision concerning the ICR between 

30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51400 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

receive comments no later than 

September 23, 2015. The EPA will 

respond to any ICR-related comments in 

the final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The 

small entities subject to the 

requirements of this action are private 

applicators, commercial applicators, 

and noncertified applicators using RUPs 

under their direct supervision. The 

Agency has determined that for private 

applicators, average impacts of the rule 

represent less than 1% 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, especially in highimpact States, could exceed 2% 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 less than 0.1% of annual 

revenue for the average small firm. The 

impacts are expected to be around 0.1% 

of annual revenue even for the high cost 

scenarios. Details of this analysis are 

presented in the Economic Analysis for 

this action (Ref. 3). 

Although EPA is not required by the 

RFA to convene a Small Business 

Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel because 

this proposal would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

EPA has nevertheless convened a panel 

to obtain advice and recommendations 

from small entity representatives 

potentially subject to this rule’s 

requirements. A copy of the SBAR Panel 

Report is included in the docket for this 

rulemaking (Ref. 34). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531 through 1538, and does not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The proposed rule 

requirements would primarily affect 

certified applicators of RUPs. The total 

estimated annualized cost of the 

proposed rule is $47.2 million (Ref. 3). 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999). It will not have substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. However, 

this action may be of significant interest 

to State governments. Consistent with 

the EPA’s policy to promote 

communications between the EPA and 

State and local governments, EPA 

consulted with State officials early in 

the process of developing this 

rulemaking to permit them to have 

meaningful and timely input into its 

development. EPA worked extensively 

with State partners when considering 

revisions to the existing regulation and 

solicited feedback from States in a 

number of ways, as discussed in Unit 

III. EPA carefully considered the input 

of State partners during the 

development of this rulemaking in 

meetings with State pesticide regulatory 

officials and with groups representing 

State pesticide regulatory agencies. In 

the spirit of Executive Order 13132, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

rulemaking from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have Tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This action would require Tribes 

that certify applicators to perform RUP 

applications in Indian country to 

comply with the revised regulation. EPA 

currently directly administers a national 

certification plan for Indian country 

(Ref. 1) and has implemented a specific 

certification plan for the Navajo Nation 

(Ref. 2). As proposed, this rule provides 

Tribes with the option to develop and 

administer their own applicator 

certification programs, to participate in 

the EPA-administered applicator 

certification program for Indian country, 

or to enter into an agreement with EPA 

regarding administration of an 

applicator certification program. As 

explained in Unit XVII., EPA does not 

believe the proposed revisions would 

place any unreasonable burden on 

Tribes because the proposed rule does 

not require Tribes to implement 

certification programs. There are 

currently only four Tribes with an EPAapproved certification plan. The 

proposed rule would require existing 

Tribal certification plans to be revised 

and resubmitted to EPA for review and 

approval. The costs associated with the 

proposed changes should be negligible 

because they primarily result in 

clarification of requirements and policy, 

not the imposition of substantial new 

obligations on the part of Tribes. EPA 

estimates the costs to these Tribes 

would be similar to the costs to States 

for updating and submitting to EPA for 

approval a revised certification plan, 

and that they would not result in a 

significant impact on Tribal entities or 

programs. Thus, Executive Order 13175 

does not apply to this action. 

Consistent with EPA’s Policy on 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribes, EPA consulted with 

Tribal officials during the development 

of this action. A summary of that 

consultation is provided in the docket 

for this action (Ref. 63). 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from 

Tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) because it is not an 

economically significant regulatory 

action as defined by Executive Order 

12866. However, it is reasonable to 

expect that the environmental health or 

safety risks addressed in this proposed 

rule may have a disproportionate effect 

on children. 

The primary risk to children that is 

within the scope of this rulemaking is 

exposure to RUPs during their work as 

applicators of RUPs. The proposed rule 

is intended to minimize these exposures 

and risks. By establishing a minimum 

age for persons to become a certified 

applicator or to use RUPs as a 

noncertified applicator under the direct 

supervision of a certified applicator, 

children would receive less exposure to 

pesticides that may lead to chronic or 

acute pesticide-related illness. In 

addition, the proposal expands training 

for noncertified applicators to include 

topics that should also assist in 

reducing potential risks to children from 

incidental pesticide exposure, such as 

avoiding bringing pesticide residues 

home on clothing. 

Like DOL’s regulations that 

implement the FLSA, the proposed rule 

seeks to regulate the ages at which 

children can apply pesticides. The 

proposed rule would establish a 

minimum age of 18 for persons to 

become certified to apply RUPs and to 

apply RUPs as noncertified persons 

under the direct supervision of certified 

applicators. Since many RUPs present 

heightened risks to harm human health 

relative to other pesticides, EPA feels 

that they warrant special consideration. 

EPA expects that the proposals to 

establish minimum ages would mitigate 

or eliminate many risks faced by young 

applicators. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51401 

Additional information on EPA’s 

consideration of the risks to children in 

development of this action can be found 

in Unit III.C.3. and in the economic 

analysis for this action (Ref. 3). 

The public is invited to submit 

comments or identify peer-reviewed 

studies and data that assess effects of 

early life exposure to pesticides. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ as defined in 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001), because it is not likely 

to have a significant adverse effect on 

the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. Further, this rule is not likely to 

have any adverse energy effects because 

it does not require any action related to 

the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration under NTTAA 

section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

EPA believes that this proposed rule 

would not have disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority, lowincome, or indigenous populations, as 

specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 

FR 7629, February 16, 1994), because it 

increases the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations 

without having any disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any 

population, including any minority or 

low-income population. 

EPA engaged with stakeholders from 

impacted communities extensively in 

the development of this rulemaking in 

order to seek meaningful involvement of 

all parties. The Agency’s efforts to 

address environmental justice through 

this rulemaking were reviewed 

repeatedly during the development of 

the rule and its supporting documents. 

The proposed changes demonstrate 

EPA’s commitment to improving the 

health and safety of certified applicators 

and noncertified applicators using RUPs 

under their direct supervision by 

changes such as adding application 

method-specific categories, 

strengthening competency standards for 

private applicators, adding training for 

noncertified applicators using RUPs 

under the direct supervision of a 

certified applicator, and establishing a 

minimum age for all persons using 

RUPs. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 171 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Certified applicator, Commercial 

applicator, Indian Country, Indian 

Tribes, Noncertified applicator, 

Pesticides and pests, Private applicator, 

Restricted use pesticides, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: August 5, 2015. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the EPA proposes to revise 40 

CFR part 171 as follows: 

PART 171—CERTIFICATION OF 

PESTICIDE APPLICATORS 

Subpart A—General Provisions 

Sec. 

171.1 Scope. 

171.3 Definitions. 

171.5 Effective date. 

Subpart B—Certification Requirements for 

Applicators of Restricted Use Pesticides 

171.101 Commercial applicator certification 

categories. 

171.103 Standards for certification of 

commercial applicators. 

171.105 Standards for certification of 

private applicators. 

171.107 Standards for recertification of 

certified applicators. 

Subpart C—Supervision of Noncertified 

Applicators 

171.201 Requirements for direct 

supervision of noncertified applicators 

by certified applicators. 

Subpart D—Certification Plans 

171.301 General. 

171.303 Requirements for State certification 

plans. 

171.305 Requirements for Federal agency 

certification plans. 

171.307 Certification of applicators in 

Indian country. 

171.309 Modification and withdrawal of 

certification plans. 

171.311 EPA-administered applicator 

certification programs. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136i and 136w. 

Subpart A—General Provisions 

§ 171.1 Scope. 

(a) This part establishes Federal 

standards for the certification and 

recertification of applicators of 

restricted use pesticides. The standards 

address the requirements for 

certification and recertification of 

applicators using restricted use 

pesticides, requirements for certified 

applicators supervising the use of 

restricted use pesticides by noncertified 

applicators, requirements for 

noncertified persons using restricted use 

pesticides under the direct supervision 

of a certified applicator, and 

requirements for pesticide applicator 

certification plans administered by 

States, Tribes and Federal agencies. 

(b) A person is a certified applicator 

for purposes of the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 

7 U.S.C. 136 et seq., only if the person 

holds a certification issued pursuant to 

a plan approved in accordance with this 

part and currently valid in the pertinent 

jurisdiction. As provided in FIFRA 

section 12(a)(2)(F), it is unlawful for any 

person to make available for use or to 

use any pesticide classified for 

restricted use other than in accordance 

with the requirements of this part. 

§ 171.3 Definitions. 

Terms used in this part have the same 

meanings they have in FIFRA and 40 

CFR part 152. In addition, the following 

terms, when used in this part, shall 

mean: 

Agricultural commodity means any 

plant, or part thereof, or animal, or 

animal product, produced by a person 

(including, but not limited to, farmers, 

ranchers, vineyardists, plant 

propagators, Christmas tree growers, 

aquaculturists, floriculturists, 

orchardists, foresters, or other 

comparable persons) primarily for sale, 

consumption, propagation, or other use 

by man or animals. 

Application means the dispersal of a 

pesticide on, in, at, or around a target 

site. 

Application method means the 

application of a pesticide using a 

particular type of equipment, 

mechanism, or device, including, but 

not limited to, ground boom, air-blast 

sprayer, wand, and backpack sprayer, as 

well as methods such as aerial, 

chemigation, and fumigation. 

Application method-specific 

certification category means a defined 

set of competencies related to the use of 

a specific application method to apply 

restricted use pesticides. 

Applicator means any individual 

using a restricted use pesticide. An 

applicator may be certified as a 

commercial or private applicator as 

defined in FIFRA or may be a 

noncertified applicator as defined in 

this part. 

Calibration means measurement of 

dispersal or output of application 

equipment and adjustment of such 

equipment to establish a specific rate of 

dispersal and, if applicable, droplet or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51402 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

particle size of a pesticide dispersed by 

the equipment. 

Certification means a certifying 

authority’s issuance, pursuant to this 

part, of authorization to a person to use 

or supervise the use of restricted use 

pesticides. 

Certifying authority means the 

Agency, or a State, Tribal, or Federal 

agency that issues restricted use 

pesticide applicator certifications 

pursuant to a certification plan 

approved by the Agency under this part. 

Compatibility means the extent to 

which a pesticide can be combined with 

other chemicals without causing 

undesirable results. 

Competent means having the practical 

knowledge, skills, experience, and 

judgment necessary to perform 

functions associated with restricted use 

pesticide application without causing 

unreasonable adverse effects, where the 

nature and degree of competency 

required relate directly to the nature of 

the activity and the degree of 

independent responsibility. 

Dealership means any establishment 

owned or operated by a restricted use 

pesticide retail dealer where restricted 

use pesticides are distributed or sold. 

Fumigant means any pesticide 

product that is a vapor or gas, or forms 

a vapor or gas upon application, and 

whose pesticidal action is achieved 

through the gaseous or vapor state. 

Fumigation means the application of 

a fumigant. 

Host means any plant or animal on or 

in which another species of plant or 

animal lives for nourishment, 

development, or protection. 

Indian country means: 

(1) All land within the limits of any 

Indian reservation under the 

jurisdiction of the United States 

Government, notwithstanding the 

issuance of any patent, and, including 

rights-of-way running through the 

reservation. 

(2) All dependent Indian communities 

within the borders of the United States 

whether within the original or 

subsequently acquired territory thereof, 

and whether within or without the 

limits of a State. 

(3) All Indian allotments, the Indian 

titles to which have not been 

extinguished, including rights-of-way 

running through the same. 

Indian Tribe or Tribe means any 

Indian or Alaska Native Tribe, band, 

nation, pueblo, village, or community 

included in the list of Tribes published 

by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant 

to the Federally Recognized Indian 

Tribe List Act. 

Mishap means an event that may 

adversely affect man or the environment 

and that is related to the use or presence 

of a pesticide, whether the event was 

unexpected or intentional. 

Non-target organism means any plant, 

animal or other organism other than the 

target pests which a pesticide is 

intended to affect. 

Noncertified applicator means any 

person who is not certified in 

accordance with this part to use or 

supervise the use of restricted use 

pesticides in the pertinent jurisdiction, 

but who is using restricted use 

pesticides under the direct supervision 

of a person certified as a commercial or 

private applicator in accordance with 

this part. 

Ornamental means trees, shrubs, 

flowers, and other plantings intended 

primarily for aesthetic purposes in and 

around habitations, buildings and 

surrounding grounds, including, but not 

limited to, residences, parks, streets, 

and commercial, industrial, and 

institutional buildings. 

Personal protective equipment means 

devices and apparel that are worn to 

protect the body from contact with 

pesticides or pesticide residues, 

including, but not limited to, coveralls, 

chemical-resistant suits, chemicalresistant gloves, chemical-resistant 

footwear, respirators, chemical-resistant 

aprons, chemical-resistant headgear, 

and protective eyewear. 

Practical knowledge means the 

possession of pertinent facts and 

comprehension sufficient to properly 

perform functions associated with 

application of restricted use pesticides, 

including properly responding to 

reasonably foreseeable problems and 

situations. 

Principal place of business means the 

principal location, either residence or 

office, where a person conducts a 

business of applying restricted use 

pesticides. A person who applies 

restricted use pesticides in more than 

one State or area of Indian country may 

designate a location within a State or 

area of Indian country as its principal 

place of business for that State or area 

of Indian country. 

Regulated pest means a particular 

species of pest specifically subject to 

Tribal, State or Federal regulatory 

restrictions, regulations, or control 

procedures intended to protect the 

hosts, man and/or the environment. 

Restricted use pesticide means a 

pesticide that is classified for restricted 

use under the provisions of FIFRA 

section 3(d). 

Restricted use pesticide retail dealer 

means any person who distributes or 

sells restricted use pesticides to any 

person, excluding transactions solely 

between persons who are pesticide 

producers, registrants, wholesalers, or 

retail sellers, acting only in those 

capacities. 

Toxicity means the property of a 

pesticide that refers to the degree to 

which the pesticide and its related 

derivative compounds are able to cause 

an adverse physiological effect on an 

organism as a result of exposure. 

Use, as in ‘‘to use a pesticide’’ means 

any of the following: 

(1) Pre-application activities, 

including, but not limited to: 

(i) Arranging for the application of the 

pesticide. 

(ii) Mixing and loading the pesticide. 

(iii) Making necessary preparations 

for the application of the pesticide, 

including, but not limited to, 

responsibilities related to providing 

training, a copy of a label and usespecific instructions to noncertified 

applicators, and complying with any 

applicable requirements under 40 CFR 

part 170. 

(2) Applying the pesticide, including, 

but not limited to, supervising the use 

of a pesticide by a noncertified 

applicator. 

(3) Post-application activities, 

including, but not limited to, 

transporting or storing pesticide 

containers that have been opened, 

cleaning equipment, and disposing of 

excess pesticides, spray mix, equipment 

wash waters, pesticide containers, and 

other materials contaminated with or 

containing pesticides. 

Use-specific instructions means the 

information and requirements specific 

to a particular pesticide product or work 

site that are necessary in order for an 

applicator to use the pesticide in 

accordance with applicable 

requirements and without causing 

unreasonable adverse effects. 

§ 171.5 Effective date. 

This part is effective [60 days after the 

date of publication of the final rule in 

the Federal Register]. Certification 

plans approved by EPA before the 

effective date remain approved except 

as provided in §§ 171.301(b) and 

171.309. 

Subpart B—Certification Requirements 

for Applicators of Restricted Use 

Pesticides 

§ 171.101 Commercial applicator 

certification categories. 

(a) Pest control certification 

categories. Certification in any of the 

pest control certification categories 

listed in this paragraph (a) alone is not 

sufficient to lawfully use or supervise 

the use of products intended to be 

applied using a method specified in 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51403 

(1) Agricultural pest control—(i) Crop 

pest control. This category applies to 

commercial applicators who use or 

supervise the use of restricted use 

pesticides in production of agricultural 

crops, including but not limited to 

grains, vegetables, small fruits, tree 

fruits, peanuts, tree nuts, tobacco, 

cotton, feed and forage crops including, 

but not limited to, grasslands, and noncrop agricultural lands. 

(ii) Livestock pest control. This 

category applies to commercial 

applicators who use or supervise the use 

of restricted use pesticides on animals 

or to places on or in which animals are 

confined. Certification in this category 

alone is not sufficient to authorize the 

purchase, use, or supervision of use of 

products for predator control listed in 

paragraph (a)(10) of this section. 

