*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

15P-0215

EO12866_Rin2070-AJ20_PesticideCertApp_NPRM_FRdoc_FinalRedline_AllRevisions_2015-08-04.docx

Revised to address Interagency Comments received under EO 12866 Review.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 171

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0183; FRL-XXXX-XX9931-83]

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 

changechanges 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 [insert date 90 days after date of 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 2 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

publication in the Federal Register].

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
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 3 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 4 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 method-specific 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” 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 5 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 

application, soil fumigation, and non-soil 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 method-specific 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 6 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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”).

Either of these two Noncertified applicators who qualify by satisfying the training 

requirementsrequirement under the proposed rule or the training required for handlers 

under the WPS would be required to be renewed annually andrenew their qualification

after a year; noncertified applicators who qualify by passing the core exam qualification 

would need to be renewed everyrenew their qualification after 3 years.

CommercialNoncertified 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 Countrycountry 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 7 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 EPA-administered certification plan. EPA currently administers a Federal

certification program covering Indian country not otherwise covered by a certification 

plan (79 FR 7185; February 6, 2014Ref. 1) as well as a certification program specifically 

for Navajo Indian country (72 FR 32648; June 13, 2007Ref. 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 8 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 9 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 summarizedavailable in 

greaterthe docket, is discussed in more detail in Unit III.., and is briefly summarized here.

The following chart provides a brief outline of the costs and impacts of this proposed 

rule.

Private Applicators Commercial 

Applicators

States and Other 

Jurisdictions

Number Impacted 490,000 414,000 63

Annualized Cost $19.5 million $27.4 million $359,000

Per-Applicator Average: $40

Range: $0 - $201

Average: $66

Range: $1 - $212 N/A
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 10 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

Small Business 

Impacts

No significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

pesticides, although about half are unlikely to apply RUPs.

• 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.

• Most private and commercial applicators are self-employed.

• Incremental cost per applicator represents from 0.3% to 0.5% 

of the cost of a part-time employee.

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

• 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

EA Chapter 

6.4 & 6.6

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.

• 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.

EA Chapter 

5.7

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

employment.

• Most private and commercial applicators are selfemployed.

• Incremental cost per applicator represents from 

EA Chapter 

5.6
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 11 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act 

(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 (7 U.S.C. 136 et. seq.),, 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, 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 12 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 will classifyclassifies 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 13 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 14 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 webpage on the EPA website 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, 

USDA requires private applicators tomust 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 non-agricultural, 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 15 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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, nontarget 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 16 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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.

7 U.S.C 136a(d)(1)(C). 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 17 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 about these pesticides' future use. The Food Quality Protection 

Act of 1996 (FQPA) requiredamendments 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 re-evaluation 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 18 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 19 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 (79 FR 

15444; March 19, 2014).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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 20 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 15) 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 (79 FR 7185; 

February 6, 2014Ref. 1) and has implemented a specific certification plan for the Navajo 

Nation (72 FR 32648; June 13, 2007Ref. 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 rulemaking.
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 21 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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; rightof-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(b). (Note: EPA and other certifying authorities may sometimes 

refer to 11 categories of 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 22 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 full-day 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. 26). In 2013, 

the total number of certified applicators decreased to just over 900,000 (Ref. 15). The 

respective proportions of private and commercial applicators changed more significantly 

– private applicators account only for 53% of the total certified applicator population and
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 23 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 37).

3. Incident data and general information. a. 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. 48). 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 24 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 (SENSOR-Pesticides). 

EPA uses SENSOR-Pesticides 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 State-based 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.
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 25 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

• 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. SENSOR-Pesticides 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 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 26 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 5, 6, 79, 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 27 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 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. A more complete discussion of 

the underreporting and its effect on pesticide incident reporting is located in the 

Economic Analysis for this proposal (Ref. 83).

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. 912). 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. 912).

b. Agricultural Health Study. The National Institutes of Health (National Cancer 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 28 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

Institute and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) and EPA have 

sponsored the Agricultural Health Study since 1994. This long-term, 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. 101).