(2) Forest pest control. This category 

applies to commercial applicators who 

use or supervise the use of restricted use 

pesticides in forests, forest nurseries 

and forest seed production. 

(3) Ornamental and turf pest control. 

This category applies to commercial 

applicators who use or supervise the use 

of restricted use pesticides to control 

pests in the maintenance and 

production of ornamental plants and 

turf. 

(4) Seed treatment. This category 

applies to commercial applicators using 

or supervising the use of restricted use 

pesticides on seeds in seed treatment 

facilities. 

(5) Aquatic pest control. This category 

applies to commercial applicators who 

use or supervise the use of any 

restricted use pesticide purposefully 

applied to standing or running water, 

excluding applicators engaged in public 

health related activities included in as 

specified in paragraph (b)(8) of this 

section. 

(6) Right-of-way pest control. This 

category applies to commercial 

applicators who use or supervise the use 

of restricted use pesticides in the 

maintenance of roadsides, power-line, 

pipeline, and railway rights-of-way, and 

similar areas. 

(7) Industrial, institutional, and 

structural pest control. This category 

applies to commercial applicators who 

use or supervise the use of restricted use 

pesticides in, on, or around the 

following: Food handling 

establishments, packing houses, and 

food-processing facilities; human 

dwellings; institutions, such as schools, 

hospitals and prisons; and industrial 

establishments, including, but not 

limited to, manufacturing facilities, 

warehouses, grain elevators, and any 

other structures and adjacent areas, 

public or private, for the protection of 

stored, processed, or manufactured 

products. 

(8) Public health pest control. This 

category applies to State, Tribal, Federal 

or other governmental employees who 

use or supervise the use of restricted use 

pesticides in public health programs for 

the management and control of pests 

having medical and public health 

importance. This category includes 

contractors as well as individuals 

directly employed by a State, Tribal, 

Federal, or other government agency for 

government-sponsored public health 

programs. 

(9) Regulatory pest control. This 

category applies to State, Tribal, 

Federal, or other governmental 

employees who use or supervise the use 

of restricted use pesticides in the 

control of regulated pests but does not 

include individuals that use or 

supervise the use of sodium cyanide in 

mechanical ejection devices or sodium 

fluoroacetate in a protective collar for 

predator pest control. This regulatory 

pest control category includes 

contractors and other individuals 

directly employed by a State, Tribal, 

Federal, or other government agency for 

government-sponsored regulatory pest 

control programs. Certification in this 

category does not authorize the 

purchase, use, or supervision of use of 

products for predator control listed in 

paragraph (a)(10) of this section. 

(10) Predator pest control—(i) Sodium 

cyanide predator control. This pest 

control category applies to commercial 

applicators who use or supervise the use 

of sodium cyanide in a mechanical 

ejection device to control regulated 

predators. 

(ii) Sodium fluoroacetate. This pest 

control category applies to commercial 

applicators who use or supervise the use 

of sodium fluoroacetate in a protective 

collar to control regulated predators. 

(11) Demonstration and research. 

This category applies to individuals 

who demonstrate to the public the 

proper use and techniques of 

application of restricted use pesticides 

or supervise such demonstration and to 

persons conducting field research with 

pesticides, and in doing so, use or 

supervise the use of restricted use 

pesticides. This includes such 

individuals as extension specialists and 

county agents, commercial 

representatives demonstrating restricted 

use pesticide products, individuals 

demonstrating application or pest 

control methods used in public or 

private programs, and State, Tribal, 

Federal, commercial, and other persons 

conducting field research on or 

involving restricted use pesticides. 

Certification in this category requires 

concurrent certification in each pest 

control category identified in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (10) of this 

section for which a person does 

demonstration or research involving the 

use or supervision of the use of 

restricted use pesticides for the type of 

pest control described in those 

categories, and in each application 

method-specific category identified in 

paragraph (b) of this section for which 

a person does demonstration or research 

involving the use or supervision of the 

use of restricted use pesticides using an 

application method described in those 

categories. 

(b) Application method-specific 

certification categories—(1) Soil 

fumigation applications. This category 

applies to commercial applicators who 

use or supervise the use of a restricted 

use pesticide to fumigate soil. 

Certification in this application methodspecific category requires concurrent 

certification in each pest control 

category identified in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (10) of this section for which a 

person intends to perform soil 

fumigation. 

(2) Non-soil fumigation applications. 

This category applies to commercial 

applicators who use or supervise the use 

of a restricted use pesticide to fumigate 

anything other than soil. Certification in 

this application method-specific 

category requires concurrent 

certification in each pest control 

category identified in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (10) of this section for which a 

person intends to perform non-soil 

fumigation. 

(3) Aerial applications. This category 

applies to commercial applicators who 

use or supervise the use of restricted use 

pesticides applied by fixed or rotary 

wing aircraft. Certification in this 

application method-specific category 

requires concurrent certification in each 

pest control category identified in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (10) of this 

section for which a person intends to 

perform aerial application. 

§ 171.103 Standards for certification of 

commercial applicators. 

(a) Determination of competency. To 

be determined competent in the use and 

handling of restricted use pesticides by 

a State, Tribe, or Federal agency, a 

commercial applicator must meet the 

minimum age requirement specified in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section and 

receive a passing score on a written 

examination that meets the standards 

specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section and any related performance 

testing that is required by the State, 

Tribe, or Federal agency. Examinations 

and any alternate methods employed by 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51404 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

the certifying authority to determine 

applicator competency must include the 

core standards applicable to all 

categories (paragraph (c) of this section), 

the standards applicable to each pest 

control category in which an applicator 

seeks certification (paragraph (d) of this 

section), and the standards for each 

application method-specific category in 

which an applicator seeks certification 

(paragraph (e) of this section), as 

provided in this section. Certification 

processes must meet all of the following 

criteria: 

(1) Commercial applicator minimum 

age. A commercial applicator must be at 

least 18 years old. 

(2) Examination standards. 

Examinations must conform to all of the 

following standards: 

(i) The examination must be 

presented and answered in writing. 

(ii) The examination must be 

proctored by an individual designated 

by the certifying authority and who is 

not seeking certification at any 

examination session that he or she is 

proctoring. The proctor must do all of 

the following: 

(A) Verify the identity and age of 

persons taking the examination by 

checking identification and having 

examinees sign an examination roster. 

(B) Monitor examinees throughout the 

examination period. 

(C) Instruct examinees in examination 

procedures before beginning the 

examination. 

(D) Keep examinations secure before, 

during, and after the examination 

period. 

(E) Allow only the examinees to 

access the examination, and allow such 

access only in the presence of the 

proctor. 

(F) Ensure that examinees have no 

verbal or non-verbal communication 

with anyone other than the proctor 

during the examination period. 

(G) Ensure that no portion of the 

examination or any associated reference 

materials described in paragraph 

(a)(2)(ii)(H) of this section is copied or 

retained by any person other than a 

person authorized by the certifying 

authority to copy or retain the 

examination. 

(H) Ensure that examinees do not 

have access to reference materials other 

than those that are approved by the 

certifying authority and provided and 

collected by the proctor. 

(I) Review reference materials 

provided to examinees after the exam is 

complete to ensure that no portion of 

the reference material has been removed 

or destroyed. 

(J) Report to the certifying authority 

any examination administration 

inconsistencies or irregularities, 

including but not limited to cheating, 

use of unauthorized materials, and 

attempts to copy or retain the 

examination. 

(K) Comply with any other 

requirements of the certifying authority 

related to examination administration. 

(iii) The examination must be closedbook. No reference materials may be 

used during the examination, except 

those that are approved by the certifying 

authority and provided by the proctor. 

(iv) Each person seeking certification 

must present at the time of examination 

valid, government-issued photo 

identification to the certifying authority 

as proof of identity and age to be eligible 

for certification. 

(v) The certifying authority must 

notify each examinee of the results of 

his or her examination. 

(b) Additional methods of 

determining competency. In addition to 

written examination requirements for 

determining competency, a certifying 

authority may employ additional 

methods for determining applicator 

competency, such as performance 

testing. Such additional methods must 

be part of the certifying authority’s 

Agency-approved certification plan and 

must comply with the applicable 

standards in paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

(c) Core standards for all categories of 

certified commercial applicators. 

Persons seeking certification as 

commercial applicators must 

demonstrate practical knowledge of the 

principles and practices of pest control 

and proper and effective use of 

restricted use pesticides by passing a 

written examination. Written 

examinations for all commercial 

applicators must address all of the 

following areas of competency: 

(1) Label and labeling comprehension. 

Familiarity with pesticide labels and 

labeling and their functions, including 

all of the following: 

(i) The general format and 

terminology of pesticide labels and 

labeling. 

(ii) Understanding instructions, 

warnings, terms, symbols, and other 

information commonly appearing on 

pesticide labels and labeling. 

(iii) Understanding that it is a 

violation of Federal law to use any 

registered pesticide in a manner 

inconsistent with its labeling. 

(iv) Understanding when a certified 

applicator must be physically present at 

the site of the application based on 

labeling requirements. 

(v) Understanding labeling 

requirements for supervising 

noncertified applicators working under 

the direct supervision of a certified 

applicator. 

(vi) Understanding that applicators 

must comply with all use restrictions 

and directions for use contained in 

pesticide labels and labeling, including 

being certified in the certification 

category and application methodspecific category appropriate to the type 

and site of the application. 

(vii) Understanding the meaning of 

product classification as either general 

or restricted use and that a product may 

be unclassified. 

(viii) Understanding and complying 

with product-specific notification 

requirements. 

(2) Safety. Measures to avoid or 

minimize adverse health effects, 

including all of the following: 

(i) Understanding the terms ‘‘acute 

toxicity’’ and ‘‘chronic toxicity,’’ as well 

as the long-term effects of pesticides. 

(ii) Understanding that a pesticide’s 

risk is a function of exposure and the 

pesticide’s toxicity. 

(iii) Recognition of likely ways in 

which dermal, inhalation and oral 

exposure may occur. 

(iv) Common types and causes of 

pesticide mishaps. 

(v) Precautions to prevent injury to 

applicators and other individuals in or 

near treated areas. 

(vi) Need for, and proper use of, 

protective clothing and personal 

protective equipment. 

(vii) Symptoms of pesticide 

poisoning. 

(viii) First aid and other procedures to 

be followed in case of a pesticide 

mishap. 

(ix) Proper identification, storage, 

transport, handling, mixing procedures, 

and disposal methods for pesticides and 

used pesticide containers, including 

precautions to be taken to prevent 

children from having access to 

pesticides and pesticide containers. 

(3) Environment. The potential 

environmental consequences of the use 

and misuse of pesticides, including the 

influence of all of the following: 

(i) Weather and other indoor and 

outdoor climatic conditions. 

(ii) Types of terrain, soil, or other 

substrate. 

(iii) Presence of fish, wildlife, and 

other non-target organisms. 

(iv) Presence of pollinators. 

(v) Drainage patterns. 

(4) Pests. The proper identification 

and effective control of pests, including 

all of the following: 

(i) Common features of pest organisms 

and characteristics of damage needed 

for pest recognition. 

(ii) Recognition of relevant pests. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51405 

(iii) Pest development, biology, and 

behavior as it may be relevant to 

problem identification and control. 

(5) Pesticides. Characteristics of 

pesticides, including all of the 

following: 

(i) Types of pesticides. 

(ii) Types of formulations. 

(iii) Compatibility, synergism, 

persistence, and animal and plant 

toxicity of the formulations. 

(iv) Hazards and residues associated 

with use. 

(v) Factors that influence effectiveness 

or lead to problems such as pesticide 

resistance. 

(vi) Dilution procedures. 

(6) Equipment. Application 

equipment, including all of the 

following: 

(i) Types of equipment and 

advantages and limitations of each type. 

(ii) Use, maintenance, and calibration 

procedures. 

(7) Application methods. Selecting 

appropriate application methods, 

including all of the following: 

(i) Methods used to apply various 

formulations of pesticides, solutions, 

and gases. 

(ii) Knowledge of which application 

method to use in a given situation and 

when certification in an application 

method-specific category is required in 

accordance with paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(iii) Relationship of application and 

placement of pesticides to proper use, 

unnecessary or ineffective use, and 

misuse. 

(iv) Prevention of drift and pesticide 

loss into the environment. 

(8) Laws and regulations. Knowledge 

of all applicable State, Tribal, and 

Federal laws and regulations. 

(9) Responsibilities of supervisors of 

noncertified applicators. Knowledge of 

the responsibilities of certified 

applicators supervising noncertified 

applicators, including all of the 

following: 

(i) Understanding and complying with 

requirements in § 171.201 for certified 

commercial applicators who supervise 

noncertified applicators using restricted 

use pesticides. 

(ii) Requirements to keep records of 

pesticide safety training for noncertified 

applicators using restricted use 

pesticides under the direct supervision 

of a certified applicator. 

(iii) Providing use-specific 

instructions to noncertified applicators 

using restricted use pesticides under the 

direct supervision of a certified 

applicator. 

(iv) Explaining appropriate State, 

Tribal, and Federal laws and regulations 

to noncertified applicators working 

under the direct supervision of a 

certified applicator. 

(10) Professionalism. Understanding 

the importance of all of the following: 

(i) Maintaining chemical security for 

restricted use pesticides. 

(ii) How to communicate information 

about pesticide exposures and risks 

with the public and their clientele. 

(iii) Appropriate product stewardship 

for certified applicators. 

(d) Specific standards of competency 

for each pest control category of 

commercial applicators. Commercial 

applicators must demonstrate practical 

knowledge of the principles and 

practices of pest control and proper and 

effective use of restricted use pesticides 

for each pest control category for which 

they intend to apply restricted use 

pesticides through written 

examinations. The minimum 

competency standards for each category 

of pest control are listed in paragraphs 

(d)(1) through (10) of this section. 

Examinations for each pest control 

category certification listed in 

§ 171.101(a) must be based on the 

standards of competency specified in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (11) of this 

section and examples of problems and 

situations appropriate to the particular 

category in which the applicator is 

seeking certification. 

(1) Agricultural pest control—(i) 

Plant. Applicators must demonstrate 

practical knowledge of crops, 

grasslands, and non-crop agricultural 

lands and the specific pests of those 

areas on which they may be using 

restricted use pesticides. The 

importance of such competency is 

amplified by the extensive areas 

involved, the quantities of pesticides 

needed, and the ultimate use of many 

commodities as food and feed. The 

required knowledge includes preharvest intervals, restricted entry 

intervals, phytotoxicity, potential for 

environmental contamination such as 

soil and water problems, non-target 

injury, and other problems resulting 

from the use of restricted use pesticides 

in agricultural areas. The required 

knowledge also includes the potential 

for phytotoxicity due to a wide variety 

of plants to be protected, for drift, for 

persistence beyond the intended period 

of pest control, and for non-target 

exposures. 

(ii) Animal. Applicators applying 

pesticides directly to animals must 

demonstrate practical knowledge of 

such animals and their associated pests. 

The required knowledge includes 

specific pesticide toxicity and residue 

potential, and the hazards associated 

with such factors as formulation, 

application techniques, age of animals, 

stress, and extent of treatment. 

(2) Forest pest control. Applicators 

must demonstrate practical knowledge 

of types of forests, forest nurseries, and 

seed production within the jurisdiction 

of the certifying authority and the pests 

involved. The required knowledge 

includes the cyclic occurrence of certain 

pests and specific population dynamics 

as a basis for programming pesticide 

applications, the relevant organisms 

causing harm and their vulnerability to 

the pesticides to be applied, how to 

determine when pesticide use is proper, 

selection of application method and 

proper use of application equipment to 

minimize non-target exposures, and 

appropriate responses to meteorological 

factors and adjacent land use. The 

required knowledge also includes the 

potential for phytotoxicity due to a wide 

variety of plants to be protected, for 

drift, for persistence beyond the 

intended period of pest control, and for 

non-target exposures. 

(3) Ornamental and turf pest control. 

Applicators must demonstrate practical 

knowledge of pesticide problems 

associated with the production and 

maintenance of ornamental plants and 

turf. The required knowledge includes 

the potential for phytotoxicity due to a 

wide variety of plants to be protected, 

for drift, for persistence beyond the 

intended period of pest control, and for 

non-target exposures. Because of the 

frequent proximity of human 

habitations to application activities, 

applicators in this category must 

demonstrate practical knowledge of 

application methods which will 

minimize or prevent hazards to humans, 

pets, and other domestic animals. 

(4) Seed-treatment. Applicators must 

demonstrate practical knowledge 

including recognizing types of seeds to 

be treated, the effects of carriers and 

surface active agents on pesticide 

binding and germination, the hazards 

associated with handling, sorting and 

mixing, and misuse of treated seed, the 

importance of proper application 

techniques to avoid harm to non-target 

organisms such as pollinators, and the 

proper disposal of unused treated seeds. 

(5) Aquatic pest control. Applicators 

must demonstrate practical knowledge 

of the characteristics of various water 

use situations, the potential for adverse 

effects on non-target plants, fish, birds, 

beneficial insects and other organisms 

in the immediate aquatic environment 

and downstream, and the principles of 

limited area application. 

(6) Right-of-way pest control. 

Applicators must demonstrate practical 

knowledge of the types of environments 

(terrestrial and aquatic) traversed by 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51406 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

rights-of-way, techniques to minimize 

non-target exposure runoff, drift, and 

excessive foliage destruction, and 

recognition of target pests. The required 

knowledge also includes the potential 

for phytotoxicity due to a wide variety 

of plants and pests to be controlled, for 

drift, for persistence beyond the 

intended period of pest control, and for 

non-target exposures. 

(7) Industrial, institutional, and 

structural pest control. Applicators must 

demonstrate a practical knowledge of 

industrial, institutional and structural 

pests, including recognizing those pests 

and signs of their presence, their 

habitats, their life cycles, biology, and 

behavior as it may be relevant to 

problem identification and control. 

Applicators must demonstrate practical 

knowledge of types of formulations 

appropriate for control of industrial, 

institutional and structural pests, and 

methods of application that avoid 

contamination of food, minimize 

damage to and contamination of areas 

treated, minimize acute and chronic 

exposure of people and pets, and 

minimize environmental impacts of 

outdoor applications. 

(8) Public health pest control. 

Applicators must demonstrate practical 

knowledge of pests that are important 

vectors of disease, including recognizing 

the pests and signs of their presence, 

their habitats, their life cycles, biology 

and behavior as it may be relevant to 

problem identification and control. The 

required knowledge also includes how 

to minimize damage to and 

contamination of areas treated, acute 

and chronic exposure of people and 

pets, and non-target exposures. 

(9) Regulatory pest control. 

Applicators must demonstrate practical 

knowledge of regulated pests, applicable 

laws relating to quarantine and other 

regulation of pests, and the potential 

impact on the environment of restricted 

use pesticides used in suppression and 

eradication programs. They must 

demonstrate knowledge of factors 

influencing introduction, spread, and 

population dynamics of regulated pests. 

(10) Predator pest control. Applicators 

must demonstrate practical knowledge 

of mammalian predator pests, including 

recognizing those pests and signs of 

their presence, their habitats, their life 

cycles, biology, and behavior as it may 

be relevant to problem identification 

and control. 

(i) Sodium cyanide. Applicators must 

demonstrate comprehension of all 

relevant laws and regulations applicable 

to the use of mechanical ejection 

devices for sodium cyanide, including 

the restrictions on the use of sodium 

cyanide products ordered by the EPA 

Administrator and published in the 

Federal Register (40 FR 44726, 

September 29, 1975) (FRL 436–3). 

Applicators must also demonstrate 

practical knowledge and understanding 

of all of the specific use restrictions for 

sodium cyanide devices, including safe 

handling and proper placement of the 

capsules and device, proper use of the 

antidote kit, notification to medical 

personnel before use of the device, 

conditions of and restrictions on when 

and where devices can be used, 

requirements to consult U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service maps before use to 

avoid affecting endangered species, 

maximum density of devices, provisions 

for supervising and monitoring 

applicators, required information 

exchange in locations where more than 

one agency is authorized to place 

devices, and specific requirements for 

recordkeeping, monitoring, field 

posting, proper storage, and disposal of 

damaged or used sodium cyanide 

capsules. 

(ii) Sodium fluoroacetate. Applicators 

must demonstrate comprehension of all 

relevant laws and regulations applicable 

to the use of sodium fluoroacetate 

products, including the restrictions on 

the use of sodium fluoroacetate 

products ordered by the EPA 

Administrator and published in the 

Federal Register (49 FR 4830, February 

8, 1984) (FRL 2520–6). Applicators must 

also demonstrate practical knowledge 

and understanding of the specific use 

restrictions for sodium fluoroacetate in 

the livestock protection collar, 

including where and when sodium 

fluoroacetate products can be used, safe 

handling and placement of collars, and 

practical treatment of sodium 

fluoroacetate poisoning in humans and 

domestic animals. Applicators must also 

demonstrate practical knowledge and 

understanding of specific requirements 

for field posting, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, proper storage of collars, 

disposal of punctured or leaking collars, 

disposal of contaminated animal 

remains, vegetation, soil, and clothing, 

and reporting of suspected and actual 

poisoning, mishap, or injury to 

threatened or endangered species, 

human, domestic animals, or non-target 

wild animals. 

(11) Demonstration pest control. 

Applicators demonstrating the safe and 

effective use of restricted use pesticides 

to other applicators and the public must 

demonstrate practical knowledge of the 

potential problems, pests, and 

population levels reasonably expected 

to occur in a demonstration situation 

and the effects of restricted use 

pesticides on target and non-target 

organisms. In addition, they must 

demonstrate competency in each pest 

control category applicable to their 

demonstrations. 

(e) Specific standards of competency 

for each application method-specific 

certification category of commercial 

applicators. In order to apply a 

restricted use pesticide using any of the 

application methods identified in this 

paragraph, a commercial applicator 

must first obtain the appropriate 

application method-specific 

certification as provided in this 

paragraph. This requirement is in 

addition to the requirements of 

paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this 

section. The competency standards for 

each application method-specific 

certification category are specified in 

paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this 

section. 

(1) Soil fumigation application. 

Commercial applicators performing soil 

fumigation applications of restricted use 

pesticides must demonstrate practical 

knowledge of the pest problems and 

pest control practices associated with 

performing soil fumigation applications, 

including all the following: 

(i) Label and labeling comprehension. 

Familiarity with the pesticide labels and 

labeling for products used to perform 

soil fumigation, including all of the 

following: 

(A) Labeling requirements specific to 

soil fumigants. 

(B) Fumigant applicators, fumigant 

applicator tasks, and the safety 

information that certified applicators 

must provide to noncertified applicators 

using fumigants under their direct 

supervision. 

(C) Entry-restricted periods for 

different tarped and untarped field 

application scenarios. 

(D) Recordkeeping requirements. 

(E) Special label provisions of 

fumigant products containing certain 

active ingredients. 

(ii) Safety. Measures to minimize 

adverse health effects, including all of 

the following: 

(A) Understanding how certified 

applicators, noncertified applicators 

using fumigants under direct 

supervision of certified applicators, 

field workers, and bystanders can 

become exposed to fumigants. 

(B) Common problems and mistakes 

that can result in direct exposure to 

fumigants. 

(C) Signs and symptoms of human 

exposure to fumigants. 

(D) Air concentrations of a fumigant 

require that applicators wear respirators 

or exit the work area entirely. 

(E) Steps to take if a fumigant 

applicator experiences sensory 

irritation. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51407 

(F) Understanding air monitoring, 

when it is required, and where to take 

samples. 

(G) Buffer zones, including 

procedures for buffer zone monitoring. 

(H) First aid measures to take in the 

event of exposure to a soil fumigant. 

(I) Labeling requirements for 

transportation, storage, spill clean-up, 

and emergency response for soil 

fumigants, including safe disposal of 

containers and contaminated soil, and 

management of empty containers. 

(iii) Soil fumigant chemical 

characteristics. Characteristics of soil 

fumigants, including all of the 

following: 

(A) Chemical characteristics of soil 

fumigants. 

(B) Specific human exposure concerns 

for soil fumigants. 

(C) How soil fumigants change from a 

liquid or solid to a gas. 

(D) How soil fumigants disperse in the 

application zone. 

(E) Incompatibility concerns for tanks, 

hoses, tubing, and other equipment. 

(iv) Application. Selecting 

appropriate application methods and 

timing, including all of the following: 

(A) Application methods and 

equipment commonly used for each soil 

fumigant. 

(B) Water-run and non-water-run 

application methods. 

(C) Site characteristics that can be 

used to prevent fumigant exposure. 

(D) Understanding temperature 

inversions and their impact on soil 

fumigation application. 

(E) Weather conditions that could 

impact timing of soil fumigation 

application, such as air stability, air 

temperature, humidity, and wind 

currents, and labeling statements 

limiting applications during specific 

weather conditions. 

(F) Conducting pre-application 

inspection of application equipment. 

(G) Understanding the purpose and 

methods of soil sealing, including the 

factors that determine which soil sealing 

method to use. 

(H) Understanding the use of tarps, 

including the range of tarps available, 

how to seal tarps, and labeling 

requirements for tarp removal and 

perforation. 

(I) Calculating the amount of product 

required for a specific treatment area. 

(J) Understanding the basic 

techniques for calibrating soil 

fumigation application equipment. 

(v) Soil and pest factors. Soil and pest 

factors that influence fumigant activity, 

including all of the following: 

(A) Influence of soil factors on 

fumigant volatility and movement 

within the soil profile. 

(B) Factors that influence gaseous 

movement through the soil profile and 

into the air. 

(C) Soil characteristics, including how 

soil characteristics affect the success of 

a soil fumigation application, assessing 

soil moisture, and correcting for soil 

characteristics that could hinder a 

successful soil fumigation application. 

(D) Identifying pests causing the 

damage to be treated by the soil 

fumigation. 

(E) Understanding the relationship 

between pest density and application 

rate. 

(F) The importance of proper 

application depth and timing. 

(vi) Personal protective equipment. 

Understanding what personal protective 

equipment is necessary and how to use 

it properly, including all of the 

following: 

(A) Following labeling directions for 

required personal protective equipment. 

(B) Selecting, inspecting, using, caring 

for, replacing, and disposing of personal 

protective equipment. 

(C) Understanding the types of 

respirators required when using specific 

soil fumigants and how to use them 

properly, including medical evaluation, 

fit testing, and required replacement of 

cartridges and cannisters. 

(D) Labeling requirements and other 

laws applicable to medical evaluation 

for respirator use, fit tests, training, and 

recordkeeping. 

(vii) Fumigant management plans and 

post-application summaries. 

Information about fumigant 

management plans, including all of the 

following: 

(A) When a fumigant management 

plan must be in effect, how long it must 

be kept on file, where it must be kept 

during the application, and who must 

have access to it. 

(B) The elements of a fumigation 

management plan and resources 

available to assist the applicator in 

preparing a fumigation management 

plan. 

(C) The party responsible for verifying 

that a fumigant management plan is 

accurate. 

(D) The elements, purpose and 

content of a post-application summary, 

who must prepare it, and when it must 

be completed. 

(viii) Buffer zones and posting 

requirements. Understanding buffer 

zones and posting requirements, 

including all of the following: 

(A) Buffer zones and the buffer zone 

period. 

(B) Identifying who is allowed in a 

buffer zone during the buffer zone 

period and who is prohibited from being 

in a buffer zone during the buffer zone 

period. 

(C) Using the buffer zone table from 

the labeling to determine the size of the 

buffer zone. 

(D) Factors that determine the buffer 

zone credits for application scenarios 

and calculating buffer zones using 

credits. 

(E) Distinguishing buffer zone posting 

and treated area posting, including the 

pre-application and post-application 

posting timeframes for each. 

(F) Proper choice and placement of 

warning signs. 

(2) Non-soil fumigation applications. 

Commercial applicators performing 

fumigation applications of restricted use 

pesticides to sites other than soil must 

demonstrate practical knowledge of the 

pest problems and pest control practices 

associated with performing fumigation 

applications to sites other than soil, 

including all the following: 

(i) Label & labeling comprehension. 

Familiarity with the pesticide labels and 

labeling for products used to perform 

non-soil fumigation, including all of the 

following: 

(A) Labeling requirements specific to 

non-soil fumigants. 

(ii) Safety. Measures to minimize 

adverse health effects, including all of 

the following: 

(A) Understanding how certified 

applicators, noncertified applicators 

using fumigants under direct 

supervision of certified applicators, and 

bystanders can become exposed to 

fumigants. 

(B) Common problems and mistakes 

that can result in direct exposure to 

fumigants. 

(C) Signs and symptoms of human 

exposure to fumigants. 

(D) Air concentrations of a fumigant 

that require applicators to wear 

respirators or to exit the work area 

entirely. 

(E) Steps to take if a fumigant 

applicator experiences sensory 

irritation. 

(F) Understanding air monitoring, 

when it is required, and where to take 

samples. 

(G) First aid measures to take in the 

event of exposure to a fumigant. 

(H) Labeling requirements for 

transportation, storage, spill clean-up, 

and emergency response for non-soil 

fumigants, including safe disposal of 

containers and contaminated materials, 

and management of empty containers. 

(iii) Non-soil fumigant chemical 

characteristics. Characteristics of nonsoil fumigants, including all of the 

following: 

(A) Chemical characteristics of nonsoil fumigants. 

(B) Specific human exposure concerns 

for non-soil fumigants. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51408 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(C) How fumigants change from a 

liquid or solid to a gas. 

(D) How fumigants disperse in the 

application zone. 

(E) Incompatibility concerns for tanks, 

hoses, tubing, and other equipment. 

(iv) Application. Selecting 

appropriate application methods and 

timing, including all of the following: 

(A) Application methods and 

equipment commonly used for non-soil 

fumigation. 

(B) Site characteristics that can be 

used to prevent fumigant exposure. 

(C) Conditions that could impact 

timing of non-soil fumigation 

application, such as air stability, air 

temperature, humidity, and wind 

currents, and labeling statements 

limiting applications when specific 

conditions are present. 

(D) Conducting pre-application 

inspection of application equipment 

and the site to be fumigated. 

(E) Understanding the purpose and 

methods of sealing the area to be 

fumigated, including the factors that 

determine which sealing method to use. 

(F) Calculating the amount of product 

required for a specific treatment area. 

(G) Understanding the basic 

techniques for calibrating non-soil 

fumigation application equipment. 

(H) Understanding when and how to 

conduct air monitoring and when it is 

required. 

(v) Pest factors. Pest factors that 

influence fumigant activity, including 

all of the following: 

(A) Influence of pest factors on 

fumigant volatility. 

(B) Factors that influence gaseous 

movement through the area being 

fumigated and into the air. 

(C) Identifying pests causing the 

damage to be treated by the fumigation. 

(D) Understanding the relationship 

between pest density and application 

rate. 

(E) The importance of proper 

application rate and timing. 

(vi) Personal protective equipment. 

Understanding what personal protective 

equipment is necessary and how to use 

it properly, including all of the 

following: 

(A) Following labeling directions for 

required personal protective equipment. 

(B) Selecting, inspecting, using, caring 

for, replacing, and disposing of personal 

protective equipment. 

(C) Understanding the types of 

respirators required when using specific 

non-soil fumigants and how to use them 

properly, including medical evaluation, 

fit testing, and required replacement of 

cartridges and canisters. 

(D) Labeling requirements and other 

laws applicable to medical evaluation 

for respirator use, fit tests, training, and 

recordkeeping. 

(vii) Fumigant management plans and 

post-application summaries. 

Information about fumigant 

management plans and when they are 

required, including all of the following: 

(A) When a fumigant management 

plan must be in effect, how long it must 

be kept on file, where it must be kept 

during the application, and who must 

have access to it. 

(B) The elements of a fumigation 

management plan and resources 

available to assist the applicator in 

preparing a fumigation management 

plan. 

(C) The party responsible for verifying 

that a fumigant management plan is 

accurate. 

(D) The elements, purpose and 

content of a post-application summary, 

who must prepare it, and when it must 

be completed. 

(viii) Posting requirements. 

Understanding posting requirements, 

including all of the following: 

(A) Identifying who is allowed in an 

area being fumigated or after fumigation 

and who is prohibited from being in 

such areas. 

(B) Distinguishing fumigant labelingrequired posting and treated area 

posting, including the pre-application 

and post-application posting timeframes 

for each. 

(C) Proper choice and placement of 

warning signs. 

(3) Aerial applications. Commercial 

applicators performing aerial 

application of restricted use pesticides 

must demonstrate practical knowledge 

of the pest problems and pest control 

practices associated with performing 

aerial application, including all the 

following: 

(i) Labeling. Labeling requirements 

and restrictions specific to aerial 

application of pesticides including: 

(A) Spray volumes. 