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 29 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 30 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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.
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 31 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

• 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 32 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 11, 1214 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 33 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 1316). EPA also recognized risks 

associated with performing soil fumigation in the 2008 Reregistration Eligibility 

DecisionREDs 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 has not beenneeds to be

updated to address these and other changes affecting applicators of RUPs. In addition to 

the hundreds of potentially avoidable acute health incidents related to RUP exposure 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 34 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 recent decades, several cases of misuse involving RUPs have indicated 

that standards are not adequate in some areas. 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 

clean-up cost of millions of dollars (Refs. 14, 1518 and 19). The incident resulted in one 

of the most significant and widespread pesticide exposure cases in EPA’s history. In 

another incident, a noncertifiedan applicator using the RUP aluminum phosphide under 

the supervision of a certified applicator caused the death of 2 young girls and made the 

rest of the family ill. (1) (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. 83).

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 35 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 83). See 

the economic assessment for this rule for more information on human health and 

ecological incidents stemming from RUP use (Ref. 83).

In light of the incidents discussed above, EPA musthas 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 36 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 83). 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. 79 FR 15443; March 19, 

2014. (Ref. 4).
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 37 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

Like agricultural handlers, some noncertified applicators may face challenges, 

such as not speaking or reading English and having a low income.. 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
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 38 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 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 open-book, 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 39 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. OverAlmost 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 EPA-approved 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 40 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 EPA-approved 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).
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 41 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 per-applicator 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.
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 42 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 83). However, EPA 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. 5, 6, 79, 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. 83).

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. Under-trainedUndertrained and under qualified 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 43 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 peer-reviewed 

literature. See the economic assessment for this proposal for a discussion of the peerreviewed literature (Ref. 83). 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 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 44 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 83). 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. 16, 17, 1820, 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 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 45 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 912). 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 171.1-171.6) in 1974 (39 FR 36447; October 9, 

1974Ref. 23), followed by sections outlining State plan submission and review and 

certification in Indian country (40 CFR 171.7 through 171.10) in 1975 (40 FR 11698; 

March 12, 1975Ref. 24), and the requirements for EPA-administered plans (40 CFR 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 46 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

171.11) in 1978 (43 FR 24834; June 8, 1978Ref. 25). Since 1978, EPA has made minor 

amendments to the rule, such as requiring dealer recordkeeping and reporting under EPAimplemented plans and establishing standards for EPA-administered plans. 48 FR 29854; 

June 29, 1983; 48 FR 53972; November 29, 1983. (Refs. 26 and 27).

In 1990, EPA proposed amendments to the certification regulation that included 

provisions for establishing private applicator categories, adding 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 

non-reader certification. 55 FR 46890; November 7, 1990. (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-to-State 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.
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 47 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 (Ref. 19).. 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. 1929). 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. 1929). In addition, the 

taskforce recommended strengthening the training for noncertified applicators working 

under the direct supervision of a certified applicator and requiring commercial applicators 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 48 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

to retain records of the training (Ref. 1929). 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. 1929).

EPA proposed amendments to the certification regulation in 1990, (Ref. 28),

based in part on the taskforce’s report (55 FR 46890; November 7, 1990Ref. 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. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 49 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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

(Ref. 20).. 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. 2030).

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. 2131). 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 20032005, 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 (Ref. 

22).. 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 50 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

pesticide incidents, and finally, program operation, efficiency and funding (Ref. 2232).

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. 2232). While EPA addressed some of the recommendations through 

grants, 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 never reached consensus; it 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. 

2333).

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 51 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

under section 609(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act (SBREFA).(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. 2434).

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. 2434).