(B) Buffers and no-spray zones. 

(C) Weather conditions specific to 

wind and inversions. 

(ii) Application equipment. 

Understand how to choose and maintain 

aerial application equipment, including 

all of the following: 

(A) The importance of inspecting 

application equipment to ensure it is 

proper operating condition prior to 

beginning an application. 

(B) Selecting proper nozzles to ensure 

appropriate pesticide dispersal and to 

minimize drift. 

(C) Knowledge of the components of 

an aerial application pesticide 

application system, including pesticide 

hoppers, tanks, pumps, and types of 

nozzles. 

(D) Interpreting a nozzle flow rate 

chart. 

(E) Determining the number of 

nozzles for intended pesticide output 

using nozzle flow rate chart, aircraft 

speed, and swath width. 

(F) How to ensure nozzles are placed 

to compensate for uneven dispersal due 

to uneven airflow from wingtip vortices, 

helicopter rotor turbulence, and aircraft 

propeller turbulence. 

(G) Where to place nozzles to produce 

the appropriate droplet size. 

(H) How to maintain the application 

system in good repair, including 

pressure gauge accuracy, filter cleaning 

according to schedule, checking nozzles 

for excessive wear. 

(I) How to calculate required and 

actual flow rates. 

(J) How to verify flow rate using fixed 

timing, open timing, known distance, or 

a flow meter. 

(K) When to adjust and calibrate 

application equipment. 

(iii) Application considerations. The 

applicator must demonstrate knowledge 

of factors to consider before and during 

application, including all of the 

following: 

(A) Weather conditions that could 

impact application by affecting aircraft 

engine power, take-off distance, and 

climb rate, or by promoting spray 

droplet evaporation. 

(B) How to determine wind velocity, 

direction, and air density at the 

application site. 

(C) The potential impact of thermals 

and temperature inversions on aerial 

pesticide application. 

(vi) Minimizing drift. The applicator 

must demonstrate knowledge of 

methods to minimize off-target pesticide 

movement, including all of the 

following: 

(A) How to determine drift potential 

of a product using a smoke generator. 

(B) How to evaluate vertical and 

horizontal smoke plumes to assess wind 

direction, speed, and concentration. 

(C) Selecting techniques that 

minimize pesticide movement out of the 

area to be treated. 

(D) Documenting special equipment 

configurations or flight patterns used to 

reduce off-target pesticide drift. 

(v) Performing aerial application. The 

applicator must demonstrate 

competency in performing an aerial 

pesticide application, including all of 

the following: 

(A) Selecting a flight altitude that 

minimizes streaking and off-target 

pesticide drift. 

(B) Choosing a flight pattern that 

ensures applicator and bystander safety 

and proper application. 

(C) The importance of engaging and 

disengaging spray precisely when 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51409 

entering and exiting a predetermined 

swath pattern. 

(D) Tools available to mark swaths, 

such as global positioning systems and 

flags. 

(E) Recordkeeping requirements for 

aerial pesticide applications including 

application conditions if applicable. 

(f) Exceptions. The requirements in 

§ 171.103(a) through (f) of this chapter 

do not apply to the following persons: 

(1) Persons conducting laboratory 

research involving restricted use 

pesticides. 

(2) Doctors of Medicine and Doctors 

of Veterinary Medicine applying 

restricted use pesticides to patients 

during the course of the ordinary 

practice of those professions. 

§ 171.105 Standards for certification of 

private applicators. 

(a) General private applicator 

certification. Before using or supervising 

the use of a restricted use pesticide, a 

private applicator must be certified by 

an appropriate certifying authority as 

being competent to use restricted use 

pesticides for pest control in the 

production of agricultural commodities, 

which includes the ability to read and 

understand pesticide labeling. 

Certification in this general private 

applicator certification category alone is 

not sufficient to authorize the purchase, 

use, or supervision of use of the 

restricted use pesticide products for 

predator pest control listed in paragraph 

(b) of this section, or the use or 

supervision of use of the restricted use 

pesticides using application methods 

specified in paragraph (c) of this 

section. Persons seeking certification as 

private applicators must demonstrate 

practical knowledge of the principles 

and practices of pest control associated 

with the production of agricultural 

commodities and effective use of 

restricted use pesticides, including all of 

the following: 

(1) Label and labeling comprehension. 

Familiarity with pesticide labels and 

labeling and their functions, including 

all of the following: 

(i) The general format and 

terminology of pesticide labels and 

labeling. 

(ii) Understanding instructions, 

warnings, terms, symbols, and other 

information commonly appearing on 

pesticide labels and labeling. 

(iii) Understanding that it is a 

violation of Federal law to use any 

registered pesticide in a manner 

inconsistent with its labeling. 

(iv) Understanding when a certified 

applicator must be physically present at 

the site of the application based on 

labeling requirements. 

(v) Understanding labeling 

requirements for supervising 

noncertified applicators working under 

the direct supervision of a certified 

applicator. 

(vi) Understanding that applicators 

must comply with all use restrictions 

and directions for use contained in 

pesticide labels and labeling, including 

being certified in the application 

method-specific category appropriate to 

the type and site of the application and 

in the predator pest control category for 

private applicators if applicable. 

(vii) Understanding the meaning of 

product classification as either general 

or restricted use, and that a product may 

be unclassified. 

(viii) Understanding and complying 

with product-specific notification 

requirements. 

(2) Safety. Measures to avoid or 

minimize adverse health effects, 

including all of the following: 

(i) Understanding the terms ‘‘acute 

toxicity’’ and ‘‘chronic toxicity,’’ as well 

as the long-term effects of pesticides. 

(ii) Understanding that a pesticide’s 

risk is a function of exposure and the 

pesticide’s toxicity. 

(iii) Recognition of likely ways in 

which dermal, inhalation and oral 

exposure may occur. 

(iv) Common types and causes of 

pesticide mishaps. 

(v) Precautions to prevent injury to 

applicators and other individuals in or 

near treated areas. 

(vi) Need for, and proper use of, 

protective clothing and personal 

protective equipment. 

(vii) Symptoms of pesticide 

poisoning. 

(viii) First aid and other procedures to 

be followed in case of a pesticide 

mishap. 

(ix) Proper identification, storage, 

transport, handling, mixing procedures, 

and disposal methods for pesticides and 

used pesticide containers, including 

precautions to be taken to prevent 

children from having access to 

pesticides and pesticide containers. 

(3) Environment. The potential 

environmental consequences of the use 

and misuse of pesticides, including the 

influence of the following: 

(i) Weather and other climatic 

conditions. 

(ii) Types of terrain, soil, or other 

substrate. 

(iii) Presence of fish, wildlife, and 

other non-target organisms. 

(iv) Presence of pollinators. 

(v) Drainage patterns. 

(4) Pests. The proper identification 

and effective control of pests, including 

all of the following: 

(i) Common features of pest organisms 

and characteristics of damage needed 

for pest recognition. 

(ii) Recognition of relevant pests. 

(iii) Pest development, biology, and 

behavior as it may be relevant to 

problem identification and control. 

(5) Pesticides. Characteristics of 

pesticides, including all of the 

following: 

(i) Types of pesticides. 

(ii) Types of formulations. 

(iii) Compatibility, synergism, 

persistence, and animal and plant 

toxicity of the formulations. 

(iv) Hazards and residues associated 

with use. 

(v) Factors that influence effectiveness 

or lead to problems such as pesticide 

resistance. 

(vi) Dilution procedures. 

(6) Equipment. Application 

equipment, including all of the 

following: 

(i) Types of equipment and 

advantages and limitations of each type. 

(ii) Uses, maintenance, and 

calibration procedures. 

(7) Application methods. Selecting 

appropriate application methods, 

including all of the following: 

(i) Methods used to apply various 

formulations of pesticides, solutions, 

and gases. 

(ii) Knowledge of which application 

method to use in a given situation and 

when certification in an application 

method-specific category is required in 

accordance with paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(iii) Relationship of application and 

placement of pesticides to proper use, 

unnecessary or ineffective use, and 

misuse. 

(iv) Prevention of drift and pesticide 

loss into the environment. 

(8) Laws and regulations. Knowledge 

of all applicable State, Tribal, and 

Federal laws and regulations, including 

understanding and complying with the 

Worker Protection Standard in 40 CFR 

part 170. 

(9) Responsibilities for supervisors of 

noncertified applicators. Certified 

applicator responsibilities related to 

supervision of noncertified applicators, 

including all of the following: 

(i) Understanding and complying with 

requirements in § 171.201 of this 

chapter for certified private applicators 

who supervise noncertified applicators 

using restricted use pesticides. 

(ii) Providing use-specific instructions 

to noncertified applicators using 

restricted use pesticides under the 

direct supervision of a certified 

applicator. 

(iii) Explaining appropriate State, 

Tribal, and Federal laws and regulations 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51410 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

to noncertified applicators working 

under the direct supervision of a 

certified applicator. 

(10) Stewardship. Understanding the 

importance of all of the following: 

(i) Maintaining chemical security for 

restricted-use pesticides. 

(ii) How to communicate information 

about pesticide exposures and risks 

with agricultural workers and handlers 

and other relevant persons. 

(11) Agricultural pest control. 

Practical knowledge of pest control 

applications to agricultural commodities 

including all of the following: 

(i) Specific pests of agricultural 

commodities. 

(ii) How to avoid contamination of 

ground and surface waters. 

(iii) Understanding pre-harvest and 

restricted-entry intervals and entryrestricted periods and areas. 

(iv) Understanding specific pesticide 

toxicity and residue potential when 

pesticides are applied to animal or 

animal product agricultural 

commodities. 

(v) Relative hazards associated with 

using pesticides on animals or animal 

products based on formulation, 

application technique, age of animal, 

stress, and extent of treatment. 

(b) Predator pest control category for 

private applicators. This category 

applies to private applicators that use or 

supervise the use of sodium cyanide in 

a mechanical ejection device to control 

regulated predators and private 

applicators that use or supervise the use 

of sodium fluoroacetate in a protective 

collar to control regulated predators. All 

private applicators that use or supervise 

the use of these restricted use pesticides 

for predator pest control must be 

specifically certified as competent by a 

certifying authority in accordance with 

the following competency standards: 

(1) Sodium cyanide. Applicators must 

demonstrate comprehension of all 

relevant laws and regulations applicable 

to the use of mechanical ejection 

devices for sodium cyanide, including 

the restrictions on the use of sodium 

cyanide products ordered by the EPA 

Administrator and published in the 

Federal Register (40 FR 44726, 

September 29, 1975) (FRL 436–3). 

Applicators must also demonstrate 

practical knowledge and understanding 

of all of the specific use restrictions for 

sodium cyanide devices, including safe 

handling and proper placement of the 

capsules and device, proper use of the 

antidote kit, notification to medical 

personnel before use of the device, 

conditions of and restrictions on where 

devices can be used, requirements to 

consult FWS maps before use to avoid 

affecting endangered species, maximum 

density of devices, provisions for 

supervising and monitoring applicators, 

required information exchange in 

locations where more than one agency 

is authorized to place devices, and 

specific requirements for recordkeeping, 

monitoring, field posting, proper 

storage, and disposal of damaged or 

used sodium cyanide capsules. 

(2) Sodium fluoroacetate. Applicators 

must demonstrate comprehension of all 

relevant laws and regulations applicable 

to the use of sodium fluoroacetate 

products, including the restrictions on 

the use of sodium fluoroacetate 

products ordered by the EPA 

Administrator and published in the 

Federal Register (49 FR 4830, February 

8, 1984) (FRL 2520–6). Applicators must 

also demonstrate practical knowledge 

and understanding of the specific use 

restrictions for sodium fluoroacetate in 

the livestock protection collar, 

including where and when sodium 

fluoroacetate products can be used, safe 

handling and placement of collars, and 

practical treatment of sodium 

fluoroacetate poisoning in humans and 

domestic animals. Applicators must also 

demonstrate practical knowledge and 

understanding of specific requirements 

for field posting, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, proper storage of collars, 

disposal of punctured or leaking collars, 

disposal of contaminated animal 

remains, vegetation, soil, and clothing, 

and reporting of suspected and actual 

poisoning, mishap, or injury to 

threatened or endangered species, 

human, domestic animals, or non-target 

wild animals. 

(c) Application method-specific 

certification categories for private 

applicators. In order to apply or 

supervise the use of restricted use 

pesticides using an application method 

described in this paragraph (c), private 

applicators must demonstrate practical 

knowledge related to the appropriate 

application method as provided in this 

paragraph (c). This requirement is in 

addition to certification in the general 

private applicator certification category 

specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

(1) Soil fumigation application. 

Private applicators that use or supervise 

the use of a restricted use pesticide to 

fumigate soil must demonstrate 

practical knowledge of the pest 

problems and pest control practices 

associated with performing soil 

fumigation applications, including all 

the following: 

(i) Label and labeling comprehension. 

Familiarity with the pesticide labels and 

labeling for products used to perform 

soil fumigation, including all of the 

following: 

(A) Labeling requirements specific to 

soil fumigants. 

(B) Fumigant applicators, fumigant 

applicator tasks, and the safety 

information that certified applicators 

must provide to noncertified applicators 

using fumigants under the direct 

supervision of certified applicators. 

(C) Entry-restricted period for 

different tarped and untarped field 

application scenarios. 

(D) Recordkeeping requirements 

imposed by product labels and labeling. 

(E) Special label provisions of 

products containing certain active 

ingredients. 

(F) Labeling requirements for 

fumigant management plans, such as 

when a fumigant management plan 

must be in effect, how long it must be 

kept on file, where it must be kept 

during the application, and who must 

have access to it; the elements of a 

fumigation management plan and 

resources available to assist the 

applicator in preparing a fumigation 

management plan; the party responsible 

for verifying that a fumigant 

management plan is accurate; and the 

elements, purpose and content of a postapplication summary, who must prepare 

it, and when it must be completed. 

(ii) Safety. Measures to minimize 

adverse health effects, including all of 

the following: 

(A) Understanding how certified 

applicators, noncertified applicators 

using fumigants under the direct 

supervision of certified applicators, 

field workers, and bystanders can 

become exposed to fumigants. 

(B) Common problems and mistakes 

that can result in direct exposure to 

fumigants. 

(C) Signs and symptoms of human 

exposure to fumigants. 

(D) Air concentrations of a fumigant 

that require applicators to wear 

respirators or to exit the work area 

entirely. 

(E) Steps to take if a fumigant 

applicator experiences sensory 

irritation. 

(F) Understanding air monitoring, 

when it is required, and where to take 

samples. 

(G) Buffer zones, including 

procedures for buffer zone monitoring. 

(H) First aid measures to take in the 

event of exposure to a soil fumigant. 

(I) Labeling requirements for 

transportation, storage, spill clean up, 

and emergency response for soil 

fumigants, including safe disposal of 

containers and contaminated soil, and 

management of empty containers. 

(iii) Soil fumigant chemical 

characteristics. Characteristics of soil 

fumigants, including all of the 

following: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51411 

(A) Chemical characteristics of soil 

fumigants. 

(B) Specific human exposure concerns 

for soil fumigants. 

(C) How soil fumigants change from a 

liquid or solid to a gas. 

(D) How soil fumigants disperse in the 

application zone. 

(E) Incompatibility concerns for tanks, 

hoses, tubing, and other equipment. 

(iv) Application. Selecting 

appropriate application methods and 

timing, including all of the following: 

(A) Application methods and 

equipment commonly used for each soil 

fumigant. 

(B) Water-run and non-water-run 

application methods. 

(C) Site characteristics that can be 

used to prevent fumigant exposure. 

(D) Understanding temperature 

inversions and their impact on soil 

fumigation application. 

(E) Weather conditions that could 

impact timing of soil fumigation 

application, such as air stability, air 

temperature, humidity, and wind 

currents, and labeling statements 

limiting applications during specific 

weather conditions. 

(F) Conducting pre-application 

inspection of application equipment. 

(G) Understanding the purpose and 

methods of soil sealing, including the 

factors that determine which soil sealing 

method to use. 

(H) Understanding the use of tarps, 

including the range of tarps available, 

how to seal tarps, and labeling 

requirements for tarp removal and 

perforation. 

(I) Calculating the amount of product 

required for a specific treatment area. 

(J) Understanding the basic 

techniques for calibrating soil 

fumigation application equipment. 