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.
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 52 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 issued in 1997 (62 FR 

19885;, April 23, 1997) and modified by Executive Order 13296 in 2003 (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. 2535). 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. 2535). 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.
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 53 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 1822). 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 decisionmaking abilities, warrant careful consideration of the best ways to protect them. It is 

reasonable to expect that 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, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 FR 3821;,

January 21, 2011), to direct each Federal agency to develop a plan, consistent with law 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 54 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 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’s directive to reduce regulatory burden.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 streamlining activitiesharmonized minimum 

requirements to enhance State-to-State reciprocity of applicator certifications, which 

could reduce the burden on the regulated community by promoting better coordination 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 55 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. OverviewSummary of the ProposedRationale and Introduction to Specific

Revisions to Part 171

Units II. and III. describeddescribe 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 56 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

competency. By adopting the proposed strengthened and additional competency 

standards, EPA could rely on a higher level of applicator competence generally, and may 

be able to register pesticides under terms more beneficialthe 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 57 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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).
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 58 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 

1929). CTAG recommended that all applicators with access to RUPs meet a similar 

competency standard (Ref. 2030). 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. 23). Over33). Almost 90% of States noted that their 

private applicator certification standards are comparable to the core standards for 

commercial applicators (Ref. 15).

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 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 59 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

techniquesmethods; laws and regulations; responsibilities for supervisors of noncertified 

applicators; professionalismstewardship; 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 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 60 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 61 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 19, 23, 2629, 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. 

15). 

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 62 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 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 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 63 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 

2737). 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.
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 64 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

• 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 nonreader 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 65 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 2333). 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. EPAIt is only aware of twoEPA’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 that employare 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 66 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

effects from the use of RUPs. Labeling is increasingly relied upon to transmit productspecific 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 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 non-certifiednoncertified 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 a qualified applicator 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 67 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 non-reader 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 estimates the cost of this proposal would be negligible.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.
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 68 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 non-reader 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 69 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 Method-Specific 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 method-specific certification categories for 

private and commercial applicators that use RUPs to conduct soil fumigation, non-soil 

fumigation, and aerial applications. These application method-specific 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 methodspecific 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, 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 70 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

CTAG, AAPCO, and members of the PPDC workgroup, recommended that EPA 

consider adding application method-specific certification categories for high-risk uses

(Refs. 19, 2029 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, 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 71 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

Florida, Georgia, 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 non-soil 

fumigation applications and 8 States (Arizona, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, North Dakota, 

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah) have a similar requirement for private applicators. 

The 2008 Reregistration Eligibility DecisionREDs 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 State-adopted categories, EPA proposes these 

categories because EPA has concluded that these categories of use for RUPs may cause 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 72 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 methodspecific 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 decisiondecisions for the soil 

fumigants, 72 FR 24295-24297, May 2, 2007 (Refs. 28, 29, 3038, 39, 40 and 41),

additional soil fumigation-specific training is required for applicators certified to use 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 73 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 3142). 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. 32, 3343 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 74 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 nonsoil 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 program covering the 

proposed competency standards for non-soil fumigation (proposed at 40 CFR 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 75 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 3445). 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; right-of-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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 76 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

addition to holding a valid general private applicator certification.

Requirements for general private applicator certification in each of the 

aforementioned application method-specific 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 methodspecific 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 application-method 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 77 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 to private applicators 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 to private applicators 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 78 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

annually for the first 2 years of implementation.

ii. Commercial applicators. EPA estimates the cost to commercial applicators 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 requirements a non-soil fumigation category for 

commercial applicators wouldto be about $131,000 per year forannually, 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).

6. Alternative options considered by EPA but not proposed. The Agency 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 79 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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-by-case 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. 35, 36, 37, 3846, 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 80 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 nonsoil 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 81 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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, nonsoil 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 method-specific 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 anti-backflow 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 82 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 health-related 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 address the needs of niche applicator populations.
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 83 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 category-specific 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
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 84 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 

category-specific 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?
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 85 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

• 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 method-specific) 

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 86 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 87 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

protection collars) and sodium cyanide in an M-44 device.

2. Existing regulation. The existing regulation does not have categories for 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. 39, 4050 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 88 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 89 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 4152).

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. 4253). This 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 90 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 4354). 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. 4455).

Based on an EPA review of State program data, 36 States require persons seeking 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 91 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 commercial applicators to present identification at 

recertification training sessions or exams, and 29 States require the same for private 

applicators (Ref. 83). 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 Statedeveloped 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 92 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 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.
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 93 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

• 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.
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 94 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 95 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 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 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, closed-book 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 government-issued 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 96 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 97 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 

2333). 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.
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 98 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 99 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

• 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. 