(v) Soil and pest factors. Soil and pest 

factors that influence fumigant activity, 

including all of the following: 

(A) Influence of soil factors on 

fumigant volatility and movement 

within the soil profile. 

(B) Factors that influence gaseous 

movement through the soil profile and 

into the air. 

(C) Soil characteristics, including how 

soil characteristics affect the success of 

a soil fumigation application, assessing 

soil moisture, and correcting for soil 

characteristics that could hinder a 

successful soil fumigation application. 

(D) Identifying pests causing the 

damage to be treated by the soil 

fumigation. 

(E) Understanding the relationship 

between pest density and application 

rate. 

(F) The importance of proper 

application depth and timing. 

(vi) Personal protective equipment. 

Understanding what personal protective 

equipment is necessary and how to use 

it properly, including all of the 

following: 

(A) Following labeling directions for 

required personal protective equipment. 

(B) Selecting, inspecting, using, caring 

for, replacing, and disposing personal 

protective equipment. 

(C) Understanding the types of 

respirators required when using specific 

soil fumigants and how to use them 

properly, including medical evaluation, 

fit testing, and required replacement of 

cartridges and cannisters. 

(D) Labeling requirements and other 

laws applicable to medical evaluation 

for respirator use, fit tests, training, and 

recordkeeping. 

(vii) Buffer zones and posting 

requirements. Understanding buffer 

zones and posting requirements, 

including all of the following: 

(A) Buffer zones and the buffer zone 

period. 

(B) Identifying who may be in a buffer 

zone during the buffer zone period and 

who is prohibited from being in a buffer 

zone during the buffer zone period. 

(C) Using the buffer zone table from 

the labeling to determine the size of the 

buffer zone. 

(D) Factors that determine the buffer 

zone credits for application scenarios 

and calculating buffer zones using 

credits. 

(E) Distinguishing buffer zone posting 

and treated area posting, including the 

pre-application and post-application 

posting timeframes for each. 

(F) Proper choice and placement of 

warning signs. 

(2) Non-soil fumigation applications. 

Private applicators that use or supervise 

the use of a restricted use pesticide to 

fumigate anything other than soil must 

demonstrate practical knowledge of the 

pest problems and pest control practices 

associated with performing fumigation 

applications to sites other than soil, 

including all the following: 

(i) Label and labeling comprehension. 

Familiarity with the pesticide labels and 

labeling for products used to perform 

non-soil fumigation, including all of the 

following: 

(A) Labeling requirements specific to 

non-soil fumigants. 

(B) Labeling requirements for 

fumigant management plans such as 

when a fumigant management plan 

must be in effect, how long it must be 

kept on file, where it must be kept 

during the application, and who must 

have access to it; the elements of a 

fumigation management plan and 

resources available to assist the 

applicator in preparing a fumigation 

management plan; the party responsible 

for verifying that a fumigant 

management plan is accurate; and the 

elements, purpose and content of a postapplication summary, who must prepare 

it, and when it must be completed. 

(ii) Safety. Measures to minimize 

adverse health effects, including all of 

the following: 

(A) Understanding how certified 

applicators, handlers, and bystanders 

can become exposed to fumigants. 

(B) Common problems and mistakes 

that can result in direct exposure to 

fumigants. 

(C) Signs and symptoms of human 

exposure to fumigants. 

(D) When air concentrations of a 

fumigant triggers handlers to wear 

respirators or to exit the work area 

entirely. 

(E) Steps to take if a person using a 

fumigant experiences sensory irritation. 

(F) Understanding air monitoring, 

when it is required, and where to take 

samples. 

(G) First aid measures to take in the 

event of exposure to a fumigant. 

(H) Labeling requirements for 

transportation, storage, spill clean-up, 

and emergency response for non-soil 

fumigants, including safe disposal of 

containers and contaminated materials, 

and management of empty containers. 

(iii) Non-soil fumigant chemical 

characteristics. Characteristics of nonsoil fumigants, including all of the 

following: 

(A) Chemical characteristics of nonsoil fumigants. 

(B) Specific human exposure concerns 

for non-soil fumigants. 

(C) How fumigants change from a 

liquid or solid to a gas. 

(D) How fumigants disperse in the 

application zone. 

(E) Incompatibility concerns for tanks, 

hoses, tubing, and other equipment. 

(iv) Application. Selecting 

appropriate application methods and 

timing, including all of the following: 

(A) Application methods and 

equipment commonly used for non-soil 

fumigation. 

(B) Site characteristics that can be 

used to prevent fumigant exposure. 

(C) Conditions that could impact 

timing of non-soil fumigation 

application, such as air stability, air 

temperature, humidity, and wind 

currents, and labeling statements 

limiting applications when specific 

conditions are present. 

(D) Conducting pre-application 

inspection of application equipment 

and the site to be fumigated. 

(E) Understanding the purpose and 

methods of sealing the area to be 

fumigated, including the factors that 

determine which sealing method to use. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51412 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(F) Calculating the amount of product 

required for a specific treatment area. 

(G) Understanding the basic 

techniques for calibrating non-soil 

fumigation application equipment. 

(H) Understanding when and how to 

conduct air monitoring and when it is 

required. 

(v) Pest factors. Pest factors that 

influence fumigant activity, including 

all of the following: 

(A) Influence of pest factors on 

fumigant volatility. 

(B) Factors that influence gaseous 

movement through the area being 

fumigated and into the air. 

(C) Identifying pests causing the 

damage to be treated by the fumigation. 

(D) Understanding the relationship 

between pest density and application 

rate. 

(E) The importance of proper 

application rate and timing. 

(vi) Personal protective equipment. 

Understanding what personal protective 

equipment is necessary and how to use 

it properly, including all of the 

following: 

(A) Following labeling directions for 

required personal protective equipment. 

(B) Selecting, inspecting, using, caring 

for, replacing, and disposing of personal 

protective equipment. 

(C) Understanding the types of 

respirators required when using specific 

soil fumigants and how to use them 

properly, including medical evaluation, 

fit testing, and required replacement of 

cartridges and cannisters. 

(D) Labeling requirements and other 

laws applicable to medical evaluation 

for respirator use, fit tests, training, and 

recordkeeping. 

(viii) Posting requirements. 

Understanding posting requirements, 

including all of the following: 

(A) Identifying who is allowed in an 

area being fumigated or after fumigation 

and who is prohibited from being in 

such areas. 

(B) Distinguishing fumigant labelingrequired posting and treated area 

posting, including the pre-application 

and post-application posting timeframes 

for each. 

(C) Proper choice and placement of 

warning signs. 

(3) Aerial applications. Private 

applicators that use or supervise the use 

of restricted use pesticides applied by 

fixed or rotary wing aircraft must 

demonstrate practical knowledge of the 

pest problems and pest control practices 

associated with performing aerial 

application, including all the following: 

(i) Labeling. Labeling requirements 

and restrictions specific to aerial 

application of pesticides including: 

(A) Spray volumes. 

(B) Buffers and no-spray zones. 

(C) Weather conditions specific to 

wind and inversions. 

(D) Labeling-mandated recordkeeping 

requirements for aerial pesticide 

applications including application 

conditions if applicable. 

(ii) Application equipment. 

Understand how to choose and maintain 

aerial application equipment, including 

all of the following: 

(A) The importance of inspecting 

application equipment to ensure it is 

proper operating condition prior to 

beginning an application. 

(B) Selecting proper nozzles to ensure 

appropriate pesticide dispersal and to 

minimize drift. 

(C) Knowledge of the components of 

an aerial application pesticide 

application system, including pesticide 

hoppers, tanks, pumps, and types of 

nozzles. 

(D) Interpreting a nozzle flow rate 

chart. 

(E) Determining the number of 

nozzles for intended pesticide output 

using nozzle flow rate chart, aircraft 

speed, and swath width. 

(F) How to ensure nozzles are placed 

to compensate for uneven dispersal due 

to uneven airflow from wingtip vortices, 

helicopter rotor turbulence, and aircraft 

propeller turbulence. 

(G) Where to place nozzles to produce 

the appropriate droplet size. 

(H) How to maintain the application 

system in good repair, including 

pressure gauge accuracy, filter cleaning 

according to schedule, checking nozzles 

for excessive wear. 

(I) How to calculate required and 

actual flow rates. 

(J) How to verify flow rate using fixed 

timing, open timing, known distance, or 

a flow meter. 

(K) When to adjust and calibrate 

application equipment. 

(iii) Application considerations. The 

applicator must demonstrate knowledge 

of factors to consider before and during 

application, including all of the 

following: 

(A) Weather conditions that could 

impact application by affecting aircraft 

engine power, take-off distance, and 

climb rate, or by promoting spray 

droplet evaporation. 

(B) How to determine wind velocity, 

direction, and air density at the 

application site. 

(C) The potential impact of thermals 

and temperature inversions on aerial 

pesticide application. 

(iv) Minimizing drift. The applicator 

must demonstrate knowledge of 

methods to minimize off-target pesticide 

movement, including all of the 

following: 

(A) How to determine drift potential 

of a product using a smoke generator. 

(B) How to evaluate vertical and 

horizontal smoke plumes to assess wind 

direction, speed, and concentration. 

(C) Selecting techniques that 

minimize pesticide movement out of the 

area to be treated. 

(D) Documenting special equipment 

configurations or flight patterns used to 

reduce off-target pesticide drift. 

(v) Performing aerial application. The 

applicator must demonstrate 

competency in performing an aerial 

pesticide application, including all of 

the following: 

(A) Selecting a flight altitude that 

minimizes streaking and off-target 

pesticide drift. 

(B) Choosing a flight pattern that 

ensures applicator and bystander safety 

and proper application. 

(C) The importance of engaging and 

disengaging spray precisely when 

entering and exiting a predetermined 

swath pattern. 

(D) Tools available to mark swaths, 

such as global positioning systems and 

flags. 

(d) Private applicator minimum age. 

A private applicator must be at least 18 

years old. 

(e) Private applicator competence. 

The competence of each applicant for 

private applicator certification must be 

determined by the certifying authority 

based upon the certification standards 

set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of 

this section in order to assure that 

private applicators are competent to use 

and supervise the use of restricted use 

pesticides in accordance with 

applicable State, Tribal, and Federal 

laws and regulations. The certifying 

authority must use either a written 

examination process as described in 

paragraph (e)(1) of this section or a nonexamination training process as 

described in paragraph (e)(2) of this 

section to assure the competence of 

private applicators in regard to the 

general certification standards 

applicable to all private applicators, 

and, if applicable, the specific standards 

for the predator pest control category 

and/or the standards for each 

application method-specific category in 

which an applicator is to be certified, as 

provided for in this section. The 

certifying authority must follow the 

labeling requirements for sodium 

fluoroacetate and sodium cyanide 

dispensed through an M–44 device to 

determine the competence of 

applicators in the predator control 

categories. 

(1) Determination of competence by 

examination. If the certifying authority 

uses a written examination process to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51413 

determine the competence of private 

applicators, the examination process 

must meet all of the requirements of 

§ 171.103(a)(2). 

(2) Becoming competent through 

training without examination. Any 

applicant for certification as a private 

applicator may become competent by 

completing a training program approved 

by the certifying authority. A training 

program to establish private applicator 

competence must conform to all of the 

following criteria: 

(i) Positive photo identification. Each 

person seeking certification must 

present a valid, government-issued 

photo identification to the certifying 

authority or designated representative as 

proof of identity and age at the time of 

the training program to be eligible for 

certification. 

(ii) Training programs for private 

applicator general certification and 

certification in application methodspecific categories. The training 

program for general private applicator 

certification must cover the competency 

standards outlined in paragraph (a) of 

this section. The training program for 

each application method-specific 

category for private applicator 

certification must cover the competency 

standards outlined in paragraph (c) of 

this section and must be in addition to 

the training program required for 

general private applicator certification. 

§ 171.107 Standards for recertification of 

certified applicators. 

(a) Determination of continued 

competency. Each commercial and 

private applicator certification shall 

expire 3 years after issuance, unless the 

applicator is recertified in accordance 

with this section. A certifying authority 

may establish a shorter certification 

period. In order for a certified 

applicator’s certification to continue 

without interruption, the certified 

applicator must be recertified under this 

section before the expiration of his or 

her current certification. 

(b) Process for recertification. 

Minimum standards for recertification 

by written examination, or through 

continuing education programs, are as 

follows: 

(1) Written examination. A certified 

applicator may be found eligible for 

recertification upon passing a written 

examination approved by the certifying 

authority and that is designed to 

evaluate whether the certified applicator 

demonstrates the level of competency 

required by § 171.103 for commercial 

applicators or § 171.105 for private 

applicators. The examination shall 

conform to the applicable standards for 

exams set forth in § 171.103(a)(2) of this 

chapter and be designed to test the 

certified applicator’s knowledge of 

current technologies and practices. 

(2) Continuing education programs. A 

certified applicator may be found 

eligible for recertification upon 

successfully completing a continuing 

education program approved by the 

certifying authority and designed to 

ensure the applicator continues to 

demonstrate the level of competency 

required by § 171.103 for commercial 

applicators or § 171.105 for private 

applicators. A recertification process 

that relies on a continuing education 

program to maintain applicator 

certification must meet all of the 

following criteria: 

(i) The continuing education program 

designed for applicator recertification 

must be approved by the certifying 

authority as being capable of ensuring 

continued competency. 

(ii) A private applicator continuing 

education program must require the 

private applicator to complete six 

continuing education units specifically 

related to the standards of competency 

outlined in § 171.105(a) before the 

expiration of the applicator’s 

certification to qualify for 

recertification. To qualify for 

recertification for application methodspecific categories, a private applicator 

continuing education program must 

require the private applicator to 

complete three continuing education 

units specifically related to the 

standards of competency outlined in 

§ 171.105(c) for each relevant 

application method-specific category 

certification held by the applicator 

before the expiration of the applicator’s 

certification. 

(iii) A commercial applicator 

continuing education program must 

require the commercial applicator to 

complete six continuing education units 

specifically related to the core standards 

of competency for commercial 

applicators outlined in § 171.103(c) 

before the expiration of the applicator’s 

certification. In addition, a commercial 

applicator continuing education 

program must require the commercial 

applicator to complete six continuing 

education units specifically related to 

the standards of competency outlined in 

§ 171.103(d), (e), and (f) for each 

relevant pest control category and 

application method-specific category of 

certification held by the applicator 

before the expiration of the applicator’s 

certification in order to qualify for 

recertification. 

(iv) Any education program, 

including an online or other distance 

education program, that grants 

continuing education units must have a 

process to verify the applicator’s 

successful completion of the 

educational objectives of the program 

and positively identify the applicator 

taking the continuing education units 

consistent with the requirements of 

§§ 171.103(a)(2)(iv) and 171.105(e)(2)(i). 

Subpart C—Supervision of 

Noncertified Applicators 

§ 171.201 Requirements for direct 

supervision of noncertified applicators by 

certified applicators. 

(a) Applicability. This section applies 

to any certified applicator who allows or 

relies on a noncertified applicator to use 

a restricted use pesticide under the 

certified applicator’s direct supervision. 

(b) General requirements. 

(1) The certified applicator must have 

a practical knowledge of applicable 

Federal, State and Tribal supervisory 

requirements, including any 

requirements on the product label and 

labeling, regarding the use of restricted 

use pesticides by noncertified 

applicators. 

(2) The certified applicator must be 

certified in each category as set forth in 

§§ 171.101(a) and (b) and 171.105(b) and 

(c) applicable to the supervised 

pesticide use. 

(3) The certified applicator must 

ensure that any noncertified applicators 

working under his or her direct 

supervision have met the training 

requirements under paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(4) If the certified applicator is a 

commercial applicator, the certified 

applicator must prepare and maintain 

the records required by paragraph (e) of 

this section. 

(5) The certified applicator must 

ensure that all noncertified applicators 

working under his or her direct 

supervision are at least 18 years of age. 

(6) The certified applicator must 

ensure that a method for immediate 

communication between the certified 

applicator and each noncertified 

applicator working under his or her 

direct supervision is available. 

(7) The certified applicator must 

ensure that the full labeling for the 

product(s) used during a supervised use 

is in the possession of each noncertified 

applicator during the use. 

(8) The certified applicator must be 

physically present at the site of the use 

being supervised when required by the 

product labeling. 

(9) The certified applicator must 

provide use-specific instructions for 

each application to each noncertified 

applicator, including labeling 

directions, precautions, and restrictions 

mandated by the specific site; the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51414 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

interrelationship between the 

characteristics of the use site (e.g., 

surface and ground water, endangered 

species, local population, and risks) and 

the conditions of application (e.g., 

equipment, method of application, 

formulation, and risks); and how to use 

the application equipment. 