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 100 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 proposed 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 101 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 non-certifiednoncertified 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 102 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 (79 FR 15444; March 19, 

2014Ref. 4), thereby decreasing the burden on agricultural employers to track two 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 103 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

training timeframes. Additionally, studies have shown that training participants begin to 

forget the content of the training almost immediately, and 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. 1114). Further, studies have demonstrated the effectiveness 

of periodic retraining on retention of the knowledge necessary to implement selfprotective measures (Ref. 1215).

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 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 104 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 

State-developed training program or minimum number of hours of privately-provided 

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 105 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 106 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 79 FR 

15444; March 19, 2014. (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.
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 107 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 than passing an exam 

and knowledge from training deteriorates rapidly (Refs. 11, 1214 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 108 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 109 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 State-designated trainer of certified applicators, or a person who has 

completed a pesticide safety train-the-trainer 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 110 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 Statedesignated 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 111 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 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. 2333). 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 112 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 4533). The SBAR panel recommended that EPA 

require “communication capability between certified applicators and those under their 

supervision during RUP applications” (Ref. 2434).

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 113 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 working 

with or around hazardous chemicals in their work area receive information (generally in 

the form of the product label or labels, training, and access to safety data sheet (SDS)) 

prior to working withsheets (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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 114 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 two-way 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-
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 115 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 4656).

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 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. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 116 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 117 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 118 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 119 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 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 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.
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 120 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 121 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 I9 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,
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 122 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 4757). 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. 4757).

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. 

83). 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 123 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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).

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 124 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 goal-oriented decision-making (Ref. 1721).

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. 1620). Additionally, adolescents are 

less likely to be aware of their rights and how to recognize hazards in the workplace (Ref. 

1620).

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 125 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 1822). 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. 1721). 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 126 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 48, 

4958 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 decisionmaking 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 127 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

and private applicators in this unit. 

i. Commercial applicators. EPA estimates the cost of requiringestablishing a 

minimum age of 18 for commercial applicators to be 18 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 requiringestablishing a 

minimum age of 18 for private applicators to be 18 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.

The SBAR panel, comprised of pesticide applicators and business owners 

convened to evaluateEPA took into account the impactrecommendation of the proposed 

changes on small business, recommendedSBAR panel that EPA establishconsider 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. 2434).

This option would allow flexibility for earlier certification for private applicators working 

on farms owned by immediate family members; however, it provides a different level of 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 128 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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, the food supply (from misapplication), 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. 79 FR 15444; March 19, 2014. (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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 129 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 130 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 83).

The SBAR panel recommended that EPA consider a minimum age of 18 for 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 131 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 decisionmaking 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 132 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 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, the food supply, 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.
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 133 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

ii. Noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of 

commercialprivate 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. 83).

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, the food 

supply, 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 134 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 SERs on the SBAR panel recommended that EPA establishconsider 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. 2434). 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 135 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 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 include exceptions to
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 136 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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.

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 

published in the Federal Register applicable to Federal agency plans (42 FR 41907; 

August 19, 1977) 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.
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 137 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 2333).

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. 15). 

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. 11, 1214 and 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 138 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 11, 

1214 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 139 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 140 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 costprohibitive for States or cooperative extension services; therefore, States requested the 

option to offer or require retesting for recertification (Ref. 2333). 

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 141 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 method-specific 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 142 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 143 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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).
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 144 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 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 

method-specific 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 

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).
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 145 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 is 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 146 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 147 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 148 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 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 health-related 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 149 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 State-specific 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).
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 150 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 method-specific 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 method-specific 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 151 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 152 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 Authoritycriminal 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 Recordkeepingapplicator 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, 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.
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 153 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

• 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 parallelsis substantially similar to the recordkeeping 

requirements established for private applicators under the USDA Food, Agriculture, 

Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 and agreed to, Public Law 101–624, November 28, 

1990, 104 Stat 3359, which is administered by USDA and EPA in a 1995 Memorandum 

of Understanding (Ref. 50).. 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 EPA-administered certification programs.