(10) The certified applicator must 

ensure that before any noncertified 

applicator uses any equipment for 

mixing, loading, transferring, or 

applying pesticides, the noncertified 

applicator has been instructed in the 

safe operation of such equipment within 

the last 12 months. 

(11) The certified applicator must 

ensure that before each day of use 

equipment used for mixing, loading, 

transferring, or applying pesticides is 

inspected for leaks, clogging, and worn 

or damaged parts. If worn or damaged 

parts or equipment are found, the 

certified applicator must ensure that any 

damaged equipment is repaired or 

replaced prior to use. 

(12) Where the labeling of a pesticide 

product requires that personal 

protective equipment be worn for 

mixing, loading, application, or any 

other use activities, the certified 

applicator must ensure that any 

noncertified applicator using restricted 

use pesticides under his or her direct 

supervision has the label-required 

personal protective equipment, that the 

personal protective equipment is worn 

and used correctly for its intended 

purpose, and that the personal 

protective equipment is clean and in 

proper operating condition. 

(c) Training requirement. Before any 

noncertified applicator uses a restricted 

use pesticide under the direct 

supervision of the certified applicator, 

the supervising certified applicator must 

ensure that the noncertified applicator 

has met at least one of the following 

qualifications: 

(1) The noncertified applicator has 

been trained in accordance with 

paragraph (d) of this section within the 

last 12 months. 

(2) The noncertified applicator has 

met the training requirements for an 

agricultural handler under § 170.201(c) 

within the last 12 months. 

(3) The noncertified applicator has 

passed an examination covering the core 

standards of competency for commercial 

applicators outlined in § 171.103(c) 

within the last 3 years. 

(d) Noncertified applicator training 

programs. (1) General noncertified 

applicator training must be presented to 

applicators either orally from written 

materials or audio visually. The 

information must be presented in a 

manner that the noncertified applicators 

can understand, such as through a 

translator. The person conducting the 

training must be present during the 

entire training program and must 

respond to the noncertified applicators’ 

questions. 

(2) The person who conducts the 

training must meet at least one of the 

following criteria: 

(i) Be currently certified as an 

applicator of restricted use pesticides 

under this part. 

(ii) Be currently designated as a 

trainer of certified applicators or 

pesticide handlers by a State, Tribal, or 

Federal agency having jurisdiction. 

(iii) Have completed a pesticide safety 

train-the-trainer program under 40 CFR 

part 170. 

(3) The noncertified applicator 

training materials must include the 

information that noncertified 

applicators need to protect themselves, 

other people, and the environment 

before, during, and after making a 

restricted use pesticide application. The 

noncertified applicator training 

materials must include, at a minimum, 

the following: 

(i) Format and meaning of information 

contained in pesticide labels and 

labeling, including safety information, 

such as precautionary statements about 

human health hazards. 

(ii) Hazards of pesticides resulting 

from toxicity and exposure, including 

acute and chronic effects, delayed 

effects, and sensitization. 

(iii) Routes by which pesticides can 

enter the body. 

(iv) Signs and symptoms of common 

types of pesticide poisoning. 

(v) Emergency first aid for pesticide 

injuries or poisonings. 

(vi) How to obtain emergency medical 

care. 

(vii) Routine and emergency 

decontamination procedures. 

(viii) Need for and proper use of 

personal protective equipment. 

(ix) Prevention, recognition, and first 

aid treatment of heat-related illness 

associated with the use of personal 

protective equipment. 

(x) Safety requirements for handling, 

transporting, storing, and disposing of 

pesticides, including general procedures 

for spill cleanup. 

(xi) Environmental concerns such as 

drift, runoff, and wildlife hazards. 

(xii) Warnings against taking 

pesticides or pesticide containers home. 

(xiii) Washing and changing work 

clothes before physical contact with 

family. 

(xiv) Washing work clothes separately 

from the family’s clothes before wearing 

them again. 

(xv) Precautions required to protect 

children and pregnant women. 

(xvi) How to report suspected 

pesticide illness to the appropriate State 

agency. 

(xvii) Instructions that the certified 

applicator must provide use-specific 

instructions for each application to the 

noncertified applicator(s), including 

labeling directions, precautions, and 

restrictions mandated by the specific 

site; the interrelationship between the 

characteristics of the use site (e.g., 

surface and ground water, endangered 

species, local population, and risks) and 

the conditions of application (e.g., 

equipment, method of application, 

formulation, and risks); and how to use 

the application equipment. 

(e) Recordkeeping. For each 

noncertified applicator who uses a 

restricted use pesticide under a 

commercial applicator’s direct 

supervision, the commercial applicator 

supervising any noncertified applicator 

must collect and maintain at the 

commercial applicator’s principal place 

of business for 2 years from the date of 

meeting the training requirements of 

paragraph (d) of this section, the 

following information: 

(1) The noncertified applicator’s 

printed name and signature. 

(2) The date the training requirement 

in paragraph (d) of this section was met. 

(3) The name of the person who 

provided the training or the certifying 

agency, as applicable. 

(4) The supervising certified 

applicator’s name. 

(f) Compliance date. After [date 2 

years and 60 days after date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register], any certified 

applicator who supervises a 

noncertified applicator using a 

restricted use pesticide under his or her 

direct supervision must comply with 

the requirements of this section. 

Subpart D—Certification Plans 

§ 171.301 General. 

(a) Jurisdiction. A certification issued 

under a particular certifying authority’s 

certification plan is only valid within 

the geographical area covered by the 

certification plan approved by the 

Agency. 

(b) Status of certification plans 

approved before effective date. A 

certification plan approved by EPA 

before the effective date of this part 

remains approved until [date 4 years 

and 60 days after date of publication of 

the final rule in the Federal Register], 

except as provided in paragraphs (c)(4) 

and (5) of this section. 

(c) Compliance dates. (1) After [date 

4 years and 60 days after date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51415 

Federal Register], a State, Tribe or 

Federal agency may only certify 

applicators of restricted use pesticides 

in accordance with a certification plan 

that meets or exceeds all of the 

applicable requirements of this part and 

has been approved by the Agency. 

(2) A State, Tribe or Federal agency 

that currently has an EPA-approved 

plan for the certification of applicators 

of restricted use pesticides and that 

chooses to certify applicators of 

restricted use pesticides under this part 

must submit to EPA for review and 

approval a revised certification plan that 

meets or exceeds all of the applicable 

requirements of this part no later than 

[date 2 years and 60 days after date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register]. 

(3) If the Agency approves a 

certification plan submitted no later 

than [date 2 years and 60 days after date 

of publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register], a State, Tribe, or 

Federal agency may only certify 

applicators of restricted use pesticides 

in accordance with the approved 

revised plan. 

(4) If after [date 2 years and 60 days 

after date of publication of the final rule 

in the Federal Register] EPA has 

received but not yet approved the State, 

Tribal, or Federal agency certification 

plan revision submitted no later than 

[date 2 years and 60 days after date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register], the State, Tribe, or 

Federal Agency may continue to certify 

applicators under the certification plan 

approved before the rule’s effective date 

until such time as EPA approves a 

revised certification plan that meets or 

exceeds all applicable requirements of 

this part. 

(5) States, Tribes, or Federal agencies 

that do not have an EPA-approved 

certification plan before the effective 

date of this rule may submit to EPA for 

review and approval a certification plan 

that meets or exceeds all of the 

applicable requirements of this part any 

time after the effective date of this rule. 

§ 171.303 Requirements for State 

certification plans. 

(a) Conformance with Federal 

standards for certification of applicators 

of restricted use pesticides. A State may 

certify applicators of restricted use 

pesticides only in accordance with a 

State certification plan submitted to and 

approved by the Agency. 

(1) The State certification plan must 

include a full description of the 

proposed process the State will use to 

assess applicator competency to use or 

supervise the use of restricted use 

pesticides in the State. 

(2) The State plan must list and 

describe the categories of certification 

from the certification categories listed in 

§§ 171.101(a) and (b) and 171.105(b) and 

(c), that will be included in the plan 

except that: 

(i) A State may omit any unneeded 

certification categories. 

(ii) A State may designate 

subcategories within the categories 

described in §§ 171.101(a) and (b) and 

171.105(c) as it deems necessary, with 

the exception of the predator pest 

control categories outlined in 

§§ 171.101(a)(10) and 171.105(b). 

(iii) A State may adopt additional 

certification categories for specific types 

of pest control or application methods 

not covered by the existing Federal 

categories described in §§ 171.101(a) 

and (b) and 171.105(b) and (c). 

(3) For each of the categories adopted 

pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section, the State plan must include 

standards for the certification of 

applicators of restricted use pesticides 

that meet or exceed those standards 

prescribed by the Agency under 

§§ 171.101 through 171.105. 

(4) The State standards for the 

recertification of applicators of 

restricted use pesticides must meet or 

exceed those standards prescribed by 

the Agency under § 171.107. 

(5) The State standards for the direct 

supervision of noncertified applicators 

by certified private and commercial 

applicators of restricted use pesticides 

must meet or exceed those standards 

prescribed by the Agency under 

§ 171.201. 

(6) The State certification plan must 

contain provisions for issuance of 

appropriate credentials or documents by 

the certifying authority verifying 

certification of applicators. The 

credential or document must contain all 

of the following information: 

(i) The full name of the certified 

applicator. 

(ii) The certification, license, or 

credential number of the certified 

applicator. 

(iii) The type of certification (private 

or commercial). 

(iv) The category(ies), including any 

pest control categories, application 

method-specific category(ies), and 

subcategory(ies) in which the applicator 

is certified. 

(v) The expiration date of the 

certification(s). 

(vi) If the certification is based on a 

certification issued by another State, 

Tribe or Federal agency, a statement 

identifying the State, Tribe or Federal 

agency certification upon which this 

certification is based. 

(7) The State certification plan must 

explain whether, and if so, under what 

circumstances, the State will certify 

applicators based in whole or in part on 

their holding a valid current 

certification issued by another State, 

Tribe or Federal agency. Such 

certifications are subject to all of the 

following conditions: 

(i) A State may rely only on valid 

current certifications that are issued 

directly under an approved State, Tribal 

or Federal agency certification plan and 

are not based on another certifying 

authority’s certification. 

(ii) The State certification regulations 

must provide that any certification that 

is based in whole or in part on the 

applicator holding a valid current 

certification issued by another State, 

Tribe or Federal agency terminates 

automatically if the certification on 

which it is based terminates for any 

reason. 

(iii) The State issuing a certification 

based in whole or in part on the 

applicator holding a valid current 

certification issued by another State, 

Tribe or Federal agency must issue an 

appropriate State credential or 

document to the applicator in 

accordance with paragraph (a)(6) of this 

section. 

(b) Contents of a request for EPA 

approval of a State plan for certification 

of applicators of restricted use 

pesticides. 

(1) The application for Agency 

approval of a State certification plan 

must list and describe the categories of 

certification from the certification 

categories. 

(2) The application for Agency 

approval of a State certification plan 

must contain satisfactory 

documentation that the State standards 

for the certification of applicators of 

restricted use pesticides meet or exceed 

those standards prescribed by the 

Agency under §§ 171.101 through 

171.105. Such documentation must 

include one of the following: 

(i) A statement that the State has 

adopted the same standards for 

certification prescribed by the Agency 

under §§ 171.101 through 171.105 and a 

citation of the specific State laws and/ 

or regulations demonstrating that the 

State has adopted such standards. 

(ii) A statement that the State has 

adopted its own standards that meet or 

exceed the standards for certification 

prescribed by the Agency under 

§§ 171.101 through 171.105. If the State 

selects this option, the certification plan 

must include both: 

(A) A list and detailed description of 

all the categories, application methodspecific categories, and subcategories to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51416 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

be used for certification of private and 

commercial applicators in the State and 

a citation to the specific State laws and/ 

or regulations demonstrating that the 

State has adopted such categories, 

application method-specific categories, 

and subcategories. 

(B) A list and detailed description of 

all of the standards for certification of 

private and commercial applicators 

adopted by the State and a citation to 

the specific State laws and/or 

regulations demonstrating that the State 

has adopted such standards. Any 

additional pest control categories, 

application-method specific categories, 

or subcategories established by a State 

must be included in the application for 

Agency approval of a State plan and 

must clearly delineate the standards the 

State will use to determine if the 

applicator is competent. 

(3) The application for Agency 

approval of a State certification plan 

must contain satisfactory 

documentation that the State standards 

for the recertification of applicators of 

restricted use pesticides meet or exceed 

those standards prescribed by the 

Agency under § 171.107. Such 

documentation must include a 

statement that the State has adopted its 

own standards that meet or exceed the 

standards for recertification prescribed 

by the Agency under § 171.107. The 

application for Agency approval of a 

certification plan must include a list 

and detailed description of all of the 

State standards for recertification of 

private and commercial applicators and 

a citation of the specific State laws and/ 

or regulations demonstrating that the 

State has adopted such standards. 

(4) The application for Agency 

approval of a State certification plan 

must contain satisfactory 

documentation that the State standards 

for the direct supervision of noncertified 

applicators by certified private and 

commercial applicators of restricted use 

pesticides meet or exceed those 

standards prescribed by the Agency 

under § 171.201. Such documentation 

must include one or both of the 

following as applicable: 

(i) A statement that the State has met 

or exceeded the standards for direct 

supervision of noncertified applicators 

by certified private and/or commercial 

applicators prescribed by the Agency 

under § 171.201 and a citation of the 

specific State laws and/or regulations 

demonstrating that the State has 

adopted such standards. 

(ii) A statement that the State 

prohibits noncertified applicators from 

using restricted use pesticides under the 

direct supervision of certified private 

and/or commercial applicators, and a 

citation of the specific State laws and/ 

or regulations demonstrating that the 

State has adopted such a prohibition. 

(5) The application for Agency 

approval of a State certification plan 

must include all of the following: 

(i) A written designation of the State 

agency by the Governor of that State as 

the lead agency responsible for being 

the primary certifying authority and 

administering the certification plan in 

the State. The lead agency will serve as 

the central contact point for the Agency. 

The certification plan must identify the 

primary point of contact at the lead 

agency responsible for administering the 

certification plan and serving as the 

central contact for the Agency on any 

issues related to the State certification 

plan. In the event that more than one 

agency or organization will be 

responsible for performing functions 

under the certification plan, the plan 

must identify all cooperators and list the 

functions to be performed by each 

agency or organization, including 

compliance monitoring and 

enforcement responsibilities. The plan 

must indicate how the plan will be 

coordinated by the lead agency to 

ensure consistency of the administration 

of the certification plan throughout the 

state. 

(ii) A written opinion from the State 

attorney general or from the legal 

counsel of the State lead agency that 

states the lead agency and other 

cooperating agencies have the legal 

authority necessary to carry out the 

plan. 

(iii) A listing of the qualified 

personnel that the lead agency and any 

cooperating agencies or organizations 

have to carry out the plan. The list must 

include the number of staff, job titles, 

and job functions of such personnel of 

the lead agency and any cooperating 

units. 

(iv) A commitment by the State that 

the lead agency and any cooperators 

will ensure sufficient resources are 

available to carry out the applicator 

certification program as detailed in the 

plan. 

(6) The application for Agency 

approval of a State certification plan 

must include a complete copy of all 

State laws and regulations relevant to 

the certification plan. In addition, the 

plan must include citations to the 

specific State laws and regulations that 

demonstrate specific legal authority for 

each of the following: 

(i) Provisions for and listing of the 

acts which would constitute grounds for 

denying, suspending and revoking 

certification of applicators. Such 

grounds must include, at a minimum, 

misuse of a pesticide and falsification of 

any records required to be maintained 

by the certified applicator. 

(ii) Provisions for reviewing, and 

where appropriate, suspending or 

revoking an applicator’s certification 

based on the applicator’s conduct or a 

criminal conviction under section 14(b) 

of FIFRA, a final order imposing civil 

penalty under section 14(a) of FIFRA, or 

conclusion of a State enforcement action 

for violations of State laws or 

regulations relevant to the certification 

plan. 

(iii) Provisions for assessing criminal 

and civil penalties for violations of State 

laws or regulations relevant to the 

certification plan. 

(iv) Provisions for right of entry by 

consent or warrant by State officials at 

reasonable times for sampling, 

inspection, and observation purposes. 

(v) Provisions making it unlawful for 

persons other than certified applicators 

or noncertified applicators working 

under a certified applicator’s direct 

supervision to use restricted use 

pesticides. 

(vi) Provisions requiring certified 

commercial applicators to record and 

maintain for the period of at least two 

years routine operational records 

containing information on types, 

amounts, uses, dates, and places of 

application of restricted use pesticides 

and for ensuring that such records will 

be available to appropriate State 

officials. Such provisions must require 

commercial applicators to record and 

maintain, at a minimum, all of the 

following: 

(A) The name and address of the 

person for whom the restricted use 

pesticide was applied. 

(B) The location of the restricted use 

pesticide application. 

(C) The size of the area treated. 

(D) The crop, commodity, stored 

product, or site to which the restricted 

use pesticide was applied. 

(E) The time and date of the restricted 

use pesticide application. 

(F) The brand or product name of the 

restricted use pesticide applied. 

(G) The EPA registration number of 

the restricted use pesticide applied. 

(H) The total amount of the restricted 

use pesticide applied per location per 

application. 

(I) The name and certification number 

of the certified applicator that made or 

supervised the application, and, if 

applicable, the name of any noncertified 

applicator(s) that made the application 

under the direct supervision of the 

certified applicator. 

(J) Records required under 

§ 171.201(c). 

(vii) Provisions requiring persons who 

distribute or sell restricted use 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51417 

pesticides to record and maintain at 

each individual dealership, for the 

period of at least 2 years, records of each 

transaction where a restricted use 

pesticide is distributed or sold to any 

person, excluding transactions solely 

between persons who are pesticide 

producers, registrants, wholesalers, or 

retail sellers, acting only in those 

capacities. Records of each such 

transaction must include all of the 

following information: 

(A) Name and address of the 

residence or principal place of business 

of each certified applicator to whom the 

restricted use pesticide was distributed 

or sold, or if applicable, the name and 

address of the residence or principal 

place of business of each noncertified 

person to whom the restricted use 

pesticide was distributed or sold for 

application by a certified applicator. 

(B) The certification number on the 

certification document presented to the 

seller evidencing the valid certification 

of the certified applicator authorized to 

purchase the restricted use pesticide, 

the State, Tribe or Federal agency that 

issued the certification document, the 

expiration date of the certified 

applicator’s certification, and the 

categories in which the applicator is 

certified. 

(C) The product name and EPA 

registration number of the restricted use 

pesticide(s) distributed or sold in the 

transaction, including any applicable 

emergency exemption or State special 

local need registration number. 

(D) The quantity of the restricted use 

pesticide(s) distributed or sold in the 

transaction. 

(E) The date of the transaction. 

(c) Requirement to submit reports to 

the Agency. The State must submit 

reports to the Agency in a manner and 

containing the information that the 

Agency requires, including all of the 

following: 

(1) An annual report to be submitted 

by the State lead agency to the Agency 

by the date established by the Agency 

that includes all of the following 

information: 

(i) The number of new, recertified, 

and total applicators holding a valid 

general private applicator certification 

at the end of the last 12 month reporting 

period. 

(ii) For each application methodspecific category specified in 

§ 171.105(c), the numbers of new, 

recertified and total existing private 

applicators holding valid current 

certifications at the end of the last 12 

month reporting period. 

(iii) The numbers of new, recertified, 

and total commercial applicators 

certified in at least one certification 

category at the end of the last 12 month 

reporting period. 

(iv) For each commercial applicator 

pest control certification category 

specified in § 171.101(a), the numbers of 

new, recertified and total commercial 

applicators holding a valid certification 

in each of those categories at the end of 

the last 12 month reporting period. 

(v) For each application methodspecific category specified in 

§ 171.101(b), the numbers of new, 

recertified and total existing commercial 

applicators holding valid current 

certifications at the end of the last 12 

month reporting period. 

(vi) If a State has established 

subcategories within any of the 

commercial categories, the report must 

include the numbers of new, recertified 

and total commercial applicators 

holding valid certifications in each of 

the subcategories at the end of the last 

12 month reporting period. 

(vii) A description of any 

modifications made to the approved 

certification plan during the last 12 

month reporting period that have not 

been previously evaluated by the 

Agency under § 171.309(a)(3). 

(viii) A description of any proposed 

changes to the certification plan that the 

State anticipates making during the next 

reporting period that may affect the 

certification program. 

(ix) The number and description of 

enforcement actions taken for any 

violations of Federal or State laws and 

regulations involving use of restricted 

use pesticides during the last 12-month 

reporting period. 

(x) A narrative summary and causal 

analysis of any misuse incidents or 

enforcement actions related to use of 

restricted use pesticides during the last 

12 month reporting period. The 

summary should include the pesticide 

name and registration number, use or 

site involved, nature of violation, any 

adverse effects, most recent date of the 

certified applicator’s certification or 

recertification and, if applicable, the 

date of qualification of any noncertified 

applicator using restricted use 

pesticides under the direct supervision 

of the certified applicator. This 

summary should include a discussion of 

potential changes in policy or procedure 

to prevent future incidents or violations. 

(2) Any other reports that may be 

required by the Agency to meet specific 

needs. 

§ 171.305 Requirements for Federal 

agency certification plans. 

(a) A Federal agency may certify 

applicators of restricted use pesticides 

only in accordance with a Federal 

agency certification plan submitted to 

and approved by the Agency. 

Certification must be limited to the 

employees of the Federal agency 

covered by the certification plan and 

will be valid only for those uses of 

restricted use pesticides conducted in 

the performance of the employees’ 

official duties. 

(1) The Federal agency certification 

plan must include a full description of 

the proposed process the Federal agency 

will use to assess applicator competency 

to use or supervise the use of restricted 

use pesticides. 

(2) Employees certified by the Federal 

agency must meet the standards for 

commercial applicators. 

(3) The Federal agency plan must list 

and describe the categories of 

certification from the certification 

categories listed in §§ 171.101(a) and (b) 

that will be included in the plan except 

that: 

(i) A Federal agency may omit any 

unneeded certification categories. 

(ii) A Federal agency may designate 

subcategories within the categories 

described in §§ 171.101(a) and (b) as it 

deems necessary, with the exception of 

the predator pest control categories 

outlined in §§ 171.101(a)(10). 

(iii) A Federal agency may adopt 

additional certification categories for 

specific types of pest control or 

application methods not covered by the 

existing Federal categories described in 

§§ 171.101(a) and (b). 

(4) For each of the categories adopted 

pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section, the Federal agency plan must 

include standards for the certification of 

applicators of restricted use pesticides 

that meet or exceed those standards 

prescribed by the Agency under 

§§ 171.101 through 171.103. 

(5) The Federal agency standards for 

the recertification of applicators of 

restricted use pesticides must meet or 

exceed those standards prescribed by 

the Agency under § 171.107. 

(6) The Federal agency standards for 

the direct supervision of noncertified 

applicators by certified private and 

commercial applicators of restricted use 

pesticides meet or exceed those 

standards prescribed by the Agency 

under § 171.201. 

(7) The Federal agency certification 

plan must contain provisions for 

issuance of appropriate credentials or 

documents by the certifying authority 

verifying certification of applicators. 

The credential or document must 

contain all information listed in 

§ 171.303(a)(6), except for the 

requirement to list the type of 

certification at § 171.303(a)(6)(iii). 

(8) The Federal agency certification 

plan must explain whether, and if so, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51418 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

under what circumstances, the Federal 

Agency will certify applicators based in 

whole or in part on their holding a valid 

current certification issued by another 

State, Tribe or Federal agency. Such 

certifications are subject to all of the 

conditions listed at § 171.303(a)(7). 

(b) Contents of a request for EPA 

approval of a Federal agency plan for 

certification of applicators of restricted 

use pesticides. 

(1) The application for Agency 

approval of a Federal agency 

certification plan must list and describe 

the categories of certification from the 

certification categories. 

(2) The application for Agency 

approval of a Federal Agency 

certification plan must contain a 

statement that the Federal agency 

standards for certification of applicators 

of restricted use pesticides meet or 

exceed those standards prescribed by 

the Agency under §§ 171.101 and 

171.103. Such a statement must include 

one of the following: 

(i) A statement that the Federal 

agency has adopted the same standards 

for certification prescribed by the 

Agency under §§ 171.101 through 

171.103. 

(ii) A statement that the Federal 

agency has adopted its own standards 

that meet or exceed the standards for 

certification prescribed by the Agency 

under §§ 171.101 through 171.103. If the 

Federal agency selects this option, the 

certification plan must include both: 

(A) A list and detailed description of 

all the categories, application methodspecific categories, and subcategories to 

be used for certification of private and 

commercial applicators. 

(B) A list and detailed description of 

all of the standards for certification of 

commercial applicators adopted by the 

Federal agency. Any additional pest 

control categories, application-method 

specific categories, or subcategories 

established by a Federal agency must be 

included in the application for Agency 

approval of a Federal agency plan and 

must clearly delineate the standards the 

Federal agency will use to determine if 

the applicator is competent. 

(3) The application for Agency 

approval of a Federal agency plan must 

include a statement that the Federal 

agency has adopted standards for 

recertification that meet or exceed the 

standards for certification prescribed by 

the Agency under § 171.107. If the 

Federal agency adopts its own standards 

for recertification, the application for 

Agency approval of a Federal agency 

certification plan must include a list 

and detailed description of all the 

standards for recertification adopted by 

the Federal agency. 

(4) The application for Agency 

approval of a Federal Agency 

certification plan must contain a 

statement that the Federal agency 

standards for direct supervision of 

noncertified applicators by certified 

commercial applicators meet or exceed 

those standards prescribed by the 

Agency under § 171.201, or a statement 

that the Federal agency prohibits 

noncertified applicators from using 

restricted use pesticides under the 

direct supervision of certified 

commercial applicators. 

(5) The application for Agency 

approval of a Federal agency 

certification plan must meet or exceed 

all of the applicable requirements in 

§ 171.303. However, in place of the legal 

authorities required in § 171.303(b)(6), 

the Federal agency may use 

administrative controls inherent in the 

employer-employee relationship to 

accomplish the objectives of 

§ 171.303(b)(6). The application for 

Agency approval of a Federal agency 

certification plan must include a 

detailed description of how the Federal 

agency will exercise its administrative 

authority, where appropriate to deny, 

suspend or revoke certificates of 

employees who misuse pesticides, 

falsify records or violate relevant 

provisions of FIFRA. Similarly, the 

application for Agency approval of a 

Federal agency certification plan must 

include a commitment that the Federal 

agency will record and maintain for the 

period of at least two years routine 

operational records containing 

information on types, amounts, uses, 

dates, and places of application of 

restricted use pesticides and that such 

records will be available to State and 

Federal officials. Such recordkeeping 

requirements must require Federal 

agency employees certified as 

commercial applicators to record and 

maintain, at a minimum, all of the 

records specified in § 171.303(b)(6)(vi). 

(c) Commitment to do annual reports. 

The application for Agency approval of 

a Federal agency certification plan must 

include a commitment by the Federal 

agency to submit an annual report to the 

Agency in a manner that the Agency 

requires that includes all of the 

following information: 

(1) The numbers of new, recertified, 

and total commercial applicators 

certified in at least one certification 

category at the end of the last 12 month 

reporting period. 

(2) For each commercial applicator 

certification category specified in 

§ 171.101(a), the numbers of new, 

recertified and total commercial 

applicators holding a valid certification 

in each of those categories at the end of 

the last 12 month reporting period. 

(3) For each application methodspecific category specified in 

§ 171.101(b), the numbers of new, 

recertified and total existing commercial 

applicators holding valid current 

certifications at the end of the last 12 

month reporting period. 

(4) If the Federal agency has 

established subcategories within any of 

the commercial categories, the report 

must include the numbers of new, 

recertified and total commercial 

applicators holding valid certifications 

in each of those subcategories at the end 

of the last 12 month reporting period. 

(5) A description of any modifications 

made to the approved certification plan 

during the last 12 month reporting 

period that have not been previously 

evaluated under § 171.309(a)(3). 

(6) A description of any proposed 

changes to the certification plan that 

may affect the certification program that 

the Federal agency anticipates making 

during the next reporting period. 

(7) The number and description of 

enforcement actions taken for any 

violations of Federal or State laws and 

regulations involving use of restricted 

use pesticides during the last 12-month 

reporting period. 

(8) A narrative summary of misuse 

incidents or enforcement activities 

related to use of restricted use pesticides 

during the last twelve-month reporting 

period. This section should include a 

discussion of potential changes in 

policy or procedure to prevent future 

incidents or violations. 

(d) Commitment to do other reports. 

The application for Agency approval of 

a Federal agency certification plan must 

include a commitment by the Federal 

agency to submit any other reports that 

may be required by the Agency to meet 

specific needs. 

(e) Additional requirements for 

certain application. If applicators 

certified under the Federal agency plan 

will make any applications of restricted 

use pesticides in States or Indian 

country, the application for Agency 

approval of a Federal agency 

certification plan must meet the 

following additional requirements: 

(1) The Federal agency plan must 

have a provision that affirms Federal 

agency certified applicators will comply 

with all applicable State and Tribal 

pesticide laws and regulations of the 

jurisdiction in which the restricted 

pesticide is being used when using 

restricted use pesticides in States or 

Indian country, including any 

substantive State or Tribal standards in 

regard to qualifications for commercial 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51419 

applicator certification that exceed the 

Federal agency’s standards. 

(2) The Federal agency plan must 

have a provision for the Federal agency 

to notify the appropriate EPA regional 

office and State or Tribal pesticide 

authority in the event of misuse or 

suspected misuse of a restricted use 

pesticide by a Federal agency employee 

and any pesticide exposure incident 

involving human or environmental 

harm that may have been caused by an 

application of a restricted use pesticide 

made by a Federal agency employee. 

(3) The Federal agency plan must 

have a provision for the Federal agency 

to cooperate with the Agency and the 

State or Tribal pesticide authority in any 

investigation or enforcement action 

undertaken in connection with an 

application of a restricted use pesticide 

made by a Federal agency employee. 

§ 171.307 Certification of applicators in 

Indian country. 

All applicators of restricted use 

pesticides in Indian country must hold 

a certification valid in that area of 

Indian country, or be working under the 

direct supervision of a certified 

applicator whose certification is valid in 

that area of Indian country. An Indian 

Tribe may certify applicators of 

restricted use pesticides in Indian 

country only pursuant to a certification 

plan approved by the Agency that meets 

the requirements of paragraph (a) or (b) 

of this section. The Agency may 

implement a Federal certification plan, 

pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section 

and § 171.311, for an area of Indian 

country not covered by an approved 

plan. 

(a) An Indian Tribe may choose to 

allow persons holding currently valid 

certifications issued under one or more 

specified State, Tribal, or Federal 

agency certification plans to use 

restricted use pesticides within the 

Tribe’s Indian country. 

(1) A certification plan under 

paragraph (a) must consist of a written 

agreement between the Tribe and the 

relevant EPA Region(s) that contains the 

following information: 

(i) A detailed map or legal description 

of the area(s) of Indian country covered 

by the plan. 

(ii) A listing of the State(s), Tribe(s) or 

Federal agency(ies) upon whose 

certifications the Tribe will rely. 

(iii) A description of any Tribal law, 

regulation, or code relating to 

application of restricted use pesticides 

in the covered area of Indian country, 

including a citation to each applicable 

Tribal law, regulation, or code. 

(iv) A description of the procedures 

and relevant authorities for carrying out 

compliance monitoring under and 

enforcement of the plan, including: 

(A) A description of the Agency and 

Tribal roles and procedures for 

conducting inspections. 

(B) A description of the Agency and 

Tribal roles and procedures for handling 

case development and enforcement 

actions and actions on certifications, 

including procedures for exchange of 

information. 

(C) A description of the Agency and 

Tribal roles and procedures for handling 

complaint referrals. 

(v) A description and copy of any 

separate agreements relevant to 

administering the certification plan and 

carrying out related compliance 

monitoring and enforcement activities. 

The description shall include a listing of 

all parties involved in the separate 

agreement and the respective roles, 

responsibilities, and relevant authorities 

of those parties. 

(2) To the extent that an Indian Tribe 

is precluded from asserting criminal 

enforcement authority, the Federal 

government will exercise primary 

criminal enforcement authority for 

certification plans under paragraph (a) 

of this section. The Tribe and the 

relevant EPA region(s) shall develop a 

procedure whereby the Tribe will 

provide potential investigative leads to 

EPA and/or other appropriate Federal 

agencies in an appropriate and timely 

manner. This procedure shall 

encompass, at a minimum, all 

circumstances in which the Tribe is 

incapable of exercising relevant 

criminal enforcement requirements. 