The proposed regulatory language for commercial applicator recordkeeping 

would be located at 40 CFR 171.303(b)(6)(vi).

v. RUP Dealer Recordkeepingdealer recordkeeping. EPA proposes to require 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 154 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 155 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

by EPA-administered 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 Credentialsapplicator 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 Statementstatement 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 156 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

located at 40 CFR 171.303(a)(6).

vii. Reciprocal Applicator Certificationapplicator 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 157 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

implement a mechanism to ensure the State will immediately terminate an applicator's 

certification if the applicator’s original certification terminates for any reason.

• 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. 4152).

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.
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 158 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 159 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 160 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 

of this chapter 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 (39 FR 6730; 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 161 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

February 22, 1974Ref. 61) included a special process for certifying employees of Federal

agencies, but the process was not included in the final rule. A subsequent Federal 

Register Notice (40 FR 2528; January 13, 1975)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 (40 FR 

11699; March 12, 1975Ref. 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 (42 FR 41907; August 19, 1977).Ref. 60).

Under thisthe 1977 policy, EPA allows Federal agencies to 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 

DepartmentsDepartment of Agriculture and 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 August 19, 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 162 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 163 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 (79 FR 7185; February 6, 

2014).Ref. 1).

Currently, only a few Tribes have been approved by EPA to administer 

certification plans. In those areas of Indian country without an EPA-approved 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 164 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 EPA-approved 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 EPA-administered plan.

This option makes explicit EPA’s authority to implementfacilitates the implementation of

a nation-wide certification plan that would cover applicators using RUPs in any 

partdifferent, non-contiguous parts of Indian country unless a Tribe specifically requests 

to be excluded from the plan prior to the conclusion of the public comment period or 

elects to use one of the other mechanisms available to certify applicators. 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 the EPA Plan 

for the Federal Certification of Applicators of Restricted Use Pesticides (RUPs) within 

Indian Country in 2014. 79 FR 7185; February 6, 2014.its national plan for Indian 

country in 2014 (Ref. 1). The EPA-administered plan serves those areas of Indian 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 165 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 EPAadministered 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 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 166 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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.

Once final, theThe 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 EPA-approved 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 167 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

environment. 

XVIII. Revise Provisions for EPA-Administered 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 EPA-administered plans.

2. Existing regulation. The current rule establishes requirements for EPAadministered certification in States or areas of Indian country without EPA-approved 

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 EPA-administered

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 168 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

negligible. (Ref. 3). EPA currently administers two certification plans – one for the 

Navajo Tribe (72 FR 32648; June 13, 2007Ref. 2) and one for certification in Indian 

country (79 FR 7185; February 6, 2014Ref. 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 EPA-administered 

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 169 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

definitions: “actcompatibility,” “dealership,” “compatibility,” “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 “use site -specific guidanceinstructions.”

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 171.1-6) describe the standards for commercial and 

private applicators, requirements for persons working under the direct supervision of a 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 170 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

certified applicator, definitions, and a statement of purpose. The second half of the rule 

(40 CFR 171.7-11) 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 171 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 172 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 173 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 174 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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.

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. 1.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.http://cpard.wsu.edu/reports/menu.aspx.

26. EPA. 1987-2004 Annual Certified Applicator Data. 

http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/safety/applicators/data.htm.

37. DOL. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Outlook 

Handbook,. 2010-11 Library Edition. Bulletin 2800. Washington, DC.

48. EPA. OPP Report on Incidence Information: The Baseline. 2007.

5. Harchselroad9. Harchelroad, F., et al. Treated vs reported toxic 

exposures: discrepancies betweenReported Toxic Exposures: Discrepancies Between a 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 175 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

poison control centerPoison Control Center and a member hospital. VetinaryMember 

Hospital. Veterinary and Human Toxicology, April 1990, Vol. 32, pp. 156-159. 

6. 10. Chafee-Bahamon, C., Chafee, 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.

711. Veltri, et al. Interpretation and usesUses of data collectedData 

Collected in poison control centresPoison Control Centres in the United States. Medical 

Toxicology and Adverse Drug Experience, November-December 1987. Vol. 6, pp. 389-

97.

812. EPA. Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Applicator Certification 

Regulation. 2014.

9. NIOSH. Data from the Sentinel Event Notification System for 

Occupational Risk – Pesticides Program. 2014. http://wwwn.cdc.gov/nioshsurvapps/sensor/.

10. National Institutes of Health.13. NIH. Agricultural Health Study. 

http://aghealth.nih.gov. http://aghealth.nih.gov.

1114. 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.

1215. 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.

1316. Lee, S-J., Mehler, L., Beckman, J., Diebolt-Brown, B., Prado, J., 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 176 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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.

1417. 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.

1519. EPA. Office of the Inspector General. Result of Assessment of 

Controls Over Emergency Removal Actions at Methyl Parathion Sites. Sept. 23, 1997. 

Report No. E1SFB7-06-0020-7400069. September 23, 1997.

1620. 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.

1721. 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.

18.22. 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.

19. 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 FIFRA Issues Research and 

Evaluation Group.Plans for Certification of Commercial and Private Applicators of 

Restricted Use Pesticides. Federal Register (40 FR 11698, March 12, 1975) (FRL-
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 177 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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) (FRL2402-7).

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.

20. Certification and Training Assessment Group.30. CTAG. Pesticide 

Safety for the 21st Century. 1999.

2131. EPA. National Assessment of the Pesticide Worker Safety Program. 

[Dates?]. http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/safety/workshops.htm.

2232. EPA, OPP. Report on the National Assessment of EPA's Pesticide 

Worker Safety Program. 2005.

23. 33. EPA, OPP. Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee Worker Safety 

Regulation Change Subgroup, Summary of PREP and PPDC Comments. Washington, 

DC. 2007.

24.34. EPA, OMB, SBA. Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on EPA 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 178 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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.

2535. Calvert, G M, et al. Acute Pesticide-related Illnesses Among 

Working Youths, 1988-1999. American Journal of Public Health. April 2003, Vol. 93, 

pp. 605-610.

2636. CTAG. Requiring Written Examinations for Approval of State 

Certification Programs. 2003.

2737. EPA. Pesticide Applicator Certification in Indian Country. 

http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-applicator-certification-indian-country/training-privateapplicators-indian-country.http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-applicator-certification-indiancountry/training-private-applicators-indian-country. 

2838. EPA, OPP. 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 DazomatDazomet. 

2009.

2940. EPA, OPP. Amended Reregistration Eligibility Decision for the 

Methyldithiocarbamate Salts (Metam-sodium, Metam-potassium) and Methyl 

Isothiocyanate (MITC). 2009.

3041. EPA, OPP. Amended Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Methyl 

Bromide. 2009.

3142. AAPCO. Letter to EPA Re: Registration Eligibility Decision (RED) 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 179 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

for Soil Fumigant Dockets. October 30, 2008.

3243. EPA. Pesticide Applicator Certification and Training for Soil 

Fumigation Category/Subcategory. Last updated: November 2012. 

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

3344. NASDARF. Soil Fumigation Manual. 2012.

3445. NASDARF. Aerial Applicator's Manual. 2009.

3546. AAPCO. Letter to EPA. January 26, 2010. 

http://www.aapco.org/documents/FumigantLtr_Owens012610.pdf.

3647. Dwinell, Steven on behalf of SFIREG. Letter to EPA. December 

23, 2010. http://www.aapco.org/documents/SFIREGtoBradburyKeigwin122310.pdf.

3748. 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%20fumigant

s%20RED.pdf. 

3849. AAPSE. Letter to EPA. July 28, 2009. 

http://aapse.ext.vt.edu/aapse/sites/default/files/FINAL%20EPA_LabelMandatedTraining

2008.pdf. 

3950. EPA, OPP. Reregistration Eligibility Decision: Sodium 

Fluoroacetate. EPA 738-R-95-025. September 1995.

4051. EPA, OPP. Reregistration Eligibility Decision: Sodium Cyanide. 

EPA 738-R-94-020. September 1994.

4152. EPA. Interim National Program Guidance for EPA Regional Offices 

on EPA's Pesticide Applicator Certification Program (40 CFR Partpart 171). July 2006.
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 180 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

4253. CTAG. Exam Administration and Security Procedures Manual. 

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Research Foundation, 2006.