This procedure shall be included as part 

of the agreement between the Tribe and 

relevant EPA Region(s) described in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section. 

(3) A plan for the certification of 

applicators under paragraph (a) of this 

section shall not be effective until the 

agreement between the Tribe and the 

relevant EPA Region(s) has been signed 

by the Tribe and the appropriate EPA 

Regional Administrator(s). 

(b) An Indian Tribe may choose to 

develop its own certification plan for 

certifying private and commercial 

applicators to use or supervise the use 

of restricted use pesticides. 

(1) A certification plan under 

paragraph (b) of this section shall 

consist of a written plan submitted by 

the Tribe to the Agency for approval 

that includes all of the following 

information: 

(i) A detailed map or legal description 

of the area(s) of Indian country covered 

by the plan. 

(ii) A demonstration that the plan 

meets all requirements of § 171.303 

applicable to State plans, except that the 

Tribe’s plan will not be required to meet 

the requirements of § 171.303(i)(3) with 

respect to provisions for criminal 

penalties, or any other requirement for 

assessing criminal penalties. 

(2) To the extent that an Indian Tribe 

is precluded from asserting criminal 

enforcement authority, the Federal 

government will exercise primary 

criminal enforcement authority for 

certification plans under paragraph (b) 

of this section. The Tribe and the 

relevant EPA Region(s) shall develop a 

procedure whereby the Tribe will 

provide potential investigative leads to 

EPA and/or other appropriate Federal 

agencies in an appropriate and timely 

manner. This procedure shall 

encompass, at a minimum, all 

circumstances in which the Tribe is 

incapable of exercising relevant 

criminal enforcement requirements and 

shall be described in a memorandum of 

agreement signed by the Tribe and the 

relevant EPA Regional Administrator(s). 

(3) A plan for the certification of 

applicators under paragraph (b) of this 

section shall not be effective until the 

memorandum of agreement required 

under paragraph (b)(2) of this section 

has been signed by the Tribe and the 

relevant EPA Region(s) and the plan has 

been approved by the Agency. 

(c) In any area of Indian country not 

covered by an approved certification 

plan, the Agency may, in consultation 

with the Tribe(s) affected, implement an 

EPA-administered certification plan 

under § 171.311 for certifying private 

and commercial applicators to use or 

supervise the use of restricted use 

pesticides. 

(1) Prior to publishing a notice of a 

proposed EPA-administered 

certification plan for an area of Indian 

country in the Federal Register for 

review and comment under 

§ 171.311(d)(3), the Agency shall notify 

the relevant Indian Tribe(s) of EPA’s 

intent to propose the plan. 

(2) The Agency will not implement an 

EPA-administered certification plan for 

any area of Indian country where, prior 

to the expiration of the notice and 

comment period provided under 

§ 171.311(d)(3), the chairperson or 

equivalent elected leader of the relevant 

Tribe provides the Agency with a 

written statement of the Tribe’s position 

that the plan should not be 

implemented. 

§ 171.309 Modification and withdrawal of 

certification plans. 

(a) Modifications to approved 

certification plans. A State, Tribe, or 

Federal agency may make modifications 

to its approved certification plan, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51420 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

provided that all of the following 

conditions are met: 

(1) Determination of plan compliance. 

Before modifying an approved 

certification plan, the State, Tribe, or 

Federal agency must determine that the 

proposed modifications will not impair 

the certification plan’s compliance with 

the requirements of this part or any 

other Federal laws or regulations. 

(2) Requirement for Agency 

notification. The State, Tribe, or Federal 

agency must notify the Agency of any 

plan modifications within 90 days after 

the final State, Tribal, or Federal agency 

modifications become effective or when 

it submits its required annual report to 

the Agency, whichever occurs first. 

(3) Additional requirements for 

substantial modifications to approved 

certification plans. Before making any 

substantial modifications to an 

approved certification plan, the State, 

Tribe or Federal agency must consult 

with the Agency and obtain Agency 

approval of the proposed modifications. 

The Agency shall make a written 

determination regarding the modified 

certification plan’s compliance with the 

requirements of this part. Substantial 

modifications include the following: 

(i) Deletion of a mechanism for 

certification and/or recertification. 

(ii) Establishment of a new private 

applicator subcategory, commercial 

applicator category, or commercial 

applicator subcategory. 

(iii) Any other changes that the 

Agency has notified the State, Tribal or 

Federal agency that the Agency 

considers to be substantial 

modifications. 

(b) Withdrawal of approval. If at any 

time the Agency determines that a State, 

Tribal, or Federal agency certification 

plan does not comply with the 

requirements of this part or any other 

Federal laws or regulations, or that a 

State, Tribal, or Federal agency is not 

administering the certification plan as 

approved under this part, or that a State 

is not carrying out a program adequate 

to ensure compliance with FIFRA 

section 19(f), the Agency may withdraw 

approval of the certification plan. Before 

withdrawing approval of a certification 

plan, the Agency will notify the State, 

Tribal, or Federal agency and provide 

the opportunity for an informal hearing. 

If appropriate, the Agency may allow 

the State, Tribe, or Federal agency a 

reasonable time, not to exceed 90 days, 

to take corrective action. 

§ 171.311 EPA-administered applicator 

certification programs. 

(a) Applicability. This section applies 

in any State or area of Indian country 

where there is no approved State or 

Tribal certification plan in effect. 

(b) Certification requirement. In any 

State or area of Indian country where 

EPA administers a certification plan, 

any person who uses or supervises the 

use of any restricted use pesticide must 

meet one of the following criteria: 

(1) A commercial applicator must be 

certified in each category and 

subcategory, if any, and each 

application method, if any, as described 

in the EPA-administered plan, for which 

the applicator is applying or supervising 

the application of restricted use 

pesticides. 

(2) A private applicator must be 

certified, including in each application 

method, if any, as described in the EPAadministered plan, for which the 

applicator is applying or supervising the 

application of restricted use pesticides. 

(3) A noncertified applicator may only 

use a restricted use pesticide under the 

direct supervision of an applicator 

certified under the EPA-administered 

plan, in accordance with the 

requirements in § 171.201, and only for 

uses authorized by that certified 

applicator’s certification. 

(c) Implementation of EPAadministered plans in States. (1) In any 

State where this section is applicable, 

the Agency, in consultation with the 

Governor, may implement an EPAadministered plan for the certification of 

applicators of restricted use pesticides. 

(2) Such a plan will meet the 

applicable requirements of § 171.303. 

Prior to the implementation of the plan, 

the Agency will publish in the Federal 

Register for review and comment a 

summary of the proposed EPAadministered plan for the certification of 

applicators and will generally make 

available copies of the proposed plan 

within the State. The summary will 

include all of the following: 

(i) An outline of the proposed 

procedures and requirements for private 

and commercial applicator certification 

and recertification. 

(ii) A description of the proposed 

categories and subcategories for 

certification. 

(iii) A description of any proposed 

conditions for the recognition of State, 

Tribal, or Federal agency certifications. 

(iv) An outline of the proposed 

arrangements for coordination and 

communication between the Agency 

and the State regarding applicator 

certifications and pesticide compliance 

monitoring and enforcement. 

(d) Implementation of EPAadministered plans in Indian country. 

(1) In any area of Indian country 

where this section is applicable, and 

consistent with the provisions of 

§ 171.309(c), the Agency, in 

consultation with the appropriate 

Indian Tribe(s), may implement a plan 

for the certification of applicators of 

restricted use pesticides. 

(2) An EPA-administered plan may be 

implemented in the Indian country of 

an individual Tribe or multiple Tribes 

located within a specified geographic 

area. 

(3) Such a plan will meet the 

applicable requirements of § 171.309(c). 

Prior to the implementation of the plan, 

the Agency will publish in the Federal 

Register for review and comment a 

summary of the proposed EPAadministered plan for the certification of 

applicators and will generally make 

available copies of the proposed plan 

within the area(s) of Indian country to 

be covered by the proposed plan. The 

summary will include all of the 

following: 

(i) A description of the area(s) of 

Indian country to be covered by the 

proposed plan. 

(ii) An outline of the proposed 

procedures and requirements for private 

and commercial applicator certification 

and recertification. 

(iii) A description of the proposed 

categories and subcategories for 

certification. 

(iv) A description of any proposed 

conditions for the recognition of State, 

Tribal, or Federal agency certifications. 

(v) An outline of the proposed 

arrangements for coordination and 

communication between the Agency 

and the relevant Tribe(s) regarding 

applicator certifications and pesticide 

compliance monitoring and 

enforcement. 

(e) Denial, suspension, modification, 

or revocation of a certification. (1) The 

Agency may suspend all or part of a 

certified applicator’s certification issued 

under an EPA-administered plan or, 

after opportunity for a hearing, may 

deny issuance of, or revoke or modify, 

a certified applicator’s certification 

issued under an EPA-administered plan, 

if the Agency finds that the certified 

applicator has been convicted under 

section 14(b) of the Act, has been 

subject to a final order imposing a civil 

penalty under section 14(a) of the Act, 

or has committed any of the following 

acts: 

(i) Used any registered pesticide in a 

manner inconsistent with its labeling. 

(ii) Made available for use, or used, 

any registered pesticide classified for 

restricted use other than in accordance 

with section 3(d) of the Act and any 

regulations promulgated thereunder. 

(iii) Refused to keep and maintain any 

records required pursuant to this 

section. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51421 

(iv) Made false or fraudulent records, 

invoices or reports. 

(v) Failed to comply with any 

limitations or restrictions on a valid 

current certificate. 

(vi) Violated any other provision of 

the Act and the regulations promulgated 

thereunder. 

(vii) Allowed a noncertified 

applicator to use a restricted use 

pesticide in a manner inconsistent with 

the requirements in § 171.201. 

(viii) Violated any provision of a 

State, Tribal or Federal agency 

certification plan or its associated laws 

or regulations. 

(2) If the Agency intends to deny, 

revoke, or modify a certified applicator’s 

certification, the Agency will: 

(i) Notify the certified applicator of all 

of the following: 

(A) The ground(s) upon which the 

denial, revocation, or modification is 

based. 

(B) The time period during which the 

denial, revocation or modification is 

effective, whether permanent or 

otherwise. 

(C) The conditions, if any, under 

which the certified applicator may 

become certified or recertified. 

(D) Any additional conditions the 

Agency may impose. 

(ii) Provide the certified applicator an 

opportunity to request an informal 

hearing prior to final Agency action to 

deny, revoke or modify the certification. 

(3) If a hearing is requested by a 

certified applicator pursuant to 

paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section, the 

Agency will do all of the following: 

(i) Notify the certified applicator of 

the legal and factual grounds upon 

which the action to deny, revoke or 

modify the certification is based. 

(ii) Provide the certified applicator an 

opportunity to offer written statements 

of facts, explanations, comments and 

arguments relevant to the proposed 

action. 

(iii) Provide the certified applicator 

such other procedural opportunities as 

the Agency may deem appropriate to 

ensure a fair and impartial hearing. 

(iv) Appoint an attorney in the 

Agency as Presiding Officer to conduct 

the hearing. No person shall serve as 

Presiding Officer if he or she has had 

any prior connection with the specific 

case. 

(4) The Presiding Officer appointed 

pursuant to paragraph (e)(3)(iv) of this 

section shall do all of the following: 

(i) Conduct a fair, orderly and 

impartial hearing, without unnecessary 

delay. 

(ii) Consider all relevant evidence, 

explanation, comment and argument 

submitted to the Agency pursuant to 

paragraphs (e)(3)(ii) and (iii) of this 

section. 

(iii) Promptly notify the parties of the 

final decision and order. Such an order 

is a final Agency action subject to 

judicial review in accordance with 

Section 16 of the Act. 

(5) If the Agency determines that the 

public health, interest or welfare 

warrants immediate action to suspend 

the certified applicator’s certification, 

the Agency will do all of the following: 

(i) Notify the certified applicator of 

the ground(s) upon which the 

suspension action is based. 

(ii) Notify the certified applicator of 

the time period during which the 

suspension is effective. 

(iii) Notify the certified applicator of 

the Agency’s intent to revoke or modify 

the certification, as appropriate, in 

accord with paragraph (e)(2) of this 

section. If such revocation or 

modification notice has not previously 

been issued, it will be issued at the 

same time the suspension notice is 

issued. 

(iv) In cases where the act constituting 

grounds for suspension of a certification 

is neither willful nor contrary to the 

public interest, health, or safety, the 

certified applicator may have additional 

procedural rights under 5 U.S.C. 558(c). 

(6) Any notice, decision or order 

issued by the Agency under paragraph 

(e) of this section, and any documents 

filed by a certified applicator in a 

hearing under paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this 

section, shall be available to the public 

except as otherwise provided by section 

10 of the Act or by part 2 of this chapter. 

Any such hearing at which oral 

testimony is presented shall be open to 

the public, except that the Presiding 

Officer may exclude the public to the 

extent necessary to allow presentation 

of information that may be entitled to 

confidentiality under section 10 of the 

Act or under part 2 of this chapter. 

(f) Restricted use pesticide dealer 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, availability of records, 

and failure to comply—(1) Reporting 

requirements. Each restricted use 

pesticide retail dealer in a State or area 

of Indian country where the Agency 

implements an EPA-administered plan 

must do both of the following: 

(i) Report to the Agency the business 

name by which the restricted use 

pesticide retail dealer operates and the 

name and business address of each of 

his or her dealerships. This report must 

be submitted to the appropriate EPA 

Regional office no later than sixty 60 

days after the EPA-administered plan 

becomes effective or 60 days after the 

date the person becomes a restricted use 

pesticide retail dealer in an area where 

an EPA-administered plan is in effect, 

whichever occurs later. 

(ii) Submit revisions to the initial 

report to the appropriate EPA Regional 

office reflecting any name changes, 

additions or deletions of dealerships. 

Revisions must be submitted to the 

appropriate EPA Regional office within 

10 days of the occurrence of such 

change, addition or deletion. 

(2) Recordkeeping requirement. A 

restricted use pesticide retail dealer is 

required to create and maintain records 

of each sale of restricted use pesticides 

to any person, excluding transactions 

solely between persons who are 

pesticide producers, registrants, 

wholesalers, or retail sellers, acting only 

in those capacities. Each restricted use 

pesticide retail dealer must maintain at 

each individual dealership records of 

each transaction where a restricted use 

pesticide is distributed or sold by that 

dealership to any person. Records of 

each such transaction must be 

maintained for a period of 2 years after 

the date of the transaction and must 

include all of the following information: 

(i) Name and address of the residence 

or principal place of business of each 

certified applicator to whom the 

restricted use pesticide was distributed 

or sold, or if applicable, the name and 

address of the residence or principal 

place of business of each noncertified 

person to whom the restricted use 

pesticide was distributed or sold, for 

application by a certified applicator. 

(ii) The certification number on the 

certification document presented to the 

seller evidencing the valid certification 

of the certified applicator authorized to 

purchase the restricted use pesticide, 

the State, Tribe or Federal agency that 

issued the certification document, the 

expiration date of the certified 

applicator’s certification, and the 

categories in which the certified 

applicator is certified. 

(iii) The product name and EPA 

registration number of the restricted use 

pesticide(s) distributed or sold in the 

transaction, including any applicable 

emergency exemption or State special 

local need registration number, if 

applicable. 

(iv) The quantity of the restricted use 

pesticide(s) distributed or sold in the 

transaction. 

(v) The date of the transaction. 

(3) Availability of required records. 

Each restricted use pesticide retail 

dealer must, upon request of any 

authorized officer or employee of the 

Agency, or other authorized agent or 

person duly designated by the Agency, 

furnish or permit such person at all 

reasonable times to have access to and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

51422 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

copy all records required to be 

maintained under this section. 

(4) Failure to comply. Any person 

who fails to comply with the provisions 

of this section may be subject to civil or 

criminal sanctions, under section 14 of 

the Act, or 18 U.S.C. 1001. 

(g) Compliance date. The only EPAadministered certification plans that 

will be effective after [date 60 days after 

date of publication of the final rule in 

the Federal Register] are those 

approved by the Administrator after 

[date 4 years and 60 days after date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register]. 

[FR Doc. 2015–19988 Filed 8–21–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2