4354. CTAG. Positive Identification Requirement for Pesticide 

Applicator Certification Exams. 2006.

4455. CTAG. Pesticide Applicator Recertification: Verifying Attendance 

at Recertification Events. 2009.

45. EPA. PREP Discussion Report. 2007.

4656. CTIA, The Wireless Association. Wireless Quick Facts. Last 

updated: November 2013. http://www.ctia.org/your-wireless-life/how-wirelessworks/wireless-quick-facts.

4757. CTAG. Minimum -Age Requirement for Certification to Use 

Restricted Use Pesticides (RUP). 2004.

4858. Masten, S., Foss, R., Marshall, S. Graduated driver licensing 

program component calibrationsDriver Licensing Program Component Calibrations and 

their associationTheir Association with fatal crash involvement.Fatal Crash Involvement.

Accident Analysis and Prevention. August 2013, Vol. 57, pp. 105-113.

4959. 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.

50. EPA and USDA. Memorandum of Understanding: Restricted Use Pesticide 

Applicator Recordkeeping. 1995.

51. EPA. Amended ICR for Certification Rule, 2499.01. 2014.

52. EPA, OPP.60. EPA. Federal Agency Certification of Federal 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 181 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. TheirUSDA provided comments on this 

proposed rule and, copies of which, along with EPA’s responses, are located in the 

docket for this rulemaking. The Scientific Advisory PanelSAP 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 182 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. This 

economic analysis is available in the docket (Ref. 83).

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. 5164).

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.
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 183 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

• 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 184 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 185 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

to the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send 

your ICR-related comments to OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via 

email to oria_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 receive comments no later than [insert date 30 days after date of 

publication in the Federal Register]. 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 high-impact 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. 83).

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 186 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 2434).

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. 1531–1538, 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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 187 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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 (79 FR 7185; February 6, 2014Ref. 1) and has implemented a specific 

certification plan for the Navajo Nation (72 FR 32648; June 13, 2007Ref. 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 EPA-approved 

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 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 188 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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. 5263).

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.
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 189 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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.

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. 83).

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. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

Page 190 of 282 [RIN 2070-AJ20]

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, low-income, 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. 
NPRM; Certification of Pesticide Applicators (RIN 2070-AJ20)

Administrator signature on page 166 of 247

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: ____________________

_______________________________________

Administrator.
Page 192 of 282

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 171 be revised to read as follows:

PART 171-CERTIFICATION OF PESTICIDE APPLICATORS

Subpart A-General Provisions

Sec.

171.1 Scope.

171.3 Definitions.

171.5 Effective dates

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. 
Page 193 of 282

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) of the Act,),

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, 
Page 194 of 282

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 used in the application of a pesticide, 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 FIFRAorFIFRA 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 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 
Page 195 of 282

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 
Page 196 of 282

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 certified 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, chemical-resistant 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 
Page 197 of 282

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) of FIFRA.).

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, 
Page 198 of 282

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 of this chapter.

(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 [insert date 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.
Page 199 of 282

(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 non-crop 

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 

(ba)(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.
Page 200 of 282

(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 foodprocessing 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.
Page 201 of 282

Certification in this category does not authorize the purchase, use, or supervision of use 

of products for predator control listed in paragraph (ba)(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 (ba)(1) through (ba)(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 (cb) of this 

section for which a person does demonstration or research involving the use or 
Page 202 of 282

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 method-specific category requires concurrent certification in each pest 

control category identified in paragraphs (ba)(1) through (ba)(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 (ba)(1) 

through (ba)(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 (ba)(1) through (ba)(10) of this 

section for which a person intends to perform soil fumigationaerial 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 
Page 203 of 282

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 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.
Page 204 of 282

(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)(32)(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 closed-book. 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 
Page 205 of 282

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 Agencyapproved 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 
Page 206 of 282

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 method-specific 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 
Page 207 of 282

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.

(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.
Page 208 of 282

(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:
Page 209 of 282

(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 
Page 210 of 282

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 pre-harvest 

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 
Page 211 of 282

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-
Page 212 of 282

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 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 
Page 213 of 282

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 of (40 FR 44726, September 

29, 1975 (40 FR 44726, pp. 44733-44734) (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, 
Page 214 of 282

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 of (49 FR 4830, February 8, 1984

(49 FR 4830) (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 
Page 215 of 282

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 
Page 216 of 282

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.

(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.
Page 217 of 282

(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 
Page 218 of 282

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.
Page 219 of 282

(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 preapplication 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:
Page 220 of 282

(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 non-soil 

fumigants, including all of the following:

(A) Chemical characteristics of non-soil 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.
Page 221 of 282

(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.
Page 222 of 282

(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 cannisterscanisters.

(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.
Page 223 of 282

(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 labeling-required 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 
Page 224 of 282

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.
Page 225 of 282

(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 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)-(f) of this chapter do not apply 

to the following persons:

(1) Persons conducting laboratory research involving restricted use pesticides. 
Page 226 of 282

(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 
Page 227 of 282

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 
Page 228 of 282

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.
Page 229 of 282

(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 
Page 230 of 282

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 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 entry-restricted 

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. 
Page 231 of 282

(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 of (40 FR 44726, pp. 44733-

44734)..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, 
Page 232 of 282

including the restrictions on the use of sodium fluoroacetate products ordered by the EPA 

Administrator and published in the Federal Register of(49 FR 4830, February 8, 1984

(49 FR 4830). ) (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 
Page 233 of 282

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 post-application 

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.
Page 234 of 282

(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:

(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 
Page 235 of 282

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.
Page 236 of 282

(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 preapplication and post-application posting timeframes for each.

(F) Proper choice and placement of warning signs.
Page 237 of 282

(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 post-application 

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.
Page 238 of 282

(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 non-soil 

fumigants, including all of the following:

(A) Chemical characteristics of non-soil 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, 
Page 239 of 282

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 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 
Page 240 of 282

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 labeling-required 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.
Page 241 of 282

(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 
Page 242 of 282

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 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. 
Page 243 of 282

(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 non-examination 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 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 
Page 244 of 282

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 method-specific 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 
Page 245 of 282

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 

method-specific 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 
Page 246 of 282

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 methodspecific 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.
Page 247 of 282

(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 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.
Page 248 of 282

(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 
Page 249 of 282

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, 
Page 250 of 282

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 
Page 251 of 282

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 
Page 252 of 282

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 § 171.301(c)(4) and (5).

(c) Compliance dates. (1) After [date 4 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 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 
Page 253 of 282

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 
Page 254 of 282

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 methodspecific 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 
Page 255 of 282

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 
Page 256 of 282

§§ 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 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 methodspecific 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 
Page 257 of 282

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 
Page 258 of 282

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:
Page 259 of 282

(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 
Page 260 of 282

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 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 
Page 261 of 282

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 method-specific 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.
Page 262 of 282

(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 method-specific 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 
Page 263 of 282

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. 
Page 264 of 282

(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, under 

what circumstances, the Federal Agency will certify applicators based in whole or in part 
Page 265 of 282

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 
Page 266 of 282

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 
Page 267 of 282

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) (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 method-specific category specified in § 171.101(b) 

chapter,), 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 
Page 268 of 282

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) (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) (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 
Page 269 of 282

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 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.
Page 270 of 282

(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 
Page 271 of 282

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 
Page 272 of 282

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 EPAadministered certification plan under § 171.311 for certifying private and commercial 
Page 273 of 282

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, 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 
Page 274 of 282

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 are 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.
Page 275 of 282

(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 EPA-administered 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 EPA-administered plans in States.

(1) In any State where this section is applicable, the Agency, in consultation with 

the Governor, may implement an EPA-administered 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 EPA-administered 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:
Page 276 of 282

(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 EPA-administered 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 EPA-administered 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.
Page 277 of 282

(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.

(iv) Made false or fraudulent records, invoices or reports.

(v) Failed to comply with any limitations or restrictions on a valid current 

certificate.
Page 278 of 282

(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.
Page 279 of 282

(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.
Page 280 of 282

(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 EPAadministered 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 
Page 281 of 282

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 createdcreate 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.
Page 282 of 282

(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 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 EPA-administered 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].